This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 01/16/2019 at 12:55:48 (UTC).

ARNON RAPHAEL VS. YAMEE, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION

Case Summary

On 05/26/2015 ARNON RAPHAEL filed a Property - Commercial Eviction lawsuit against YAMEE, INC , A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Burbank Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is WILLIAM D. STEWART. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****4088

  • Filing Date:

    05/26/2015

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Property - Commercial Eviction

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Burbank Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

WILLIAM D. STEWART

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Cross Defendant

RAPHAEL ARNON

Defendants and Cross Plaintiffs

SHAALEMI AZIM

YAMEE INC. A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Cross Defendant Attorney

SHEIKH LAW FIRM THE

Defendant and Cross Plaintiff Attorneys

HOBSON BERNARDINO & DAVIS LLP

OPDAHL NEIL

 

Court Documents

Ex Parte Application

7/20/2018: Ex Parte Application

Proof of Personal Service

7/20/2018: Proof of Personal Service

Stipulation

7/23/2018: Stipulation

Answer

7/23/2018: Answer

Other -

8/9/2018: Other -

Response

8/23/2018: Response

Unknown

9/10/2018: Unknown

Unknown

10/17/2018: Unknown

Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

11/7/2018: Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

Minute Order

11/7/2018: Minute Order

Ex Parte Application

11/7/2018: Ex Parte Application

Unknown

11/26/2018: Unknown

Response

11/26/2018: Response

Minute Order

11/28/2018: Minute Order

2 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 12/26/2018
  • at 08:30 AM in Department A, William D. Stewart, Presiding; Non-Appearance Case Review (re Status of Submission of (proposed) Statement of Decision and Judgment)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/24/2018
  • at 08:30 AM in Department A, William D. Stewart, Presiding; Non-Appearance Case Review (re Status of Submission of (proposed) Statement of Decision and Judgment) - Not Held - Rescheduled by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/28/2018
  • at 10:30 AM in Department A, William D. Stewart, Presiding; (Hearing - Other) - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/28/2018
  • Minute Order ( (Hearing - Other re Request for Clarification of Statement of ...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/26/2018
  • Notice of Rejection - Fax Filing; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/26/2018
  • Response (name extension) (to plaintiff's request for further findings & proposed statement of decision); Filed by Yamee, Inc., a California Corporation (Defendant); Azim Shaalemi (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/09/2018
  • at 10:30 AM in Department A, William D. Stewart, Presiding; (Hearing - Other) - Held - Continued

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/07/2018
  • at 08:30 AM in Department A, William D. Stewart, Presiding; Ex-Parte Proceedings - Held - Motion Granted

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/07/2018
  • Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint) (by Fax); Filed by Azim Shaalemi (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/07/2018
  • Minute Order ( (Defendant's Ex-Parte Application to Continue the Hearing on S...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
142 More Docket Entries
  • 06/08/2015
  • Answer; Filed by Yamee, Inc., a California Corporation (Defendant); Azim Shaalemi (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/08/2015
  • Cross-Compl fld- No Summons Issued; Filed by Yamee, Inc., a California Corporation (Defendant); Azim Shaalemi (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/05/2015
  • Request for Entry of Default / Judgment; Filed by Arnon Raphael (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/05/2015
  • Proof of Service of Summons and Complaint; Filed by Arnon Raphael (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/05/2015
  • Default Entered; Filed by Arnon Raphael (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/05/2015
  • Request for Entry of Default / Judgment; Filed by Arnon Raphael (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/05/2015
  • Default Entered; Filed by Arnon Raphael (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/05/2015
  • Proof of Service of Summons and Complaint; Filed by Arnon Raphael (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/26/2015
  • Summons; Filed by null

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/26/2015
  • Complaint filed-Summons Issued; Filed by null

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: EC064088    Hearing Date: January 24, 2020    Dept: A

Raphael v Yamee, Inc.

Motion to Vacate Default; Motion for Attorney’s Fees

Calendar:

08

Case No.:

EC064088

Hearing Date:

January 24, 2020

Action Filed:

May 26, 2015

Judgment:

April 18, 2019

Vacate Default

MP:

Defendants Yamee, Inc.; Azim Shaalemi

RP:

Plaintiff Arnon Raphael, Trustee of the Arnon and Terry Raphael Family Trust

Attorney’s Fees

MP:

Plaintiff Arnon Raphael, Trustee of the Arnon and Terry Raphael Family Trust

RP:

N/A

ALLEGATIONS:

The instant action arose from allegations that Defendants Yamee, Inc.; and Azim Shaalemi (“Defendants”) unlawfully detained Plaintiff Arnon Raphael, Trustee of the Arnon and Terry Raphael Family Trust (“Plaintiff”)’s commercial property.

PRESENTATION:

Trial occurred over a two-day period in July 2018. Following the Court’s issuance of a proposed order, the Court considered adjustments proposed by Plaintiff, and ultimately issued Judgment on April 18, 2019, finding in favor of Plaintiff, and awarding a monetary award in the amount of $276,605.26, pre-judgment interest at a rate of 10% per annum, and post-judgment interest at a rate of 10% per annum.

The instant motion by Plaintiff, seeking attorney’s fees, was filed on October 17, 2019. No opposition has been received.

Defendants filed a motion to vacate default on October 28, 2019. Plaintiff opposed the motion on December 02, 2019. No reply brief has been received.

At the original December 13, 2019, oral arguments, Plaintiff requested a continuance and the opportunity to submit additional briefing, which the Court granted. Plaintiff’s supplemental brief on his attorney’s fees motion was filed on December 31, 2019.

RELIEF REQUESTED:

Plaintiff moves for an award of $214,960.00, plus $11,200.00 for preparation of the instant motion, and $2,478.66 in costs.

Defendants move to vacate the April 18, 2019, Judgment entered against them.

DISCUSSION:

Standard of Review – Set Aside – Code Civ. Proc. §473(b) provides that the trial court may, “upon any terms as may be just, relieve a party or his or her legal representative from a judgment, dismissal, order, or other proceeding taken against him or her through his or her mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect.” In order for the Court to grant discretionary relief, the moving party must (1) “be accompanied by a copy of the answer or other pleading proposed to be filed therein,” (2) “be made within a reasonable time, in no case exceeding six months,” but (3) “[n]o affidavit or declaration of merits shall be required of the moving party.” Code Civ. Proc., § 473,(b). Whether the filing is made within a reasonable time is a matter left to the discretion of the trial court, and depends upon the specific circumstances of the delay, including the cause for the attorney’s mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect. Minick v. City of Petaluma (2016) 3 Cal. App. 5th 15; Comunidad En Accion v. Los Angeles City Council (2013) 219 Cal. App. 4th 1116, 1133–34.

In addition to the discretionary provisions of Code Civ. Proc., § 473(b), “the court shall, whenever an application for relief is made no more than six months after entry of judgment, is in proper form, and is accompanied by an attorney's sworn affidavit attesting to his or her mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or neglect, set aside any (1) resulting default entered by the clerk against his or her client, and which will result in entry of a default judgment, or (2) resulting default judgment or dismissal entered against his or her client, unless the court finds that the default or dismissal was not in fact caused by the attorney's mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or neglect.” The purpose of the mandatory provision is to provide a client the opportunity to litigate a claim on its merits even though their attorney made a mistake in representation. See Yeap v. Leake (1997) 60 Cal. App. 4th 591 abrogated by Hossain v. Hossain (2007) 157 Cal. App. 4th 454. It mandates that the court grant relief unless it finds that the default was not in fact caused by lawyer error – which functions as both a credibility and causation testing device. Milton v. Perceptual Development Corp. (1997) 53 Cal. App. 4th 861.

Timeliness – As an initial matter, relief under Code of Civ. Proc. §473(b) is limited to six months. Here, the Court issued its Final Statement of Decision on March 18, 2019, and served it to Defendants by mail on the same day. Following the Final Statement of Decision, the Court entered Judgment on April 18, 2019. A simple calculation of six months following Judgment provides a date of October 18, 2019 – making the filing date of the instant motion as untimely filed on October 28, 2019. Pursuant to Defendant’s own use of 182 days for the calculation of time provides the date of October 17, 2019, which is before the instant matter’s filing date of October 28, 2019.

Equity – To the extent that Defendant move for relief from judgment on the basis of the Court’s equitable powers, the Court finds that Defendants have failed to establish adequate basis to justify such a remedy.

Without any legal or factual basis provided to toll the six months or to establish cause for equitable relief, the Court will deny the motion to set aside.

---

 

Motion for Attorney’s Fees – In Plaintiff’s supplemental brief, Plaintiff requests an extension of the time to file the motion for attorney’s fees pursuant to California Rule of Court, Rule 3.1702(d), which provides that “[f]or good cause, the trial judge may extend the time for filing a motion for attorney's fees in the absence of a stipulation or for a longer period than allowed by stipulation.” While the Court is skeptical of the permissibility of retroactively granting an extension of time to file a motion for attorney’s fees under Rule 3.1702(d), the Court needs not reach the issue, as the Court does not find good cause for granting the extension in any case. The sole basis listed in demonstration of ‘good cause’ is that counsel failed to list the final day to timely file properly in his calendar, rendering the motion two days late. Without any explanation as to why it was not possible to file the motion at any point within the 180 days when it was permissible to do so, the Court will not grant an extension of time, as good cause for doing so has not been established.

Accordingly, the motion is denied.

---

RULING: see below

In the event the parties submit on this tentative ruling, or a party requests a signed order or the court in its discretion elects to sign a formal order, the following form will be either electronically signed or signed in hard copy and entered into the court’s records.

ORDER

Defendants Yamee, Inc.; and Azim Shaalemi’s Motion to Vacate Judgment came on regularly for hearing on January 24, 2020, together with Plaintiff Arnon Raphael, Trustee of the Arnon and Terry Raphael Family Trust’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees; with appearances/submissions as noted in the minute order for said hearing, and the court, being fully advised in the premises, did then and there rule as follows:

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION IS DENIED; AND

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION IS DENIED.

DATE: _______________ _______________________________

JUDGE

Case Number: EC064088    Hearing Date: December 13, 2019    Dept: A

Raphael v Shaalemi

Motion to Vacate Default; Motion for Attorney’s Fees

Calendar:

14

Case No.:

EC064088

Hearing Date:

November 15, 2019

Action Filed:

May 26, 2015

Judgment:

April 18, 2019

Vacate Default

MP:

Defendants Yamee, Inc.; Azim Shaalemi

RP:

Plaintiff Arnon Raphael, Trustee of the Arnon and Terry Raphael Family Trust

Attorney’s Fees

MP:

Plaintiff Arnon Raphael, Trustee of the Arnon and Terry Raphael Family Trust

RP:

N/A

ALLEGATIONS:

The instant action arose from allegations that Defendants Yamee, Inc.; and Azim Shaalemi (“Defendants”) unlawfully detained Plaintiff Arnon Raphael, Trustee of the Arnon and Terry Raphael Family Trust (“Plaintiff”)’s commercial property.

PRESENTATION:

Trial occurred over a two-day period in July 2018. Following the Court’s issuance of a proposed order, the Court considered adjustments proposed by Plaintiff, and ultimately issued Judgment on April 18, 2019, finding in favor of Plaintiff, and awarding a monetary award in the amount of $276,605.26, pre-judgment interest at a rate of 10% per annum, and post-judgment interest at a rate of 10% per annum.

The instant motion by Plaintiff, seeking attorney’s fees, was filed on October 17, 2019. No opposition has been received.

Defendants filed a motion to vacate default on October 28, 2019. Plaintiff opposed the motion on December 02, 2019. No reply brief has been received.

RELIEF REQUESTED:

Plaintiff moves for an award of $214,960.00, plus $11,200.00 for preparation of the instant motion, and $2,478.66 in costs.

Defendants move to vacate the April 18, 2019, Judgment entered against them.

DISCUSSION:

Standard of Review – Set Aside – Code Civ. Proc. §473(b) provides that the trial court may, “upon any terms as may be just, relieve a party or his or her legal representative from a judgment, dismissal, order, or other proceeding taken against him or her through his or her mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect.” In order for the Court to grant discretionary relief, the moving party must (1) “be accompanied by a copy of the answer or other pleading proposed to be filed therein,” (2) “be made within a reasonable time, in no case exceeding six months,” but (3) “[n]o affidavit or declaration of merits shall be required of the moving party.” Code Civ. Proc., § 473,(b). Whether the filing is made within a reasonable time is a matter left to the discretion of the trial court, and depends upon the specific circumstances of the delay, including the cause for the attorney’s mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect. Minick v. City of Petaluma (2016) 3 Cal. App. 5th 15; Comunidad En Accion v. Los Angeles City Council (2013) 219 Cal. App. 4th 1116, 1133–34.

In addition to the discretionary provisions of Code Civ. Proc., § 473(b), “the court shall, whenever an application for relief is made no more than six months after entry of judgment, is in proper form, and is accompanied by an attorney's sworn affidavit attesting to his or her mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or neglect, set aside any (1) resulting default entered by the clerk against his or her client, and which will result in entry of a default judgment, or (2) resulting default judgment or dismissal entered against his or her client, unless the court finds that the default or dismissal was not in fact caused by the attorney's mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or neglect.” The purpose of the mandatory provision is to provide a client the opportunity to litigate a claim on its merits even though their attorney made a mistake in representation. See Yeap v. Leake (1997) 60 Cal. App. 4th 591 abrogated by Hossain v. Hossain (2007) 157 Cal. App. 4th 454. It mandates that the court grant relief unless it finds that the default was not in fact caused by lawyer error – which functions as both a credibility and causation testing device. Milton v. Perceptual Development Corp. (1997) 53 Cal. App. 4th 861.

Timeliness – As an initial matter, relief under Code of Civ. Proc. §473(b) is limited to six months. Here, the Court issued its Final Statement of Decision on March 18, 2019, and served it to Defendants by mail on the same day. Following the Final Statement of Decision, the Court entered Judgment on April 18, 2019. A simple calculation of six months following Judgment provides a date of October 18, 2019 – making the filing date of the instant motion as untimely filed on October 28, 2019. Pursuant to Defendant’s own use of 182 days for the calculation of time provides the date of October 17, 2019, which is before the instant filing date of October 28, 2019.

Equity – To the extent that Defendant move for relief from judgment on the basis of the Court’s equitable powers, the Court finds that Defendants have failed to establish adequate basis to justify such a remedy.

Without any legal or factual basis provided to toll the six months or to establish cause for equitable relief, the Court will deny the motion to set aside.

---

Motion for Attorney’s Fees – CRC Rule 3.1702(b)(1) provides that the time to timely file a motion for attorney’s fees is the same as the time to file an appeal.  Per CRC Rule 8.104, the time to appeal is either 60 days after service of Judgment or 180 after entry of judgment.  Here, since I do not think there was any service, the 180 day provision applies.  Because Judgment was entered on April 18, 2019, 180 after that time is October 15, 2019, and the motion for attorney’s fees was not filed until October 17, 2019.  Two days late.

---

RULING: Deny both motions

In the event the parties submit on this tentative ruling, or a party requests a signed order or the court in its discretion elects to sign a formal order, the following form will be either electronically signed or signed in hard copy and entered into the court’s records.

ORDER

Defendants Yamee, Inc.; and Azim Shaalemi’s Motion to Vacate Judgment came on regularly for hearing on December 13, 2019, together with Plaintiff Arnon Raphael, Trustee of the Arnon and Terry Raphael Family Trust’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees; with appearances/submissions as noted in the minute order for said hearing, and the court, being fully advised in the premises, did then and there rule as follows:

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION IS DENIED; AND

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION IS DENIED.

DATE: _______________ _______________________________

JUDGE

Case Number: EC064088    Hearing Date: November 15, 2019    Dept: A

Raphael v Yamee, Inc.

Motion for Attorney’s Fees

Calendar:

12

Case No.:

EC064088

Hearing Date:

November 15, 2019

Action Filed:

May 26, 2015

Judgment:

April 18, 2019

MP:

Plaintiff Arnon Raphael, Trustee of the Arnon and Terry Raphael Family Trust

RP:

N/A

ALLEGATIONS:

The instant action arose from allegations that Defendants Yamee, Inc.; and Azim Shaalemi (“Defendants”) unlawfully detained Plaintiff Arnon Raphael, Trustee of the Arnon and Terry Raphael Family Trust (“Plaintiff”)’s commercial property.

PRESENTATION:

Following trial occurring over a two day period in July 2018. Following the Court’s issuance of a proposed order, the Court considered adjustments proposed by Plaintiff, and ultimately issued Judgment on April 18, 2019, finding in favor of Plaintiff, and awarding a monetary award in the amount of $276,605.26, pre-judgment interest at a rate of 10% per annum, and post-judgment interest at a rate of 10% per annum.

The instant motion by Plaintiff, seeking attorney’s fees, was filed on October 17, 2019. No opposition has been received.

RELIEF REQUESTED:

Plaintiff moves for an award of $214,960.00, plus $11,200.00 for preparation of the instant motion, and $2,478.66 in costs.

DISCUSSION:

Upon review of the case file, the Court notes that there is a pending motion to set aside the Judgment upon which the instant motion for attorney’s fees rests. As the instant motion depends on the denial of the motion to set aside, which is not presently before the Court, the Court will continue the instant motion to coincide with the December 13, 2019, hearing for the motion to set aside.

---

RULING: Continue to Dec 13.

In the event the parties submit on this tentative ruling, or a party requests a signed order or the court in its discretion elects to sign a formal order, the following form will be either electronically signed or signed in hard copy and entered into the court’s records.

ORDER

Plaintiff Arnon Raphael, Trustee of the Arnon and Terry Raphael Family Trust’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees came on regularly for hearing on November 15, 2019, with appearances/submissions as noted in the minute order for said hearing, and the court, being fully advised in the premises, did then and there rule as follows:

THE MOTION IS CONTINUED TO DECEMBER 13, 2019.

DATE: _______________ _______________________________

JUDGE