This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 01/29/2020 at 02:15:47 (UTC).

HOSSEIN SHAHBAZIAN VS DARREL A. HESSER

Case Summary

On 02/20/2015 HOSSEIN SHAHBAZIAN filed a Property - Other Real Property lawsuit against DARREL A HESSER. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Torrance Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are STUART M. RICE and DEIRDRE HILL. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****0413

  • Filing Date:

    02/20/2015

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Property - Other Real Property

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Torrance Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

STUART M. RICE

DEIRDRE HILL

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs, Cross Defendants and Appellants

SHAHBAZIAN HOSSEIN

SHAHBAZIAN VICTORIA

Defendants, Cross Plaintiffs and Interested Parties

DOES 1 TO 25

HESSER BRENDA

HESSER DARREL A.

CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES

Defendants, Respondents and Cross Plaintiffs

HESSER DARREL A.

CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES

Defendants and Cross Plaintiffs

HESSER BRENDA

HESSER DARREL A.

Defendant, Respondent and Interested Party

CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Respondent Attorneys

JOSEPH S. DZIDA ESQ.

MICHAEL S. BRAUN ESQ.

CYRUS SHAHBAZIAN

DZIDA JOSEPH STEVEN JR

HEWITT ANTOINETTE PICON

Defendant and Cross Plaintiff Attorneys

KUTAK ROCK LLP

THE WEINBERG LAW GORUP

GOWER RICHARD

GOWER RICHARD S.

TREDWAY KEVIN PATRICK

 

Court Documents

Case Management Statement

10/3/2016: Case Management Statement

Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: OBJECTION DOCUMENT FILED

3/15/2017: Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: OBJECTION DOCUMENT FILED

Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: MEMORANDUM OF COSTS

1/31/2018: Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: MEMORANDUM OF COSTS

Request for Judicial Notice

4/18/2018: Request for Judicial Notice

Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: Designation of Record on Appeal

9/13/2018: Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: Designation of Record on Appeal

Minute Order - Minute Order (Ex-Parte Application of Plaintiffs for Entry Of Judgment)

10/18/2018: Minute Order - Minute Order (Ex-Parte Application of Plaintiffs for Entry Of Judgment)

Notice of Entry of Judgment

11/7/2018: Notice of Entry of Judgment

Memorandum of Costs (Summary)

11/7/2018: Memorandum of Costs (Summary)

Appeal - Notice of Appeal/Cross Appeal Filed - Notice of Appeal/Cross Appeal Filed

11/16/2018: Appeal - Notice of Appeal/Cross Appeal Filed - Notice of Appeal/Cross Appeal Filed

Notice of Case Reassignment and Order for Plaintiff to Give Notice

12/24/2018: Notice of Case Reassignment and Order for Plaintiff to Give Notice

Appeal - Remittitur - Appeal Dismissed - APPEAL - REMITTITUR - APPEAL DISMISSED B292535

5/2/2019: Appeal - Remittitur - Appeal Dismissed - APPEAL - REMITTITUR - APPEAL DISMISSED B292535

Ex Parte Application - EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL

6/25/2019: Ex Parte Application - EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL

Notice of Ruling

6/27/2019: Notice of Ruling

Reply - REPLY BRIEF RE MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND

9/10/2019: Reply - REPLY BRIEF RE MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND

Order - ORDER GRANTING CITY OF RPV'S EX PARTE APPLICATION

9/30/2019: Order - ORDER GRANTING CITY OF RPV'S EX PARTE APPLICATION

Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE TO PRECLUDE PLAINTIFFS FROM OFFERING EVIDENCE AS TO LOSS OF VIEW

10/9/2019: Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE TO PRECLUDE PLAINTIFFS FROM OFFERING EVIDENCE AS TO LOSS OF VIEW

Motion to Strike (not anti-SLAPP) - without Demurrer - NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF PLAINTIFFS' THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT

10/22/2019: Motion to Strike (not anti-SLAPP) - without Demurrer - NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF PLAINTIFFS' THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT

Opposition - OPPOSITION OF DEFENDANTS AND CROSS-COMPLAINANTS DARREL AND BRENDA HESSER TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION IN LIMINE NO.1

10/24/2019: Opposition - OPPOSITION OF DEFENDANTS AND CROSS-COMPLAINANTS DARREL AND BRENDA HESSER TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION IN LIMINE NO.1

96 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 05/27/2020
  • Hearing05/27/2020 at 10:00 AM in Department B at 825 Maple Ave., Torrance, CA 90503; Jury Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/20/2020
  • Hearing05/20/2020 at 08:30 AM in Department B at 825 Maple Ave., Torrance, CA 90503; Final Status Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/10/2020
  • Hearing03/10/2020 at 08:30 AM in Department B at 825 Maple Ave., Torrance, CA 90503; Status Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/17/2019
  • DocketDefendants' Answer to Plaintiffs' Third Amended Complaint; Filed by DARREL A. HESSER (Defendant); BRENDA HESSER (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/13/2019
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department B; Case Management Conference - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/13/2019
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department B; Hearing on Motion to Strike (not anti-SLAPP) - without Demurrer - Held - Motion Denied

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/13/2019
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Hearing on Motion to Strike (not anti-SLAPP) - without Demurr...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/05/2019
  • DocketDefendants' Reply Brief Re Motion to Strike Portions of Plaintiffs' Third Amended Complaint; Filed by DARREL A. HESSER (Defendant); BRENDA HESSER (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/02/2019
  • DocketOPPOSITION TO MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT; Filed by HOSSEIN SHAHBAZIAN (Plaintiff); Vicky A. Shahbazian Erroneously Sued As VICTORIA SHAHBAZIAN (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/02/2019
  • DocketCase Management Statement; Filed by DARREL A. HESSER (Defendant); BRENDA HESSER (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
221 More Docket Entries
  • 06/09/2015
  • DocketNotice of Hearing on Demurrer; Filed by BRENDA HESSER (Defendant); DARREL A. HESSER (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/01/2015
  • DocketRequest for Judicial Notice; Filed by BRENDA HESSER (Defendant); DARREL A. HESSER (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/18/2015
  • DocketSubstitution of Attorney; Filed by HOSSEIN SHAHBAZIAN (Plaintiff); Vicky A. Shahbazian Erroneously Sued As VICTORIA SHAHBAZIAN (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/30/2015
  • DocketStipulation and Order

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/07/2015
  • DocketMotion; Filed by HOSSEIN SHAHBAZIAN (Plaintiff); Vicky A. Shahbazian Erroneously Sued As VICTORIA SHAHBAZIAN (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/17/2015
  • DocketProof-Service/Summons; Filed by HOSSEIN SHAHBAZIAN (Plaintiff); Vicky A. Shahbazian Erroneously Sued As VICTORIA SHAHBAZIAN (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/17/2015
  • DocketProof-Service/Summons; Filed by HOSSEIN SHAHBAZIAN (Plaintiff); Vicky A. Shahbazian Erroneously Sued As VICTORIA SHAHBAZIAN (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/20/2015
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by null

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/20/2015
  • DocketSummons; Filed by null

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/20/2015
  • DocketNotice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: YC070413    Hearing Date: December 13, 2019    Dept: SWB

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Southwest District

Torrance Dept. B

HOSSEIN SHAHBAZIAN, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

Case No.:

YC070413

vs.

[Tentative] RULING

DARREL A. HESSER, et al.,

Defendants.

Hearing Date: December 13, 2019

Moving Parties: Defendants Darrel A. Hesser and Brenda Hesser

Responding Party: Plaintiff Hossein Shahbazian

Motion to Strike Portions of Third Amended Complaint

The court considered the moving, opposition, and reply papers.

RULING

The motion is DENIED.

BACKGROUND

On September 14, 2015, plaintiffs Hossein Shahbazian and Vicky A. Shahbazian filed a First Amended Complaint against Darrel A. Hesser, Brenda Hesser, and City of Rancho Palos Verdes.

Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint for (1) negligence, (2) trespass, and (3) nuisance. Plaintiffs allege that they are next door neighbors to defendants. Plaintiffs allege that defendants destroyed the existing fence at the boundary line between the two properties and installed a new fence.

On September 18, 2019, plaintiffs filed a Third Amended Complaint, after the court granted leave.

LEGAL AUTHORITY

The court may, upon a motion, or at any time in its discretion, and upon terms it deems proper, strike any irrelevant, false, or improper matter inserted in any pleading. CCP § 436(a). The court may also strike all or any part of any pleading not drawn or filed in conformity with the laws of this state, a court rule, or an order of the court. CCP § 436(b). The grounds for a motion to strike are that the pleading has irrelevant, false or improper matter, or has not been drawn or filed in conformity with laws. CCP § 436. The grounds for moving to strike must appear on the face of the pleading or by way of judicial notice. CCP § 437.

DISCUSSION

Defendants request that the court strike the TAC at para. 12 “(b) declaratory relief under Code of Civil Procedure §1060 as to the parties’ respective rights, if any, in the Boundary so that disputes like this do not arise again in the future” and the prayer at page 13, line 14 “D. As to the Hessers and Does 1 to 9 only, declaratory relief under CCP §1060 as to the plaintiffs’ and Hessers’ rights, if any, in the Boundary, so that disputes like this do not rise again in the future.”

In the TAC, plaintiffs allege that this dispute concerns the boundary between two abutting residential properties in Rancho Palos Verdes. Plaintiffs have been the owners of their property since 1990. Defendants have been the owners of their property since 2006. Currently, a fence sitting on top of a wall/foundation separates the properties. The fence was constructed by the Hessers without prior notice to or consent of plaintiffs’. Defendants shaved and thinned the fence without prior notice or consent. The fence replaced a prior fence that had sat atop the unshaved wall/foundation. These fences and the wall/foundation are referred to as the Boundary.

Plaintiffs allege that they have ownership and other rights to the Boundary based on the legal doctrine called “practical location” as set forth in French v. Brinkman (1963) 60 Cal. 2d 547. Further, the wall/foundation portion of the Boundary provides later and subjacent support to the higher plaintiffs’ property and holds it in place.

The court had previously allowed plaintiffs to amend to add a claim for declaratory relief. The court does not find that the language is irrelevant, false, or improper. CCP §1060 states that declaratory relief may be requested “either alone or with other relief.” Plaintiffs have alleged that they are persons interested in a declaration of their rights or duties with respect to property, which in this case, is the “Boundary” between the properties.

The motion is DENIED.

Plaintiffs are ordered to give notice of the ruling.