This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 06/18/2019 at 14:09:35 (UTC).

LEONID TEPLITSKY VS. ILANA MALARAN

Case Summary

On 10/03/2016 LEONID TEPLITSKY filed a Property - Other Property Fraud lawsuit against ILANA MALARAN. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Burbank Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are LAURA A. MATZ and CURTIS A. KIN. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****5795

  • Filing Date:

    10/03/2016

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Property - Other Property Fraud

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Burbank Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

LAURA A. MATZ

CURTIS A. KIN

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

TEPLITSKY LEONID

Defendants

MALARAN ILANA

NARALAM LLC DOE 1

AZRILYAN STANLEY

NARALAM LLC (DOE 1)

Others

SIGELMAN/PERLMAN LAW FIRM

FIRM SIGELMAN/PERLMAN LAW

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorneys

RAISKIN & REVITZ

REVITZ STEVEN JEROME

Defendant Attorneys

SPEISER ELLIOTT R

ELLIOTT R. SPEISER & ASSOCIATES

 

Court Documents

Minute Order

1/3/2017: Minute Order

Case Management Statement

2/3/2017: Case Management Statement

Minute Order

3/2/2017: Minute Order

Minute Order

8/16/2017: Minute Order

Minute Order

9/7/2017: Minute Order

Unknown

9/21/2017: Unknown

Answer

9/27/2017: Answer

Minute Order

10/20/2017: Minute Order

Minute Order

10/27/2017: Minute Order

Summons

11/2/2017: Summons

Unknown

1/4/2018: Unknown

Objection

10/22/2018: Objection

Declaration

10/22/2018: Declaration

Objection

12/10/2018: Objection

Minute Order

12/27/2018: Minute Order

Minute Order

1/29/2019: Minute Order

Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

2/4/2019: Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

2/13/2019: Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

26 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 04/26/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department E, Curtis A. Kin, Presiding; Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment - Not Held - Rescheduled by Party

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/13/2019
  • Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by LEONID TEPLITSKY (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/06/2019
  • Certificate of Mailing for ([Minute Order (Court Order)]); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/04/2019
  • at 11:30 AM in Department E, Curtis A. Kin, Presiding; Court Order

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/04/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Court Order)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/04/2019
  • Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by LEONID TEPLITSKY (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/29/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department E, Curtis A. Kin, Presiding; Status Conference - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/29/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Status Conference)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/28/2019
  • Notice of Case Reassignment and Order for Plaintiff to Give Notice; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/28/2019
  • Notice of Case Reassignment and Order for Plaintiff to Give Notice; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
103 More Docket Entries
  • 01/03/2017
  • at 08:30 am in Department NCGE, Laura A. Matz, Presiding; Order to Show Cause (RE FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH TRIALCOURT DELAY REDUCTION ACT) - OSC Discharged

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/03/2017
  • Minute order entered: 2017-01-03 00:00:00; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/30/2016
  • Answer; Filed by ILANA MALARAN (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/30/2016
  • Answer; Filed by Attorney for Defendant

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/27/2016
  • Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/27/2016
  • Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by LEONID TEPLITSKY (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/03/2016
  • Summons; Filed by null

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/03/2016
  • Complaint filed-Summons Issued; Filed by null

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/03/2016
  • Summons Filed

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/03/2016
  • Complaint filed-Summons Issued

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: EC065795    Hearing Date: December 13, 2019    Dept: E

ORDER TO SHOW CAUASE RE:

LIFT OF STAY OF PROCEEDINGS

Date: 12/13/19

Cases: Leonid Teplisky v. Ilana Malaran (EC 065795)

Leonid Teplitsky v. Ilana Malarank, et al. (LC 105154)

TENTATIVE RULING:

  1. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Leonid Teplitsky brings action LC 105154 for fraudulent conveyance and to impose a constructive trust, alleging that in June 2008, plaintiff obtained a judgment against defendants Stanley Azrilyan (“Stanley”), Deanna Azrilyan (“Deanna”), and RX Ingredients, Inc. (“RXI”) in LASC Case No. LC 076314, in the amount of $225,000, which was renewed in May 2016 in the sum of $398,459.40. Plaintiff alleges that defendant Ilana Malaran is the wife or girlfriend of Stanley. The First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) alleges that, in August 2016, defendant 4600 Group acquired title to property in Sherman Oaks from a long-time friend of Stanley and Deanna, who formally worked for RXI. Plaintiff alleges that defendant Malaran is a member of 4600 Group, and that Stanley, Deanna, and RXI have an equitable interest in 4600 Group, which was created to disguise defendants’ ownership interest in the Sherman Oaks real property. Plaintiff further alleges that property was paid with the funds of defendants RXI, Stanley, Deanna and/or Active Recovery Center, Inc. Plaintiff additionally alleges that, when 4600 Group took title to the property, it did so in conspiracy with defendants Malaran, Stanley, Deanna, and/or RXI for the purpose of hiding assets in order to defraud plaintiff and prevent him from executing against the assets of RXI, Stanley and/or Deanna order to satisfy plaintiff’s judgment. It is also alleged that funds were improperly diverted to pay for improvements to the subject property.

On February 15, 2017, LC 105154 was ordered related to Case No. EC 065795, with EC 065795 designated as the lead case. On March 3, 2017, the action was transferred to this department. In EC 065795, plaintiff Teplitsky brings a similar action for fraudulent conveyance and to impose a constructive trust, alleging: that defendant Malaran is a member of defendant Naralam, LLC; that in September of 2015, Naralam acquired fee title to real property in Studio City; and that property was purchased with the funds of defendant RXI and Active Recovery Center, Inc., even though defendant Malaran contends the entirety of the purchase price came from her funds. In January 2016, Malaran took title to the property. Plaintiff alleges that Naralam first obtained title to the property, that Maralan took title to the property thereafter, and that they conspired with each other, as well as with defendants Stanley, Deanna, and RXI, to hinder, delay or defraud plaintiff and prevent him from executing against the assets of RXI, Stanley and/or Deanna in order to satisfy plaintiff’s judgment obtained in the LC 076314.

On February 16, 2018, the Court in EC 065795, heard a motion by defendant Malaran for a stay pending resolution of criminal proceedings, which was granted. The minute order states:

(9th Cir. 1995) 45 F.3d 322, 324. In so doing, this Court should c

onsider the following factors, which are sometimes referred to as the Keating factors:

(1) the interest of the plaintiffs in proceeding expeditiously with this litigation or any particular aspect of it, and the potential prejud

ice to plaintiffs of a delay;

(2) the burden which any particular aspect of the proceedi“The court finds that the fifth amendment rights of more than one named defendant are implicated in a pending federal criminal proceeding and a state investigation.”

On September 7, 2018, the Court heard a motion by Stanley seeking a stay on the same basis. The motion to stay brought by Stanley was granted. The minute order states: “The court finds the fifth amendment rights of the moving defendant are implicated in a pending federal criminal proceeding and a state investigation. The matter is stayed as to defendants Ilana Malaran and Stanley Azrilyan only. Discovery may proceed as to the remaining parties.”

Defendants Deanna and RXI filed a motion for an order staying the proceedings in both cases as against them. On December 27, 2018, the Court issued its minute order granting the motion, finding that Deanna’s Fifth Amendment rights were implicated because of a pending administrative investigation and Accusation being pursued by the California Attorney General, and also because of the federal criminal proceedings pending against co-defendant Stanley and potential federal investigations into Deanna and her company.

On September 6, 2019, the parties submitted to the court a “Joint Report Regarding Status of Criminal Proceeding . . . .” At a Further Status Conference on September 18, 2019, the Court heard argument from the parties regarding the stay of proceedings and ultimately issued a Minute Order, stating: “The Court hereby issues an Order to Show Cause as to Why the Stay of Proceedings Should Not Lifted as to Defendants Deanna Azrilyan and Ilana Malaran.” The Court invited responses from the parties concerning the Order to Show Cause. Plaintiff Teplitsky and Defendants Malaran and Deanna each filed supplemental pleadings, which the Court has considered.

  1. DISCUSSION

The Court has the authority and discretion to issue a stay in circumstances where parallel civil and criminal actions are proceeding:

The Constitution does not require a stay of civil proceedings pending the outcome of criminal proceedings. A court, however, has the discretion to stay civil proceedings, postpone civil discovery, or impose protective orders and conditions when the interests of justice seem to require such action, sometimes at the request of the prosecution, sometimes at the request of the defense.

(Avant! Corp. v. Superior Court (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 876, 886.) In making this determination, this Court should consider the extent to which the party’s fifth amendment rights are implicated. Avant!, 79 Cal.App. at p. 885 [citing Keating v. Office of Thrift Supervision ngs may impose on defendants;

(3) the convenience of the court in the management of its cases, and the efficient use of judicial resources;

(4) the interests of persons not parties to the civil litigation; and

(5) the interest of the public in the pending civil and criminal litigation.

(Id. at 887.) Here, the Court finds that the previously ordered stay of the proceedings as to defendants Malaran and Deanna

The Court does not find that the fifth amendment rights of either Malaran or Deanna are sufficiently implicated to justify the continued stay of proceedings. With respect to Malaran, the only hint of potential criminal exposure is her declaration that she was contacted by federal investigators in July 2017 regarding the criminal prosecution of defendant Stanley. [Malaran Decl. ¶ 2]. Even assuming that vague assertion of contact by a criminal investigator was sufficient to find Malaran faced a material possibility of criminal exposure in connection with Stanley’s federal criminal matters, that is no longer so. Approximately two and one-half years have passed since that contact. The record before this Court is bereft of any evidence of further contact by federal criminal investigators or prosecutors, or any discovery or other materials from the long-pending investigations and filed cases that in any way implicates Malaran. Indeed, superseding indictments have been returned by federal grand juries without naming or implicating Malaran in any fashion. Likewise, for these same reasons, the pendency of the federal criminal actions against Stanley and potentially ongoing investigations are insufficient to maintain a stay here as to Deanna. Indeed, there is no showing before this Court that Deanna has ever been contacted or investigated by federal criminal authorities. The declarations of Michale H. Artan, counsel for Stanley in his criminal matter, are so vague and conclusory regarding Deanna’s theoretical criminal exposure as to be speculative at best. Notably absent from those declarations is any specific factual showing that Deanna might be under criminal investigation or faces a material probability that may be the case.

The Court also notes that the stay as to Deanna was previously imposed because there was a pending Accusation against Deanna and RXI filled by the Board of Pharmacy. Even assuming such a civil, regulatory action could be sufficient to implicate fifth amendment concerns, the Accusation of Deanna certainly no longer does so. According to plaintiff, the Accusation involved a licensing dispute, and it has been recently fully resolved as of November 27, 2019, when Public Records concerning the Disciplinary Actions show that, “THROUGH A DISCIPLINARY ACTION OF THE BOARD, THE LICENSE IS VOLUNTARILY SURRENDERED.” [See Reply to Response of Defendant, Deanna Azrilyan, Ex. 2].

Finally, consideration of the various Keating factors counsels a lifting of the stay. Plaintiff certainly has an interest in collecting on a judgment that has long-remained unsatisfied, even if plaintiff may have other avenues to collect or has taken several years to enforce his rights. Allowing this matter to go forward so that plaintiff may exercise his right to discovery in furtherance of his claims does not present such a burden on defendants Malaran and Deanna as to justify a blanket stay of the proceedings against them entirely at the outset. This Court also has an interest in the efficient resolution of cases, as well as the robust protection of Fifth Amendment right without permitting the overbroad invocation of such rights so as to diminish them when properly invoked.

Accordingly, there being no good cause shown in response to this Court’s Order to Show Cause as to Why the Stay of Proceedings Should Not Lifted as to Defendants Deanna Azrilyan and Ilana Malaran, the Court hereby lifts the Stay as to those defendants. The parties should be prepared to discuss at the hearing on the Order to Show Cause how this case should proceed now that the stay has been lifted as to some of the named defendants.