On 09/08/2016 FARZAD KOHANBASH filed a Property - Other Property Fraud lawsuit against SPECIALTY BAKING, INC . This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Norwalk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is JOHN A. TORRIBIO. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.
Pending - Other Pending
JOHN A. TORRIBIO
SPECIALTY BAKING INC
WHOLESOME MELROSE BAKERY INC
SPECIALTY BAKING INC.
WHOLESOME MELROSE BAKERY INC.
SPECIALTY BAKING INC.
LEE & ASSOCIATES COMMERICAL REAL ESTATES INC.-ORANGE
GILMER BRADLEY W.
MOGHADAM RAFI LAW OFFICE OF
SAFFOURI HUSSEIN MOHAMMAD
SWAN BARRY RICHARD
GRAMLING KEVIN JOSEPH
10/16/2018: Separate Statement - OF REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION AND RESPONSES IN DISPUTE IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL A FURTHER RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION TO SPECIALTY BAKING, SET ONE
10/16/2018: Memorandum of Points & Authorities - IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION TO SPECIALTY BAKING, INC. (SET ONE), AND FOR SANCTIONS
2/27/2019: Order - ORDER GRANTING EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE HEARING OR SHORTEN TIME FOR THE REPLY
7/19/2019: Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (COURT ORDER) OF 07/19/2019
7/19/2019: Ex Parte Application - EX PARTE APPLICATION EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE THE HEARING ON SPECIALTY'S MOTION TO DEEM ITS UD ACTION CHANGED TO AN ORDINARY CIVIL ACTION
7/19/2019: Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)
7/19/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER)
7/22/2019: Order - ORDER CONTINUING THE HEARING ON SPECIALTY BAKING'S MOTION TO DEEM UD CASE CHANGED TO AN ORDINARY CIVIL ACTION
7/22/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE THE HEARING ON SP...)
7/26/2019: Motion to Dismiss - MOTION TO DISMISS OF F KOHANBASH & WHOLESOME MELROSE BAKERY, INC RE: SPECIALTY BAKING, INC'S UNLAWFUL DETAINER ACTION AS MOOT;
8/6/2019: Declaration - DECLARATION OF HUSSEIN SAFFOURI IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO RENEWED MOTION TO DISMISS UNLAWFUL DETAINER
8/6/2019: Opposition - OPPOSITION TO RENEWED MOTION TO DISMISS UNLAWFUL DETAINER
8/6/2019: Declaration - DECLARATION OF ELIZABETH SUE ESCOBAR IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO RENEWED MOTION TO DISMISS UNLAWFUL DETAINER
8/6/2019: Declaration - DECLARATION OF GARY HANSEN IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO RENEWED MOTION TO DISMISS UNLAWFUL DETAINER
8/13/2019: Notice - NOTICE OF RULING ON THE EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE SPECIALTY BAKING'S MOTION TO DEEM ITS UD CASE CHANGED TO AN ORDINARY CIVIL ACTION
8/13/2019: Objection - OBJECTION BY FARZAD KOHANBASH AND WHOLESOME MELROSE BAKERY TO EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY SPECIALTY BAKING, INC. IN OPPOSITION TO THE MOTION TO DISMISS
8/13/2019: Reply - REPLY TO SPECIALTY BAKING, INC.'S OPPOSITION TO THE MOTION TO DISMISS ITS UD ACTION
9/3/2019: Proof of Service by Mail
Docketat 09:00 AM in Department G, John A. Torribio, Presiding; Hearing on Motion - Other (of Defendant Samarin for Bench Trial) - Held - Motion DeniedRead MoreRead Less
DocketMinute Order ( (Hearing on Motion - Other of Defendant Samarin for Bench Trial)); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
DocketOrder (Tentative adopted as final order); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
DocketReply (Surreply to Defendants' Motion for a Bench Trial); Filed by FARZAD KOHANBASH (Plaintiff); WHOLESOME MELROSE BAKERY, INC. (Cross-Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
DocketReply (SPECIALTY BAKING'S REPLY TO OPPOSITION OF KOHANBASH TO MOTION FOR A COURT TRIAL AS TO DEFENSE OF UNCLEAN HANDS); Filed by SPECIALTY BAKING, INC. (Cross-Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
DocketReply (to Opp to Mx for Bench Trial as to Remaining Defense of Unclean Hands); Filed by Daniel Samarin (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
DocketOpposition (Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Bench Trial); Filed by FARZAD KOHANBASH (Plaintiff); WHOLESOME MELROSE BAKERY, INC. (Cross-Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
DocketProof of Personal Service (of Defendant's Motion for New Trial); Filed by SPECIALTY BAKING, INC. (Cross-Complainant)Read MoreRead Less
DocketMemorandum of Points & Authorities (in Support of Defendant's Motion for Court Trial); Filed by SPECIALTY BAKING, INC. (Cross-Complainant)Read MoreRead Less
DocketMotion for New Trial (of D/XC Specialty Baking, Inc and Robert Murillo); Filed by SPECIALTY BAKING, INC. (Cross-Complainant)Read MoreRead Less
DocketAmendment to Complaint (Fictitious/Incorrect Name); Filed by Daniel Samarin (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
DocketDemand for Jury Trial; Filed by FARZAD KOHANBASH (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
DocketRtn of Service of Summons & Compl; Filed by FARZAD KOHANBASH (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
DocketStatement of Damages (Personal Injury or Wrongful Death); Filed by PlaintiffRead MoreRead Less
DocketNotice of Case Management Conference; Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
DocketSummons; Filed by PlaintiffRead MoreRead Less
DocketCivil Case Cover SheetRead MoreRead Less
DocketComplaint filed-Summons Issued; Filed by FARZAD KOHANBASH (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
Docketat 08:32 AM in Department Legacy; Unknown eventRead MoreRead Less
Docketat 08:32 AM in Department Legacy; Unknown eventRead MoreRead Less
Case Number: VC065792 Hearing Date: October 19, 2020 Dept: G
KOHANBASH v. SPECIALTY BAKING, INC.
CASE NO.: VC065792
I. Defendant/Cross-Complainant SPECIALTY BAKING, INC.’s Motion for Bench Trial is DENIED.
II. Cross-Complainant DAN SAMARIN’s Motion for Bench Trial is DENIED.
Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant KOHANBASH to give Notice.
SPECIALITY BAKING, INC. (“Specialty”) and DAN SAMARIN (“Samarin”) (collectively “Moving Parties”) separately move this Court to set the following claims for bench trial: (1) Specialty’s cross-claim for declaratory relief; (2) Samarin’s cross-claim for declaratory relief; and (3) Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant FARZAD KOHANBASH’s (“Kohanbash”) unclean hands defense. The Moving Parties move to have the aforementioned equitable claims and issues heard first.
In Opposition, Kohanbash first argues that the Moving Parties are not entitled to a bench trial because Kohanbash is suing Specialty for the legal claim of fraud. Additionally, Kohanbash argues that Specialty and Samarin’s cross-claims for declaratory relief, and Kohanbash’s related defense of unclean hands are now moot where “Kohanbash has dismissed his cause of action for declaratory relief, has vacated the premises, and has said—in open court—that he is not seeking recovery of the subject property, thereby mooting any fight over title.” (Opp. 2:3-5.) Kohanbash also maintains that because he also asserts the legal issue of “fraud” as an affirmative defense to Specialty’s cross-action, that the declaratory relief claims must be tried by a jury.
In Reply, the Moving Parties separately argue that their cross-claims for declaratory relief are not moot because Kohanbash continues to maintain a right to title under the Option. The Moving Parties also maintain that Kohanbash’s affirmative defense of fraud is irrelevant to the instant Motions where the Moving Parities are only moving to set a bench trial as to Kohanbash’s unclean hands defense—not fraud.
In Sur-Reply (filed without leave of Court, but ultimately still considered), Kohanbash continues to maintain that the Moving Parties’ claims for declaratory relief are moot. Consequently, since said claims for declaratory relief are moot, they should be dismissed, which would also moot Kohanbash’s defense of unclean hands, thus negating the need for a bench trial. Kohanbash also argues that “[a]ssuming, arguendo, that the claims over title somehow are not moot…the Court should let the jury go first or decide the entire action, as a matter of efficiency and to avoid treading on Plaintiff’s right to a jury.” (Sur-Reply 3:25-28.)
As an initial matter, the Court notes that it declines to render an opinion on the issue of whether the Moving Parties’ claims for declaratory relief are “moot”. “Mootness” of the declaratory relief cross-claims is improperly considered at this junction, and beyond the scope of the instant Motions. The issue before the Court is whether the declaratory relief cross-claims and unclean hands defense should be determined via bench trial—prior to a jury trial that will determine the legal claims.
“The court, in furtherance of convenience or to avoid prejudice, or when separate trials will be conducive to expedition and economy, may order a separate trial of any cause of action, including a cause of action asserted in a cross-complaint, or any separate issue or of any number of causes of action or issues, preserving the right of trial by jury required by the Constitution or a statute of this state or of the United States.” (CCP §1048(b).) “In most instances, separate equitable and legal issues are ‘kept distinct and separate,’ with legal issues triable by a jury and equitable issues triable by the court.” (Hoopes v. Dolan (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 146, 156.) There is no “bright line” rule with respect to the sequence of trying equitable and legal claims in a single action. It is well-established that trial courts may try equitable issues first in order to promote judicial economy. (Id. at 157.) “[I]f the court’s determination of those issues is also dispositive of the legal issues, nothing further remains to be tried by a jury.” (Raedeke v. Gibraltar Sav. & Loan Assn. (1974) 10 Cal.3d 665, 671.) However, legal issues may also be tried before equitable ones. “The order of trial, in mixed action with equitable and legal issues, has great significance because the first factfinder may bind the second when determining factual issues common to the equitable and legal issues.” (Hoopes v. Dolan (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 146, 156-157.) “ ‘[W]here the legal issues are tried first, the judge cannot ignore the jury’s verdict and grant equitable relief inconsistent with the jury’s findings.’ [Citation.]” (Id. at 159.)
The major objective of separate/bifurcated trials is to expedite and simplify the presentation of evidence. (See Foreman & Clark Corp. v. Fallon (1971) 3 Cal.3d 875, 888.) The Court finds that there is insufficient evidence to show that hearing the equitable claims in a bench trial, first, would serve the interests of judicial economy. Rather, this Court could benefit from the factual findings of the jury in deciding, on the legal issues, whether Specialty Baking engaged in fraud. The issue of whether Specialty Baking engaged in fraud is relevant to the adjudication of the Moving Parties’ claims for declaratory relief, and Kohanbash’s defense of unclean hands. The Motions are DENIED. The Court finds that it would be more efficient for the jury trial to proceed first, followed by the Court’s ruling on the equitable claims.
Case Number: VC065792 Hearing Date: December 02, 2019 Dept: SEG
FARZAD KOHANBASH ET AL v. SPECIALTY BAKING
TENTATIVE ORDERMotion for Attorney Fees on Appeal is GRANTED.
Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases