NILOFAR KAHROBAI ET AL VS HOTEL FUND LLC ET AL

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC635436    Hearing Date: September 01, 2020    Dept: 74

BC635436 NILOFAR KAHROBAI vs HOTEL FUND LLC

Defendant KB Investment Partners III Unopposed Motion for Leave to File a Cross-Complaint

TENTATIVE RULING: The motion is GRANTED. Defendant may file the [proposed] cross-complaint within 10 days.

Case Number: BC635436    Hearing Date: February 21, 2020    Dept: 74

BC635436 NILOFAR KAHROBAI ET AL VS HOTEL FUND LLC ET AL

Defendants’ Hotel Fund, LLC and KB Investment Partners III Motion to Expunge Lis Pendens

TENTATIVE RULING: The motion to expunge lis pendens is DENIED. The request for an undertaking is DENIED. The request for attorney fees is DENIED.

Requests for Judicial Notice

Plaintiff’s request for judicial notice is GRANTED. Evidence Code §452(c).

Defendant KB Investment Partners III’s motion for judicial notice is GRANTED. Evidence Code §452(d)(1).

Evidentiary Objections

Plaintiff’s evidentiary objections (Nos. 1-16) to the declaration of Yaniv Yasmeh are OVERRULED.

Plaintiff’s evidentiary objections (Nos. 1-16) to the declaration of Allan Lowy are OVERRULED.

Plaintiff’s evidentiary objections (Nos. 1-15) to the declaration of Ofer Kashanian are OVERRULED.

KB’s evidentiary objections (Nos. 1-32) to the declaration of Nilofar Kahrobai are OVERRULED.

KB’s evidentiary objections (Nos. 1-14) to the declaration of Bryan Mashian are OVERRULED.

Motion to Expunge Lis Pendens

The FAC states causes of action for cancellation of instrument, quiet title and fraudulent transfer (see ¶¶ 1, 26, 27, 35) and therefore contains real property claims.

“[T]he court shall order that the notice be expunged if the court finds that the claimant has not established by a preponderance of the evidence the probable validity of the real property claim. The court shall not order an undertaking to be given as a condition of expunging the notice if the court finds the claimant has not established the probable validity of the real property claim.” CCP §405.32.

Plaintiff has standing to assert the claims stated in the FAC. Corporations Code §17709.02(a) provides: “No action shall be instituted or maintained in right of any domestic or foreign limited liability company by any member of the limited liability company unless both of the following conditions exist: [¶] (1) The plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the plaintiff was a member of record, or beneficiary, at the time of the transaction or any part of the transaction of which the plaintiff complains….[¶] (2) The plaintiff alleges in the complaint with particularity the plaintiff's efforts to secure from the managers the action the plaintiff desires or the reasons for not making that effort, and alleges further that the plaintiff has either informed the limited liability company or the managers in writing of the ultimate facts of each cause of action against each defendant or delivered to the limited liability company or the managers a true copy of the complaint that the plaintiff proposes to file.”

Plaintiff alleges she obtained a membership interest in the Soto Street Partners, LLC (the “LLC”) in 2009. (FAC ¶ 17.) Plaintiff alleges she still maintains a membership interest in the LLC. (FAC ¶ 18.) Thus, Plaintiff sufficiently alleges that she was a member of record at the time of the allegedly fraudulent deed was signed in May 2015. Thus, section 17709.02(a)(1) is satisfied.

Plaintiff further alleges she was married to and divorced from Ebrahim Kahrobaie and their property settlement was finalized on or about March 27, 2009. (FAC, ¶16.) In her declaration submitted in opposition to this motion, plaintiff states she and Ebrahim recorded the Property Settlement Agreement with the Los Angeles County Recorder’s office as Document #20090482101 on April 3, 2009. (Dec. of Nilofar Kahrobai, ¶11.) The Property Settlement Agreement, Schedule of Assets, Exhibit B, specified that the marital interest of Ebrahim and plaintiff in the 33.33% membership interests in Soto Street LLC was then plaintiff’s sole and separate property. (Dec. of Nilofar Kahrobai, ¶12.) Before Ebrahim and plaintiff executed the Property Settlement Agreement, in or about mid-February of 2009, Ebrahim and plaintiff advised Masoud and Joseph of the Property Settlement Agreement and in particular, that Ebrahim’s 33.3% interest in Soto Street LLC was now plaintiff’s separate property. (Dec. of Nilofar Kahrobai, ¶13.) Masoud was in attendance when plaintiff and Ebrahim signed the Property Settlement Agreement and, in addition, plaintiff advised Bruce, one of the managing members of Hotel Fund, of the fact that Ebrahim’s interest in Soto Street LLC was now her separate property as a result of the Property Settlement Agreement with Ebrahim. (Id.) In or around early April of 2009, plaintiff also gave Bruce an executed copy of the Property Settlement Agreement. (Id.) The FAC alleges plaintiff was never consulted, advised, or requested to approve of a transfer of a membership interest in Soto Partners, LLC to Hotel Fund. (FAC, ¶23.)

The court finds plaintiff has established by a preponderance of the evidence the probable validity of her real property claims. The motion to expunge lis pendens is DENIED. The request for an undertaking is DENIED. The request for attorney fees is DENIED.

Case Number: BC635436    Hearing Date: January 15, 2020    Dept: 74

BC635436 NILOFAR KAHROBAI ET AL VS HOTEL FUND LLC ET AL

Plaintiff’s Unopposed Motion to Compel Deposition of Yaniv Yasmeh and for Sanctions

TENTATIVE RULING: The motion is granted. Defendant Yaniv Yasmeh is to appear for deposition at a time and place designated by plaintiff within 15 days. Defendant is to pay plaintiff sanctions of $810 within 30 days.