Search

Attributes

This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 07/03/2019 at 05:09:27 (UTC).

ELIEL BASTIDA VS ORI ZAIRI

Case Summary

On 03/25/2015 ELIEL BASTIDA filed a Labor - Other Labor lawsuit against ORI ZAIRI. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are NANCY L. NEWMAN, NORMAN P. TARLE and CRAIG D. KARLAN. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****3961

  • Filing Date:

    03/25/2015

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Labor - Other Labor

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

NANCY L. NEWMAN

NORMAN P. TARLE

CRAIG D. KARLAN

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

BASTIDA ELIEL

Defendants

ECONO LANDSCAPE SERVICE

ZAIRI ORI

CONO LANDSCAPE SERVICE

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorneys

KADE MICHAEL P.

BERKE MICHAEL NORMAN

KADE MICHAEL PAYMAN

Defendant Attorneys

SHAMSHONI MAZYAR K.

LEVY MARVIN

FASEN LEO

Court Documents

Court documents are not available for this case.

 

Docket Entries

  • 06/21/2019
  • Proof of Service by Mail; Filed by Ori Zairi (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/21/2019
  • Request for Judicial Notice (In Support of His Brief for the Immediate Return of the Funds Levied by the Los Angeles Sheriff's Deparrtment); Filed by Ori Zairi (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/21/2019
  • Brief (Defendant Ori Zairi's Brief for the Immediate Return of Levied Funds); Filed by Ori Zairi (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/13/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department N, Craig D. Karlan, Presiding; Hearing on Ex Parte Application (RE Disposition of Levied Funds) - Held - Motion Denied

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/13/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Hearing on Ex Parte Application RE Disposition of Levied Funds)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/13/2019
  • Notice (Notice of Ruling on Plaintiff's Ex Parte Application Re Disposition of Levied Funds); Filed by Eliel Bastida (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/12/2019
  • Opposition (Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiff's Ex Parte Application Re: Disposition of Levied Funds); Filed by Ori Zairi (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/11/2019
  • Plaintiff's Notice of Ex Parte Application RE Disposition of Levied Funds; Declaration of Michael N. Berke and Patricia Tobar; Proposed Order; Filed by Eliel Bastida (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/10/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department N, Craig D. Karlan, Presiding; Hearing on Ex Parte Application (Defendant's Ex Parte Application to Correct Clerical Error) - Held - Continued

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/10/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Hearing on Ex Parte Application Defendant's Ex Parte Applicat...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
223 More Docket Entries
  • 06/26/2015
  • Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order; Filed by Eliel Bastida (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/12/2015
  • Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/12/2015
  • Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by Eliel Bastida (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/12/2015
  • Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by Eliel Bastida (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/03/2015
  • NOTICE OF CONTINUANCE (HRG 0F 7/13 CONT TO 7/14/2015 ); Filed by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/03/2015
  • Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order; Filed by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/25/2015
  • Complaint; Filed by Eliel Bastida (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/25/2015
  • Summons Filed; Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/25/2015
  • Summons; Filed by Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/25/2015
  • Complaint Filed

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: SC123961    Hearing Date: August 07, 2020    Dept: N

Eliel Bastida v. Ori Zairi, et al.

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiff’s request to augment Section 3, Summary of the Parties’ Testimony and Other Evidence in Appellant’s Proposed Settled Statement, is GRANTED; Plaintiff’s request to augment Attachment 5, Summary of Motions in Appellant’s Proposed Settled Statement, is DENIED. Plaintiff may raise any appropriate legal argument on appeal, including reference to the Court’s Statement of Decision, which addresses the issues raised by Appellant.

The following is added to Section 3, Summary of the Parties’ Testimony and Other Evidence:

Dates of Testimony: June 6, June 13

“Plaintiff and Defendants presented two distinct contentions at trial.  Plaintiff contended the parties orally agreed he was an employee of Defendants to be paid at the rate of $35 per hour for regular hour. Defendant Ori Zairi, on the other hand, contended Plaintiff and Defendants entered into a partnership/joint venture agreement and that each of the parties agreed to “provide capital and labor” to the venture and split the net income/net profit 50/50 after deducting all expenses. In support thereof, Zairi relied on text messages from December 2014 near the completion of all brush clearance work (not before the work started) and after Defendant called Plaintiff and informed him there was no money to pay Plaintiff for any of the work performed. 

Plaintiff Eliel Bastida testified Defendants received the gross sum of $57,000; Zairi claimed the amount was “just north of $50,000.” Zairi offered no evidence of this amount nor did Zairi produce any evidence of expenses to be deducted from said sum.

Zairi testified he was fully aware Bastida was not a licensed contractor and he admitted no joint venture license was sought or obtained. (The Court found Defendants’ joint venture argument failed because the Contractors State License Board requires that in order to contract for work in the name of a joint venture, the licensees must first obtain a joint venture license from the Contractors’ State License Board (CSLB) and  both alleged joint venturers must themselves be licensed. (Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 7029.1(a) (b), 7028.15(c).))

Zairi testified he signed the subject brush-clearance contract with the City of Los Angeles between Equery, Inc./Eccono Tree Care and the City of Los Angeles as to the subject brush clearing work performed by Bastida and others. Zairi further testified he was a “city-qualified contractor” and knew Bastida was not; Zairi knew Bastida was not a licensed contractor. Zairi was aware it is illegal for a general contractor to partner with or enter into a joint venture or subcontract with an unlicensed contractor. Zairi admitted Defendants failed to obtain a joint venture license.  

Zairi initially claimed he made Plaintiff a “certified bidder,” although he later testified that, in fact, only he, Zairi, presented any bids to the City. Zairi also initially held up invoices saying “I paid Plaintiff for a lot of invoices,” only to later admit in his testimony on the afternoon of June 7, 2018, that he “never paid Plaintiff for any of the invoices” establishing that Bastida received absolutely nothing from the amounts paid by the City pursuant to Defendants’ contract with the City; Zairi conceded Bastida performed work as per all of the invoices from the City.

Zairi further admitted his text to plaintiff to the effect that he paid over $17,000.00 in taxes on the amounts received from the City was untrue. 

Bastida on the other hand, testified he worked in excess of 12 hours per day for Defendants on the City contract bru and that he was in fact hired by Zairi individually on behalf of Equery, Inc. Zairi asked Plaintiff to “help me with this brush clearance work” and Bastida explained Zairi told him he was an employee of both Zairi and Equery, Inc.

Bastida testified he worked for 47 days for Defendants for a minimum of 12 hours per day (564 Hours) from June 2, 2014 to November 26, 2014 (exclusive of late-night telephone calls) for total damages of $23,030.00, which includes 10% interest from 11/26/2014.

Zairi admitted he paid his other workers in cash, even though Defendants’ contract with the City forbade this. Defendants conceded they failed to abide by their contract with the City Fire Department by not providing proper gear, not providing proper safety checks for the trucks with the CHP, not maintaining and providing payroll records and not paying all employees $30 an hour, as required under the City agreement.”

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases represented by Lawyer SHAMSHONI MAZYAR K.