This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 03/19/2016 at 05:35:33 (UTC).

ONEUNITED BANK VS MASSOUD G. TAYYAR, ET AL

Case Summary

On 06/28/2013 ONEUNITED BANK filed a Contract - Debt Collection lawsuit against MASSOUD G TAYYAR. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Glendale Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are LAURA A. MATZ and DONNA FIELDS GOLDSTEIN. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****0889

  • Filing Date:

    06/28/2013

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Contract - Debt Collection

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Glendale Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

LAURA A. MATZ

DONNA FIELDS GOLDSTEIN

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Cross Defendant

ONEUNITED BANK

Defendants and Cross Plaintiffs

EFFECTIVE MORTGAGE COMPANY

SALINAS CYNTHIA M.

STEVE FAIR DOE 1 11 61 AND 71

TAYYAR MASSOUD G.

STEVE FAIR DOE AND 71

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorneys

EPPORT RICHMAN & ROBBINS LLP

EPPORT & RICHMAN LAW OFFICES OF

Defendant Attorneys

GOODFRIEND MARK E.

LAW OFFICES OF MARK E. GOODFRIEND

ROGER MANLIN

Court Documents

Court documents are not available for this case.

 

Docket Entries

  • 12/15/2015
  • Notice (OF SETTING TRIAL DATE ) Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/03/2015
  • Notice (OF ENTRY OF ORDER IN BANKRUPTCY CASE ) Filed by Atty for Plaintiff and Cross-Deft

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/16/2015
  • Notice (OF LODGEMNT OF ORDER IN BANKRUPTCY CASE RE; MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM STAY ) Filed by Atty for Plaintiff and Cross-Deft

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/10/2015
  • Notice (OF FURHTER CONTINUED STATUS CONFERENCE RE BANKCRUPTCH ) Filed by Atty for Plaintiff and Cross-Deft

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/28/2015
  • Notice (OF CONTINUED STATUS CONFERENCE ) Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/25/2014
  • Notice-Related Cases Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/04/2014
  • Notice of Ruling Filed by Atty for Plaintiff and Cross-Deft

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/28/2014
  • Declaration (OF TYLER R. WOSALL ) Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/25/2014
  • Proof of Service Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/06/2014
  • Notice of Ruling (OF TRIAL SETTING CONFERENCE. ) Filed by Atty for Plaintiff and Cross-Deft

    Read MoreRead Less
83 More Docket Entries
  • 07/02/2013
  • Declaration (OF MALCOLM BENNETT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF RECEIVER ) Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/02/2013
  • Miscellaneous-Other (NOMINATION OF MALCOLM BENNETT AS RECEIVER ) Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/28/2013
  • Complaint Filed

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/28/2013
  • Summons Issued

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/28/2013
  • Order to Show Cause (re trial court delay reduction act ) Filed by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/28/2013
  • Summons Filed Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/28/2013
  • Complaint

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/28/2013
  • Notice-Case Management Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/28/2013
  • Notice (of OSC re trial court delay reduction ) Filed by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/28/2013
  • Notice-Case Management Conference Filed by Court

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: EC060889    Hearing Date: February 28, 2020    Dept: E

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE FIRST AMENDED CROSS-COMPLAINT

Date: 2/28/20

Case: OneUnited Bank v. Massoud G. Tayyar, et al. (EC 060889)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Cross-Complainants Massoud Tayyar’s and Cynthia Salinas’s Motion for Leave to File First Amended Cross-Complaint (“FAXC”) is DENIED. Cross-Complainants seek to add a claim for punitive damages in connection with the second cause of action for Wrongful Foreclosure. (FAXC ¶ 13 & Prayer for Relief at ¶ 3.) Cross-Complainants also seek to delete previously dismissed causes of action.

In the FAXC, cross-complainants do not allege any facts supporting their allegation that Cross Defendant OneUnited Bank’s conduct during foreclosure proceedings rose to the level of fraud, oppression, or malice. (See Civ. Code § 3294(a); Perkins v. Superior Court (1981) 117 Cal.App.3d 1, 6 [pleading conclusion of law does not fulfill requirement to state facts constituting cause of action].) Cross-complainants merely allege in conclusory fashion that the “acts and conduct of [OneUnited Bank] were despicable [and] constituted fraud, oppression and malice,” without stating the nature of that conduct or alleging an factual basis for such conclusions. (Id. at pp. 6-7 [“[p]leading in the language of the [punitive damages] statute is not objectionable when sufficient facts are alleged to support the allegation].) Where, as here, the amendment is futile on its face, leave to amend may be denied. (Long v. Century Indem. Co. (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 1460, 1468.)

Furthermore, even if cross-complainants could specifically allege conduct during the foreclosure proceedings that might entitled them to punitive damages, prejudice would result if a claim for punitive damages were added to the Cross-Complaint at this stage of the proceedings. As asserted by cross-complainants on the first page of the motion, the five-year deadline now expires on August 7, 2020. The addition of a punitive damages claim would not permit enough time to perfect the pleading, conduct discovery and bring a motion for summary judgment. By permitting the FAXC, One United Bank would be prejudiced in its defense against the cross-claims. (Hirsa v. Superior Court (1981) 118 Cal.App.3d 486, 490.) Moreover, the Court notes the original Cross-Complaint was filed on July 23, 2013. Notwithstanding cross-complainants’ assertion that their focus was on stopping the foreclosure proceedings at the time of the original filing, cross-complainants had six years to assert a claim for punitive damages. Such lack of diligence by cross-complainants also warrants denial of the request for leave to amend. (Ibid.)

Case Number: EC060889    Hearing Date: December 27, 2019    Dept: E

(1) TAYYAR/SALINAS MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE FIRST AMENDED CROSS-COMPLAINT;

(2) ONE UNITED BANK’S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS

Date: 12/27/19

Case: OneUnited Bank v. Massoud G. Tayyar, et al. (EC 060889)

TENTATIVE RULING:

I. MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMENDED CROSS-COMPLAINT

Defendants and Cross-Complainants Massoud Tayyar’s and Cynthia Salinas’s Motion for Leave of Court to File First Amended and Supplemental Cross-Complaint is DENIED.

As a preliminary matter, One United Bank’s requests for judicial notice as to Exhibits J, K, N, and U are GRANTED insofar as the Court takes notice the existence of the documents, but not the truth of the matters asserted therein. (See Evid. Code § 452(d) [court records]; Sosinsky v. Grant (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 1548, 1564-69.) In addition, One United Bank’s requests for judicial notice as to Exhibits L, M, O, P, and V are GRANTED, pursuant to Evidence Code § 452(d). One United Bank’s other requests are DENIED, as no provision of Evidence Code § 452 allows the court to take judicial notice of these documents.

Cross-complainants’ request to take judicial notice of the reporter’s transcript of the 10/25/19 proceedings is GRANTED, pursuant to Evidence Code § 452(d).

Cross-Complainants’ reply exceeds 10 pages in violation of the rules. (See Cal. Rule of Court 3.1113(d) [“No reply or closing memorandum may exceed 10 pages”].) The Court disregards page 12-15 of the reply.

On the merits, the Court finds that the first and second causes of action (alleged breaches of the forbearance agreement and wrongful foreclosure in 2013), on the one hand, are entirely separate and distinct from the third and fourth causes of actions (alleged wrongful conduct during refinancing in 2019), on the other hand. These causes of action in the proposed amended cross-complaint concern entirely different conduct separated by over six years and give rise to entirely different claims for damages. In sum, the 2013 and 2019 events giving rise to these causes of action concern separate transactions for which this Court finds the filing of the supplemental cross-complaint inappropriate. (See Flood v. Simpson (1975) 45 Cal.App.3d 644, 647 [“[T]he court properly denied the motion on the basis that the supplement to the complaint sought to introduce new causes of action”].)

Accordingly, the motion for leave to file a First Amended and Supplemental Cross-Complaint is DENIED. On the Court’s own motion, the Proposed First Amended and Supplemental Cross-Complaint, erroneously filed on 12/13/19 without leave of Court, is STRICKEN.

II. MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS

Plaintiff and Cross-Defendant One United Bank has moved for judgment on the pleadings as to the second cause of action for breach of contract asserted in Tayyar’s and Salinas’s Cross-Complaint. The basis for the motion is One United Bank’s contention that the cross-complaint is inconsistent with allegations in Tayyar’s and Salinas’s Proposed Amended Cross-Complaint, in that the amended cross-complaint alleges the contract at issue was entered into “under duress,” which means no contract was ever formed for One United Bank to breach. There are several problems with this argument. First, the purported inconsistency is contained in a version of an amended cross-complaint never filed by Tayyar and Salinas. (See One United Mot. at 9 [citing One United’s Request for Judicial Notice Ex. U at ¶ 8].) Second, the amended cross-complaint that was filed has now been stricken and, more to the point, does not contain the “under duress” allegation upon which One United Bank relies. Third, even if One United Bank could overcome these fundamentally problematic facts, it is not at all clear that One United Bank would be entitled to judgment as a matter of law where the Cross-Complaint is reasonably susceptible to the interpretation that other agreements and/or promises outside of and attendant to the forbearance/repayment agreement were purportedly breached by One United Bank. (See Cross Compl. ¶¶ 8, 10-11.)

Accordingly, plaintiff and cross-defendant One United Bank’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, which should have properly been filed as two separate motions that address two separate pleadings (i.e., the Complaint and the Cross-Complaint), is hereby DENIED in its entirety.

Case Number: EC060889    Hearing Date: December 20, 2019    Dept: E

JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS (2)

[CCP § 438]

Case: One United Bank v. Massoud G. Tayyar, et al. (EC 060889)

TENTATIVE RULING:

With respect to Plaintiff and Cross-Defendant One United Bank’s and Defendant and Cross-Complainant Massoud Tayyar’s and Cynthia Salinas’s respective Motions for Judgment on the Pleadings as to the Complaint and Cross-Complaint in this matter, the parties should be prepared to discuss the following issues at the hearing on such motions:

Case Number: EC060889    Hearing Date: October 24, 2019    Dept: E

AMENDED MOTION FOR RELIEF

Date: 10/25/19

Case: OneUnited Bank v. Massoud G. Tayyar, et al. (EC 060889)

TENTATIVE RULING:

The Court has reluctantly considered this motion, which was not the motion reserved or scheduled with the Court.

The request for order bifurcating this matter and having the cross-complaint tried first is DENIED. Moving parties have failed to sufficiently establish that bifurcation in this manner would promote the convenience of witnesses, the ends of justice, or the economy and efficiency of handling the litigation.

Request for order for leave to file a First Amended Cross-Complaint is DENIED.