Search

Attributes

This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 01/06/2021 at 15:46:21 (UTC).

FARZAD KOHANBASH VS. SPECIALTY BAKING, INC., ET AL

Case Summary

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.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****5792

  • Filing Date:

    09/08/2016

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Property - Other Property Fraud

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Norwalk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

JOHN A. TORRIBIO

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs, Defendants and Cross Defendants

KOHANBASH FARZAD

SPECIALTY BAKING INC

MURILLO ROBERT

WHOLESOME MELROSE BAKERY INC

SAMARIN DANIEL

SPECIALTY BAKING INC.

WHOLESOME MELROSE BAKERY INC.

Defendants, Cross Plaintiffs and Cross Defendants

SAMARIN DANIEL

SPECIALTY BAKING INC.

Material Witness

FIGUEROA HUMBERTO

Not Classified By Court

LEE & ASSOCIATES COMMERICAL REAL ESTATES INC.-ORANGE

SATTLER ROBERT

GILMER BRADLEY W.

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Defendant Attorneys

MOGHADAM RAFI LAW OFFICE OF

SAFFOURI HUSSEIN

MOGHADAM RAFI

SAFFOURI HUSSEIN MOHAMMAD

SWAN BARRY RICHARD

Defendant and Cross Defendant Attorney

MOGHADAM RAFI

Not Classified By Court Attorney

GRAMLING KEVIN JOSEPH

 

Court Documents

Opposition - OPPOSITION TO RENEWED MOTION TO DISMISS UNLAWFUL DETAINER

8/6/2019: Opposition - OPPOSITION TO RENEWED MOTION TO DISMISS UNLAWFUL DETAINER

Reply - REPLY TO SPECIALTY BAKING, INC.'S OPPOSITION TO THE MOTION TO DISMISS ITS UD ACTION

8/13/2019: Reply - REPLY TO SPECIALTY BAKING, INC.'S OPPOSITION TO THE MOTION TO DISMISS ITS UD ACTION

Proof of Service by Mail

11/15/2019: Proof of Service by Mail

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING - ORAL ARGUMENT)

12/9/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING - ORAL ARGUMENT)

Request for Judicial Notice

11/8/2016: Request for Judicial Notice

Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: Motion for an Order

11/14/2016: Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: Motion for an Order

Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: Opposition

12/30/2016: Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: Opposition

Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: Opposition

2/7/2017: Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: Opposition

Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

2/14/2017: Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

Other - - Other - Proof of Service

2/27/2017: Other - - Other - Proof of Service

Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: Answer to First Amended X-Complaint

9/26/2017: Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: Answer to First Amended X-Complaint

Minute Order - Minute order entered: 2017-11-27 00:00:00

11/27/2017: Minute Order - Minute order entered: 2017-11-27 00:00:00

Notice of Change of Firm Name - AND ANDRESS

8/2/2018: Notice of Change of Firm Name - AND ANDRESS

Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: Declaration

9/13/2018: Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: Declaration

Reply - Reply in Support of Motion for Summary Adjudication

10/18/2018: Reply - Reply in Support of Motion for Summary Adjudication

Appeal - Notice of Fees Due for Clerk's Transcript on Appeal - Appeal - Notice of Fees Due for Clerk's Transcript on Appeal Supplemental noa 06/09/17

10/30/2018: Appeal - Notice of Fees Due for Clerk's Transcript on Appeal - Appeal - Notice of Fees Due for Clerk's Transcript on Appeal Supplemental noa 06/09/17

Motion to Consolidate

4/26/2019: Motion to Consolidate

Memorandum of Points & Authorities

4/26/2019: Memorandum of Points & Authorities

439 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 10/19/2020
  • Docketat 09:00 AM in Department G, John A. Torribio, Presiding; Hearing on Motion - Other (of Defendant Samarin for Bench Trial) - Held - Motion Denied

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/19/2020
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Hearing on Motion - Other of Defendant Samarin for Bench Trial)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/19/2020
  • DocketOrder (Tentative adopted as final order); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/15/2020
  • DocketReply (Surreply to Defendants' Motion for a Bench Trial); Filed by FARZAD KOHANBASH (Plaintiff); WHOLESOME MELROSE BAKERY, INC. (Cross-Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/05/2020
  • 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
  • 10/01/2020
  • DocketReply (to Opp to Mx for Bench Trial as to Remaining Defense of Unclean Hands); Filed by Daniel Samarin (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/16/2020
  • DocketOpposition (Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Bench Trial); Filed by FARZAD KOHANBASH (Plaintiff); WHOLESOME MELROSE BAKERY, INC. (Cross-Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/03/2020
  • DocketProof of Personal Service (of Defendant's Motion for New Trial); Filed by SPECIALTY BAKING, INC. (Cross-Complainant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/03/2020
  • DocketMemorandum of Points & Authorities (in Support of Defendant's Motion for Court Trial); Filed by SPECIALTY BAKING, INC. (Cross-Complainant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/03/2020
  • DocketMotion for New Trial (of D/XC Specialty Baking, Inc and Robert Murillo); Filed by SPECIALTY BAKING, INC. (Cross-Complainant)

    Read MoreRead Less
585 More Docket Entries
  • 10/11/2016
  • DocketAmendment to Complaint (Fictitious/Incorrect Name); Filed by Daniel Samarin (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/11/2016
  • DocketDemand for Jury Trial; Filed by FARZAD KOHANBASH (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/11/2016
  • DocketRtn of Service of Summons & Compl; Filed by FARZAD KOHANBASH (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/08/2016
  • DocketStatement of Damages (Personal Injury or Wrongful Death); Filed by Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/08/2016
  • DocketNotice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/08/2016
  • DocketSummons; Filed by Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/08/2016
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/08/2016
  • DocketComplaint filed-Summons Issued; Filed by FARZAD KOHANBASH (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/01/1900
  • Docketat 08:32 AM in Department Legacy; Unknown event

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/01/1900
  • Docketat 08:32 AM in Department Legacy; Unknown event

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: VC065792    Hearing Date: October 19, 2020    Dept: G

KOHANBASH v. SPECIALTY BAKING, INC.

CASE NO.: VC065792

HEARING: 10/19/2020

TENTATIVE RULING

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

CASE NO.:

HEARING: 12/2/19

TENTATIVE ORDER

Motion for Attorney Fees on Appeal is GRANTED.
related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where SPECIALTY BAKING INC is a litigant

Latest cases where WHOLESOME MELROSE BAKERY INC. is a litigant

Latest cases where LEE & ASSOCIATES COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE SERVICES INC.-CITY OF INDUSTRY is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer GRAMLING KEVIN JOSEPH