Search

Attributes

This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 06/24/2020 at 19:50:33 (UTC).

EDWARD MOKHTARIAN ET AL VS RICHARD SAPERSTEIN ET AL

Case Summary

On 09/23/2016 EDWARD MOKHTARIAN filed a Contract - Other Contract lawsuit against RICHARD SAPERSTEIN. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****5257

  • Filing Date:

    09/23/2016

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Contract - Other Contract

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs and Petitioners

MOKHTARIAN STELLA

MOKHTARIAN EDMUND

MOKHTARIAN EDWARD

AGHAEIAN ARMEN

MOKHTARIAN ROBERT

BANUELOS ALEXANDRA

KHRIMYAN ZINAIDA

GOOD VIBES PRODUCTIONS LLC

KALANTARYAN GEVORG

Defendants and Respondents

SAPERSTEIN RICHARD

GENRE COMPANY INC. THE

DOES 1 THROUGH 100

WITTEN BRIAN

ELYSIUM FILMS INC.

SCHUR & SUGARMAN CPA'S A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION

SILENT KNIGHT PRODUCTIONS LLC

BARREN PRODUCTIONS LLC

STORYSCAPE ENTERTAINMENT LLC FKA SUPER ENTERTAINMENT

IMAGINARY WORKSHOPS LLC

KNIGHT ERRANT PRODUCTIONS LLC

6 More Parties Available

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

LINDGREN LINDGREN OEHM & YOU LLP

JAMISON GUY EVANS

LINDGREN LESLIE BIGLER

JAMISON ESQ GUY E

RIVERA CLARK WALTER

Defendant Attorneys

RUFUS-ISAACS ALEXANDER GERALD

HILL JOANNA MICHELLE

HALBERSTADTER DAVID

 

Court Documents

Judgment - JUDGMENT OF PARTIAL DISMISSAL AGAINST EDWARD MOKHTARIAN ON THE FIRST, SECOND AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION, AND JUDGMENT OF DISMISSAL AGAINST EDWARD MOKHTARIAN ON THE EIGHT AND NINTH CAUSES OF

1/24/2020: Judgment - JUDGMENT OF PARTIAL DISMISSAL AGAINST EDWARD MOKHTARIAN ON THE FIRST, SECOND AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION, AND JUDGMENT OF DISMISSAL AGAINST EDWARD MOKHTARIAN ON THE EIGHT AND NINTH CAUSES OF

Exhibit List

3/8/2019: Exhibit List

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING - OTHER APPLICATION FOR PERMISSION TO FILE UNDER SEAL...)

9/10/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING - OTHER APPLICATION FOR PERMISSION TO FILE UNDER SEAL...)

Ex Parte Application - EX PARTE APPLICATION EX PARTE APPLICATION TO FILE UNDER SEAL

9/17/2019: Ex Parte Application - EX PARTE APPLICATION EX PARTE APPLICATION TO FILE UNDER SEAL

Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (COURT ORDER) OF 10/10/2019

10/10/2019: Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (COURT ORDER) OF 10/10/2019

Stipulation and Order - STIPULATION AND ORDER TO REVISE MINUTE ORDER DATED NOVEMBER 20, 2019

12/10/2019: Stipulation and Order - STIPULATION AND ORDER TO REVISE MINUTE ORDER DATED NOVEMBER 20, 2019

Judgment - JUDGMENT OF PARTIAL DISMISSAL AGAINST ROBERT MOKHTARIAN ON THE FIRST, SECOND AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION, AND JUDGMENT OF DISMISSAL AGAINST ROBERT MOKHTARIAN ON THE FOURTH, FIFTH, SIXTH, SEV

1/24/2020: Judgment - JUDGMENT OF PARTIAL DISMISSAL AGAINST ROBERT MOKHTARIAN ON THE FIRST, SECOND AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION, AND JUDGMENT OF DISMISSAL AGAINST ROBERT MOKHTARIAN ON THE FOURTH, FIFTH, SIXTH, SEV

Association of Attorney

12/6/2018: Association of Attorney

Minute Order - Minute Order (Court Order)

12/6/2018: Minute Order - Minute Order (Court Order)

Application - APPLICATION TO FILE UNDER SEAL; DECLARATION OF LESLIE LINDGREN IN SUPPORT OF APPLICATION TO FILE UNDER SEAL [CAL. RULE OF COURT 2.551]

2/27/2019: Application - APPLICATION TO FILE UNDER SEAL; DECLARATION OF LESLIE LINDGREN IN SUPPORT OF APPLICATION TO FILE UNDER SEAL [CAL. RULE OF COURT 2.551]

Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Ex Parte Application TO ADVANCE HEARING DATE IN OR...)

3/4/2019: Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Ex Parte Application TO ADVANCE HEARING DATE IN OR...)

Separate Statement

3/8/2019: Separate Statement

Reply - REPLY REPLY MEMORANDUM IN RESPECT OF NOTICE OF MOTION CONTINUED BY COURT ORDER

3/12/2019: Reply - REPLY REPLY MEMORANDUM IN RESPECT OF NOTICE OF MOTION CONTINUED BY COURT ORDER

Amendment to Complaint (Fictitious/Incorrect Name)

3/15/2019: Amendment to Complaint (Fictitious/Incorrect Name)

Separate Statement

5/20/2019: Separate Statement

Separate Statement

5/20/2019: Separate Statement

Reply - REPLY IN SUPPORT OF THEIR MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION AGAINST ALEXANDRA BANUELOS

6/10/2019: Reply - REPLY IN SUPPORT OF THEIR MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION AGAINST ALEXANDRA BANUELOS

DEFENDANTS' NOTICE OF MOTION TO QUASH AND MOTION TO QUASH PLAINTIFFS' BUSINESS RECORDS SUBPOENAS ON CITY NATIONAL BANK; ETC

5/3/2017: DEFENDANTS' NOTICE OF MOTION TO QUASH AND MOTION TO QUASH PLAINTIFFS' BUSINESS RECORDS SUBPOENAS ON CITY NATIONAL BANK; ETC

308 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 06/26/2020
  • Hearing06/26/2020 at 13:30 PM in Department 19 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/26/2020
  • Hearing06/26/2020 at 13:30 PM in Department 19 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/26/2020
  • Hearing06/26/2020 at 13:30 PM in Department 19 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/26/2020
  • Hearing06/26/2020 at 13:30 PM in Department 19 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/26/2020
  • Hearing06/26/2020 at 13:30 PM in Department 19 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/26/2020
  • Hearing06/26/2020 at 13:30 PM in Department 19 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Trial Setting Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/26/2020
  • Hearing06/26/2020 at 13:30 PM in Department 19 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/26/2020
  • Hearing06/26/2020 at 13:30 PM in Department 19 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Hearing on Motion for Summary Adjudication

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/26/2020
  • Hearing06/26/2020 at 13:30 PM in Department 19 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Hearing on Motion for Summary Adjudication

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/26/2020
  • Hearing06/26/2020 at 13:30 PM in Department 19 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Hearing on Motion for Summary Adjudication

    Read MoreRead Less
536 More Docket Entries
  • 11/02/2016
  • DocketProof-Service/Summons

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/28/2016
  • DocketNOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/28/2016
  • DocketNotice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/19/2016
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 308; (Order-Complex Determination; Case Determined to be non-Complex) -

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/19/2016
  • DocketMinute Order

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/19/2016
  • DocketMinute order entered: 2016-10-19 00:00:00; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/27/2016
  • DocketSUMMONS (CITACION JUDICIAL)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/27/2016
  • DocketSummons; Filed by Edward Mokhtarian (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/23/2016
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Edmund Mokhtarian (Plaintiff); Robert Mokhtarian (Plaintiff); Stella Mokhtarian (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/23/2016
  • DocketVERIFIED COMPLAINT 1) BREACH OF CONTRACT; ETC

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC635257    Hearing Date: June 26, 2020    Dept: 19

The Court has received the email correspondence from Plaintiffs' and Defendants' counsel stating that they are submitting on the previous tentative rulings issued by the Court on the pending motions for summary judgment/summary adjudication.  Due to the COVID-19 court closure, the Court was unable to formally take the matters under submission and issue final rulings.

The Court will formally take the matters under submission this date and issue final rulings on the remaining motions for summary judgment and motions for summary adjudication.

To allow the parties the opportunity to consider the rulings and discuss moving forward with the case, on its own motion, the Court CONTINUES the Trial Setting Conference to July 17, 2020, at 9:00 a.m.  No appearances are required on June 26, 2020.

Counsel for Defendants to give notice.

Case Number: BC635257    Hearing Date: March 26, 2020    Dept: 19

1.  Motion No. 11:

After full consideration of the papers and evidence filed, and inferences reasonably drawn therefrom, as well as oral argument at the hearing, Defendants and Cross-Complainants Richard Saperstein, Brian Witten, The Genre Company, Inc., and Elysium Films, Inc.’s Motion for Summary Adjudication against Plaintiff Gevorg Kalantaryan (MOTION NO. 11) is GRANTED in parte and DENIED in part, as described below. Summary adjudication is GRANTED as to the third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, and tenth causes of action. Summary adjudication is DENIED as to the first, second, and ninth causes of action. 

Plaintiff has raised a triable issue of material fact as to the definition of "deadline" and whether Defendants breached section 2 and 3 of the Note.   

Defendants are ordered to lodge a proposed judgment of dismissal consistent with this decision.

Counsel for Defendants to give notice.

2. Motion No. 12:

After full consideration of the papers and evidence filed, and inferences reasonably drawn therefrom, as well as oral argument at the hearing, Defendants and Cross-Complainants Richard Saperstein, Brian Witten, The Genre Company, Inc., and Elysium Films, Inc.’s Motion for Summary Adjudication against Plaintiff Roset Markamian (MOTION NO. 12) is GRANTED in parte and DENIED in part, as described below. Summary adjudication is GRANTED as to the third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, and tenth causes of action. Summary adjudication is DENIED as to the first, second, and ninth causes of action.  Defendants have failed to meet their initial burden of showing that there was no breach. Further, analysis shows that Plaintiff has raised a triable issue of material fact as to the definition of "deadline" and whether Defendants breached section 2 and 3 of the Note.  

Defendants are ordered to lodge a proposed judgment of dismissal consistent with this decision.

Counsel for Defendants to give notice.

3. Motion No. 3:

After full consideration of the paper s and evidence filed, and inferences reasonably drawn therefrom, as well as oral argument at the hearing, Defendants and Cross-Complainants Richard Saperstein, Brian Witten, The Genre Company, Inc., and Elysium Films, Inc.’s Motion for Summary Adjudication against Plaintiff Tamar Koradolian as Assignee of James Sabina (MOTION NO. 3) is GRANTED in its entirety (fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, ninth, and tenth causes of action).

Defendants are ordered to lodge a proposed judgment of dismissal consistent with this decision.

Counsel for Defendants to give notice.

4. Motion No. 8:

After full consideration of the papers and evidence filed, and inferences reasonably drawn therefrom, as well as oral argument at the hearing, Defendants and Cross-Complainants Richard Saperstein, Brian Witten, The Genre Company, Inc., and Elysium Films, Inc.’s Motion for Summary Adjudication against Plaintiff Alexandra Banuelos (MOTION NO. 8) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part, as described below.

Summary adjudication is GRANTED on the first and second causes of action as to the Note dated August 1, 2013 (“Note no. 1”). Summary adjudication is DENIED on the first and second causes of action as to the Note dated August 28, 2014 (“Note no. 2”) for $50,000 re Toxic Avenger, and the Note dated August 28, 2014 (“Note no. 3”) for $50,000 re Screwtape Letters.

Summary adjudication is GRANTED as to the third cause of action with respect to Note nos. 1, 2, and 3.

Summary adjudication is GRANTED as to the fourth, fifth, sixth, and seventh causes of action.

The Court notes that Defendants did not move for summary adjudication as to the Note dated November 6, 2013 re: The Blob. Defendants also did not move for summary adjudication of the eighth, ninth, and tenth causes of action.

Defendants are ordered to lodge a proposed judgment of dismissal consistent with this decision.

Counsel for Defendants to give notice.

5. Motion No. 6:

After full consideration of the papers and evidence filed, and inferences reasonably drawn therefrom, as well as oral argument at the hearing, Defendants and Cross-Complainants Richard Saperstein, Brian Witten, The Genre Company, Inc., and Elysium Films, Inc.’s (“Defendants”) Motion for Summary Judgment against PLAINTIFF GOOD VIBES PRODUCTIONS, LLC (MOTION NO. 6) is GRANTED in full.

Defendants to lodge a proposed judgment of dismissal for all causes of action as to Plaintiff.

Defendants to give notice.

6. Motion No. 1:

After full consideration of the papers and evidence filed, and inferences reasonably drawn therefrom, as well as oral argument at the hearing, Defendants and Cross-Complainants Richard Saperstein, Brian Witten, The Genre Company, Inc., and Elysium Films, Inc.’s (“Defendants”) Motion for Summary Judgment against PLAINTIFF SARO DIASHIAN (MOTION NO. 1) is GRANTED in full.

Defendants to lodge a proposed order.

Defendants to lodge a proposed judgment of dismissal for all causes of action as to Plaintiff.

Defendants to give notice.

7. Motion No. 9:

After full consideration of the papers and evidence filed, and inferences reasonably drawn therefrom, as well as oral argument at the hearing, Defendants and Cross-Complainants Richard Saperstein, Brian Witten, The Genre Company, Inc., and Elysium Films, Inc.’s Motion for Summary Judgment Against Plaintiff Armond Aghanian (Motion No. 9) is DENIED.

Defendants and Cross-Complainants Motion For Summary Adjudication is DENIED in part as to the First, Second and Ninth Causes of Action.   Plaintiff has raised a triable issue of material fact as to the definition of "deadline" and whether Defendants breached section 2 and 3 of the Note.  The motion is GRANTED in part as to the Third, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth and Tenth Causes of Action.

Defendants are ordered to lodge a proposed judgment of dismissal consistent with this decision.

8. Motion No. 5:

After full consideration of the papers and evidence filed, and inferences reasonably drawn therefrom, as well as oral argument at the hearing, Defendants and Cross-Complainants Richard Saperstein, Brian Witten, The Genre Company, Inc., and Elysium Films, Inc. Motion Summary Adjudication Against Plaintiff Stella Mokhtarian (Motion No. 5) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

Summary Adjudication is GRANTED on the First and Second causes of action, but only as to the June Agreement (FAC ¶¶ 63-71), the October Agreement (FAC ¶¶72-80), and December Agreement (FAC ¶¶ 107-115). Summary Adjudication is DENIED on the First and Second causes of action as to the 2015 Note (FAC ¶¶129-136).

Summary Adjudication is GRANTED on the Third cause of action as to the June Agreement, the October Agreement, the December Agreement, and the 2015 Note.

Defendants have not moved for summary adjudication on the other contracts alleged in the FAC.

Summary adjudication is GRANTED as to the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, Ninth, and Tenth Causes of Action.

Defendants to lodge a proposed judgment of dismissal consistent with this ruling.

Counsel for Defendants to give notice.

9. Motion No. 2:

After full consideration of the papers and evidence filed, and inferences reasonably drawn therefrom, as well as oral argument at the hearing, Defendants and Cross-Complainants Richard Saperstein, Brian Witten, The Genre Company, Inc., and Elysium Films, Inc.’s Motion for Summary Judgment against Plaintiff Armond Ghazarian (Motion No. 2) is GRANTED in its entirety.

Defendants are ordered to lodge a proposed judgment of dismissal consistent with this decision.

Counsel for Defendants to give notice.

PLEASE NOTE: THE COURT WILL FILE A MORE DETAILED FINAL WRITTEN RULING FOR EACH OF THE ABOVE MOTIONS AFTER THE HEARING OR UPON SUBMISSION BY THE PARTIES AS TO THIS TENTATIVE RULING.

Case Number: BC635257    Hearing Date: February 25, 2020    Dept: 19

1.  Motion No. 11:

After full consideration of the papers and evidence filed, and inferences reasonably drawn therefrom, as well as oral argument at the hearing, Defendants and Cross-Complainants Richard Saperstein, Brian Witten, The Genre Company, Inc., and Elysium Films, Inc.’s Motion for Summary Adjudication against Plaintiff Gevorg Kalantaryan (MOTION NO. 11) is GRANTED in parte and DENIED in part, as described below. Summary adjudication is GRANTED as to the third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, and tenth causes of action. Summary adjudication is DENIED as to the first, second, and ninth causes of action. 

Plaintiff has raised a triable issue of material fact as to the definition of "deadline" and whether Defendants breached section 2 and 3 of the Note.   

Defendants are ordered to lodge a proposed judgment of dismissal consistent with this decision.

Counsel for Defendants to give notice.

2. Motion No. 12:

After full consideration of the papers and evidence filed, and inferences reasonably drawn therefrom, as well as oral argument at the hearing, Defendants and Cross-Complainants Richard Saperstein, Brian Witten, The Genre Company, Inc., and Elysium Films, Inc.’s Motion for Summary Adjudication against Plaintiff Roset Markamian (MOTION NO. 12) is GRANTED in parte and DENIED in part, as described below. Summary adjudication is GRANTED as to the third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, and tenth causes of action. Summary adjudication is DENIED as to the first, second, and ninth causes of action.  Defendants have failed to meet their initial burden of showing that there was no breach. Further, analysis shows that Plaintiff has raised a triable issue of material fact as to the definition of "deadline" and whether Defendants breached section 2 and 3 of the Note.  

Defendants are ordered to lodge a proposed judgment of dismissal consistent with this decision.

Counsel for Defendants to give notice.

3. Motion No. 3:

After full consideration of the paper s and evidence filed, and inferences reasonably drawn therefrom, as well as oral argument at the hearing, Defendants and Cross-Complainants Richard Saperstein, Brian Witten, The Genre Company, Inc., and Elysium Films, Inc.’s Motion for Summary Adjudication against Plaintiff Tamar Koradolian as Assignee of James Sabina (MOTION NO. 3) is GRANTED in its entirety (fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, ninth, and tenth causes of action).

Defendants are ordered to lodge a proposed judgment of dismissal consistent with this decision.

Counsel for Defendants to give notice.

4. Motion No. 8:

After full consideration of the papers and evidence filed, and inferences reasonably drawn therefrom, as well as oral argument at the hearing, Defendants and Cross-Complainants Richard Saperstein, Brian Witten, The Genre Company, Inc., and Elysium Films, Inc.’s Motion for Summary Adjudication against Plaintiff Alexandra Banuelos (MOTION NO. 8) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part, as described below.

Summary adjudication is GRANTED on the first and second causes of action as to the Note dated August 1, 2013 (“Note no. 1”). Summary adjudication is DENIED on the first and second causes of action as to the Note dated August 28, 2014 (“Note no. 2”) for $50,000 re Toxic Avenger, and the Note dated August 28, 2014 (“Note no. 3”) for $50,000 re Screwtape Letters.

Summary adjudication is GRANTED as to the third cause of action with respect to Note nos. 1, 2, and 3.

Summary adjudication is GRANTED as to the fourth, fifth, sixth, and seventh causes of action.

The Court notes that Defendants did not move for summary adjudication as to the Note dated November 6, 2013 re: The Blob. Defendants also did not move for summary adjudication of the eighth, ninth, and tenth causes of action.

Defendants are ordered to lodge a proposed judgment of dismissal consistent with this decision.

Counsel for Defendants to give notice.

5. Motion No. 6:

After full consideration of the papers and evidence filed, and inferences reasonably drawn therefrom, as well as oral argument at the hearing, Defendants and Cross-Complainants Richard Saperstein, Brian Witten, The Genre Company, Inc., and Elysium Films, Inc.’s (“Defendants”) Motion for Summary Judgment against PLAINTIFF GOOD VIBES PRODUCTIONS, LLC (MOTION NO. 6) is GRANTED in full.

Defendants to lodge a proposed judgment of dismissal for all causes of action as to Plaintiff.

Defendants to give notice.

6. Motion No. 1:

After full consideration of the papers and evidence filed, and inferences reasonably drawn therefrom, as well as oral argument at the hearing, Defendants and Cross-Complainants Richard Saperstein, Brian Witten, The Genre Company, Inc., and Elysium Films, Inc.’s (“Defendants”) Motion for Summary Judgment against PLAINTIFF SARO DIASHIAN (MOTION NO. 1) is GRANTED in full.

Defendants to lodge a proposed order.

Defendants to lodge a proposed judgment of dismissal for all causes of action as to Plaintiff.

Defendants to give notice.

7. Motion No. 9:

After full consideration of the papers and evidence filed, and inferences reasonably drawn therefrom, as well as oral argument at the hearing, Defendants and Cross-Complainants Richard Saperstein, Brian Witten, The Genre Company, Inc., and Elysium Films, Inc.’s Motion for Summary Judgment Against Plaintiff Armond Aghanian (Motion No. 9) is DENIED.

Defendants and Cross-Complainants Motion For Summary Adjudication is DENIED in part as to the First, Second and Ninth Causes of Action.   Plaintiff has raised a triable issue of material fact as to the definition of "deadline" and whether Defendants breached section 2 and 3 of the Note.  The motion is GRANTED in part as to the Third, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth and Tenth Causes of Action.

Defendants are ordered to lodge a proposed judgment of dismissal consistent with this decision.

8. Motion No. 5:

After full consideration of the papers and evidence filed, and inferences reasonably drawn therefrom, as well as oral argument at the hearing, Defendants and Cross-Complainants Richard Saperstein, Brian Witten, The Genre Company, Inc., and Elysium Films, Inc. Motion Summary Adjudication Against Plaintiff Stella Mokhtarian (Motion No. 5) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

Summary Adjudication is GRANTED on the First and Second causes of action, but only as to the June Agreement (FAC ¶¶ 63-71), the October Agreement (FAC ¶¶72-80), and December Agreement (FAC ¶¶ 107-115). Summary Adjudication is DENIED on the First and Second causes of action as to the 2015 Note (FAC ¶¶129-136).

Summary Adjudication is GRANTED on the Third cause of action as to the June Agreement, the October Agreement, the December Agreement, and the 2015 Note.

Defendants have not moved for summary adjudication on the other contracts alleged in the FAC.

Summary adjudication is GRANTED as to the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, Ninth, and Tenth Causes of Action.

Defendants to lodge a proposed judgment of dismissal consistent with this ruling.

Counsel for Defendants to give notice.

9. Motion No. 2:

After full consideration of the papers and evidence filed, and inferences reasonably drawn therefrom, as well as oral argument at the hearing, Defendants and Cross-Complainants Richard Saperstein, Brian Witten, The Genre Company, Inc., and Elysium Films, Inc.’s Motion for Summary Judgment against Plaintiff Armond Ghazarian (Motion No. 2) is GRANTED in its entirety.

Defendants are ordered to lodge a proposed judgment of dismissal consistent with this decision.

Counsel for Defendants to give notice.

PLEASE NOTE: THE COURT WILL FILE A MORE DETAILED FINAL WRITTEN RULING FOR EACH OF THE ABOVE MOTIONS AFTER THE HEARING OR UPON SUBMISSION BY THE PARTIES AS TO THIS TENTATIVE RULING.

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases represented by Lawyer HALBERSTADTER DAVID

Latest cases represented by Lawyer RUFUS-ISAACS ALEXANDER