This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 02/21/2021 at 14:48:33 (UTC).

PEYMAN BALAKHANE ET AL VS MORIS SAKHAI ET AL

Case Summary

On 12/20/2013 PEYMAN BALAKHANE filed a Contract - Other Contract lawsuit against MORIS SAKHAI. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are RICHARD E. RICO, MEL RED RECANA and JON R. TAKASUGI. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****1321

  • Filing Date:

    12/20/2013

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Contract - Other Contract

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

RICHARD E. RICO

MEL RED RECANA

JON R. TAKASUGI

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs, Petitioners and Respondents

BALAKHANE PEJMAN

BALAKHANE PEYMAN

L.A. FASHION HUB INC

AZADEGAN NAZIAR

CALIFORNIA CAPITAL VENTURE INC

DOES1-50

SAKHHAI MORIS

Defendants, Respondents and Appellants

AZADEGAN NAZIAR

SAKHHAI MORIS

CALIFORNIA CAPITAL VENTURE INC.

CALIFORNIA CAPITAL VENTURE INC

DOES1-50

MORIS SAKHAI

Other

RODRIGUEZ STEVEN L. ESQ.

Not Classified By Court

NORTHFIELD INSURANCE COMPANY

NATIONWIDE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

L.A. TRIAL LAWYERS INC

WOOD SMITH HENNING & BERMAN LLP

Defendant and Respondent Attorneys

ROSS JONATHAN A. ESQ.

FREEBURG STEVEN J. ESQ.

Not Classified By Court Attorney

TAMADDON RAY

Other Attorneys

PARKER MILLS LLP

OMOKO GEORGE EMEKA

LAW SAHAR MALEK

ESCANDARI ALEXANDER H.

SLAUGHTER YOLANDA ANNETTE

KITA MATTHEW J.

 

Court Documents

DECLARATION OF STEVEN J. FREEBURG IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS' OPPOSITION TO PLALNTIFFS/CROSS-DEFENDANTS' MOTION IN LIMINE #7

1/4/2018: DECLARATION OF STEVEN J. FREEBURG IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS' OPPOSITION TO PLALNTIFFS/CROSS-DEFENDANTS' MOTION IN LIMINE #7

DEFENDANTS' REPLY IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS' MOTION IN LIMINE NO.19

1/10/2018: DEFENDANTS' REPLY IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS' MOTION IN LIMINE NO.19

DEFENDANTS' REPLY IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS' MOTION IN LIMINE NO.22

1/10/2018: DEFENDANTS' REPLY IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS' MOTION IN LIMINE NO.22

REPLY MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS' MOTION IN LIMINE NO.25 TO EXCLUDE NON-PARTY WITNESSES FROM THE COURTROOM WHILE NOT TESTIFYING

1/10/2018: REPLY MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS' MOTION IN LIMINE NO.25 TO EXCLUDE NON-PARTY WITNESSES FROM THE COURTROOM WHILE NOT TESTIFYING

REPLY MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS MORIS SAKHAI, NAZIAR AZADEGAN, AND CALIFORNIA CAPITAL VENTURE INC.'S MOTION IN LIMINE NO.7 TO PRECLUDE EVIDENCE OF OR REFERENCE TO ALLEGED STATEMENTS BY MORIS

1/10/2018: REPLY MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS MORIS SAKHAI, NAZIAR AZADEGAN, AND CALIFORNIA CAPITAL VENTURE INC.'S MOTION IN LIMINE NO.7 TO PRECLUDE EVIDENCE OF OR REFERENCE TO ALLEGED STATEMENTS BY MORIS

Substitution of Attorney

2/27/2020: Substitution of Attorney

Minute Order -

3/4/2014: Minute Order -

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR ORDER GRANTING LEAVE TO AMEND COMPLAINT; SUPPORTING DECLARATIONS OF ALEXANDER H. ESCANDARI AND PEYMAN BALAKHANE;ETC.

3/19/2015: NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR ORDER GRANTING LEAVE TO AMEND COMPLAINT; SUPPORTING DECLARATIONS OF ALEXANDER H. ESCANDARI AND PEYMAN BALAKHANE;ETC.

DEFENDANT MORIS SAKAI'S REPLY TO PLAINTIFFS' RESPONSE TO SEPARATE STATEMENT OF FORM INTERROGATORIES AND RESPONSES IN DISPUTE

6/8/2015: DEFENDANT MORIS SAKAI'S REPLY TO PLAINTIFFS' RESPONSE TO SEPARATE STATEMENT OF FORM INTERROGATORIES AND RESPONSES IN DISPUTE

CR0 SS-DEFENDANTS PEYMAN BALAKHANE, PEJMAN BALAKHANE AND L.A. FASHION HUB INC.'S ANSWER TO CROSS-COMPLAINANT MORIS SAKHAI'S FIRST AMENDED CROSS-COMPLAINT

8/10/2015: CR0 SS-DEFENDANTS PEYMAN BALAKHANE, PEJMAN BALAKHANE AND L.A. FASHION HUB INC.'S ANSWER TO CROSS-COMPLAINANT MORIS SAKHAI'S FIRST AMENDED CROSS-COMPLAINT

PLAINTIFF MORIS SAKHAI'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION, SET THREE, PROPOUNDED UPON DEFENDANT PEYNAN BALAKHANE; ETC

9/25/2015: PLAINTIFF MORIS SAKHAI'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION, SET THREE, PROPOUNDED UPON DEFENDANT PEYNAN BALAKHANE; ETC

SEPARATE STATEMENT OF REQUESTS AND RESPONSES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF MORIS SAKHAI'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION, SET THREE, PROPOUNDED UPON DEFENDANT PEYMAN BALAKHANE

9/25/2015: SEPARATE STATEMENT OF REQUESTS AND RESPONSES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF MORIS SAKHAI'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION, SET THREE, PROPOUNDED UPON DEFENDANT PEYMAN BALAKHANE

TENTATIVE RULING 1. MOTION TO COMPEL COMPLIANCE WITH SUBPOENA 2. MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RFP

12/16/2015: TENTATIVE RULING 1. MOTION TO COMPEL COMPLIANCE WITH SUBPOENA 2. MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RFP

SEPARATE STATEMENT OF REQUESTS AND RESPONSES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF MORIS SAKHAI'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION, SET THREE, PROPOUNDED UPON DEFENDANT PEYMAN BALAKHANE

1/29/2016: SEPARATE STATEMENT OF REQUESTS AND RESPONSES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF MORIS SAKHAI'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION, SET THREE, PROPOUNDED UPON DEFENDANT PEYMAN BALAKHANE

PLAINTIFF MORIS SAKHAI'S REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION, SET FIVE, PROPOUNDED UPON DEFENDANT PEYMAN BALAKHANE

9/14/2016: PLAINTIFF MORIS SAKHAI'S REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION, SET FIVE, PROPOUNDED UPON DEFENDANT PEYMAN BALAKHANE

NOTICE OF RULING ON MORIS SAKHAI'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION, SET SIX, PROPOUNDED UPON DEFENDANT PEYMAN BALAKHANE

10/27/2016: NOTICE OF RULING ON MORIS SAKHAI'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION, SET SIX, PROPOUNDED UPON DEFENDANT PEYMAN BALAKHANE

NOTICE OF RULING AT EX PARTE: PLAINTIFF'S EX PARTE APPLICATION TO SHORTEN TIME TO HEAR MOTION TO COMPEL THE ATTENDANCE OF PATTY TAMYO [AKA PATTY TAMMYO] AT DEPOSITION AND FOR THE IMPOSITION OF MONETAR

8/2/2017: NOTICE OF RULING AT EX PARTE: PLAINTIFF'S EX PARTE APPLICATION TO SHORTEN TIME TO HEAR MOTION TO COMPEL THE ATTENDANCE OF PATTY TAMYO [AKA PATTY TAMMYO] AT DEPOSITION AND FOR THE IMPOSITION OF MONETAR

PLAINTIFFS' OBJECTION TO DECLARATION OF ROBERT A. CROOK IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS' REPLY MEMORANDUM

9/13/2017: PLAINTIFFS' OBJECTION TO DECLARATION OF ROBERT A. CROOK IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS' REPLY MEMORANDUM

560 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 06/03/2021
  • Hearing06/03/2021 at 10:00 AM in Department 17 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Hearing on Motion for Attorney Fees

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/12/2021
  • DocketAppeal - Notice Court Reporter to Prepare Appeal Transcript (;B307271, NA 8/17/20;); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/06/2021
  • DocketMotion for Attorney Fees; Filed by California Capital Venture, Inc. (Defendant); Moris Sakhhai (Defendant); Naziar Azadegan (Legacy Party)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/06/2021
  • DocketRequest for Judicial Notice; Filed by California Capital Venture, Inc. (Defendant); Moris Sakhhai (Defendant); Naziar Azadegan (Legacy Party)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/17/2020
  • DocketAppeal - Reporter Appeal Transcript Process Fee Paid; Filed by Moris Sakhhai (Appellant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/13/2020
  • DocketAppeal - Remittitur - Affirmed (B294837); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/12/2020
  • DocketAppellate Order Granting Relief from Default (NHOA: 8/17/20-U1 B307271); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/23/2020
  • DocketNotice of Change of Address or Other Contact Information; Filed by Ray Tamaddon (Attorney)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/20/2020
  • DocketAppeal - Notice of Non-Compliance (NOA:8/17/20- U1 B307271); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/29/2020
  • DocketAppeal - Ntc Designating Record of Appeal APP-003/010/103 ("U1"); Filed by California Capital Venture, Inc. (Appellant); Naziar Azadegan (Appellant); Moris Sakhhai (Appellant)

    Read MoreRead Less
1,091 More Docket Entries
  • 01/14/2014
  • DocketDemurrer; Filed by Naziar Azadegan (Legacy Party)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/14/2014
  • DocketNOTICE OF HEARING ON DEMURRER OF DEFENDANT NAZYAR AZADEGAN TO COMPLAINT OF PLAINTIFFS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/14/2014
  • DocketNOTICE OF HEARING ON DEMURRER OF DEFENDANT MORIS SAKHAI TO COMPLAINT OF PLAINTIFFS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/14/2014
  • DocketDemurrer; Filed by Moris Sakhhai (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/14/2014
  • DocketNotice of Hearing; Filed by Moris Sakhhai (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/14/2014
  • DocketDemurrer; Filed by California Capital Venture, Inc. (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/14/2014
  • DocketNOTICE OF HEARING ON DEMURRER OF DEFENDANT CALIFORNIA CAPITAL VENTURE INC. TO COMPLAINT OF PLAINTIFFS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/20/2013
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by null

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/20/2013
  • DocketCOMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES: 1. BREACH OF ORAL CONTRACT; ETC

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/20/2013
  • DocketSUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC531321    Hearing Date: June 26, 2020    Dept: 17

County of Los Angeles

DEPARTMENT 17

TENTATIVE RULING

PEYMAN BALAKHANE, et al.

vs.

MORIS SAKHAI, et al.

Case No.: BC531321

Hearing Date: June 26, 2020

Defendants’ motion to set aside judgment is DENIED.

On April 13, 2018, Plaintiffs Peyman and Pejman Balakhane Moris Sakhai, Nazyar Azadegan, and California Capital Ventures, Inc. (collectively, Defendants), alleging: 1-2) fraudulent transfer; 3-4) fraud; 5) conspiracy to commit fraud; and 6) declaratory relief. 

On July 11, 2018, the Court ordered the instant action related with BC701875.

The instant action settled on February 2, 2018.

Defendants now move to vacate this Court’s orders of March 5, 2018, March 14, 2018, and March 29, 2018, releasing Nationwide Insurance Company and Northfield Insurance Company from the action.

Factual Background

This case arose out of a business dispute. Plaintiffs and Defendants settled the case in open court on February 2, 2018. Defendants agreed to pay a total settlement to the Plaintiffs in the amount of $750,000. The settlement agreement included a policy release, wherein Defendants’ insurers would fund a portion of the settlement after they obtained a full policy release from the Defendants.

Legal Standard

Defendants bring this motion pursuant to CCP section 473, subdivision (d) which provides:

The court may, upon motion of the injured party, or its own motion, correct clerical mistakes in its judgment or orders as entered, so as to conform to the judgment or order directed, and may, on motion of either party after notice to the other party, set aside any void judgment or order.

Defendants also move pursuant to CCP section 664.6 Pursuant to CCP § 664.6, if parties to pending litigation stipulate, in a writing signed by the parties outside the presence of the court or orally before the court, for settlement of the case, or part thereof, the court, upon motion, may enter judgment pursuant to the terms of the settlement.  If requested by the parties, the court may retain jurisdiction over the parties to enforce the settlement until performance in full of the terms of the settlement.  The purpose of § 664.6 is to permit a court, via a summary proceeding, to finally dispose of an action when the existence of the agreement or the terms of the settlement are subject to reasonable dispute.  (Corkland Boscoe Skulnick

Discussion

Defendants argue, “Notwithstanding that Nationwide and Northfield were not parties to the consolidated action, and that no carrier was a party to the consolidated action, and that further notwithstanding that there was no record of any party agreeing for the Court to retain jurisdiction to enforce the settlement, Hon. Richard E. Rico, concluded without jurisdiction that: “The court will enforce that part of the agreement granting the carrier a full policy release on the condition that it forward the agreed upon proceeds forthwith to Plaintiffs.” (Motion, 11: 6-16.) In other words, Defendants argue that this Court improperly retained jurisdiction over the settlement agreement in the instant action, and therefore improperly dismissed non-parties Nationwide and Northfield from the action without jurisdiction to do so.

In support of its argument that this Court has no jurisdiction to enforce the settlement agreement, Defendants argue that “no attorney, nor party, nor carrier or insurer, or attorney for the carrier or insurer, ever gave on the record a stipulation for the Court to retain jurisdiction to enforce the settlement purportedly made pursuant to CCP section 6446.” (Motion, 23: 10-16.) Rather, Defendants argue that only the Honorable Richard E. Rico stipulated to such jurisdiction stating, “All right. The Court accepts the settlement agreement. The Court will retain jurisdiction under 664.6 to settle the matter.” (Motion, 23:21-23.)

However, “[w]here a settlement agreement provides the court may retain jurisdiction to enforce the settlement, but the dismissal fails to provide for retained jurisdiction, plaintiff’s remedy is to¿move to vacate or modify the dismissal¿under¿CCP § 473(b).” Weil & Brown, Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2017).) Here, however, Defendants have moved pursuant to CCP section 473, subdivision (d), which concerns clerical mistakes in entering a judgment. Defendants have presented no evidence that a clerical error was made in entering this judgment.

Based on the arguments advanced in their brief, it appears that Defendants may have intended to avail themselves of CCP section 473, subdivision b, which provides relief from judgments issued through mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect. However, CCP section 473, subdivision (b) provides:

(b) The court may, upon any terms as may be just, relieve a party or his or her legal representative from a judgment, dismissal, order, or other proceeding taken against him or her through his or her mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect. Application for this relief shall be accompanied by a copy of the answer or other pleading proposed to be filed therein, otherwise the application shall not be granted, and shall be made within a reasonable time, in no case exceeding six months, after the judgment, dismissal, order, or proceeding was taken.

If such is the case, the orders here were issued on March 5, 2018, March 14, 2018, and March 29, 2018—over two years ago. Accordingly, the instant motion would appear to be untimely under CCP section 473, subdivision (b).

Based on the foregoing, Defendants’ motion to void this Court’s March 5, May 14, and March 29 orders is denied.

It is so ordered.

Dated: June 26, 2020

Hon. Jon R. Takasugi

Superior Court Judge

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at smcdept17@lacourt.org by 4 p.m. the day prior as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  If a party submits on the tentative, the party’s email must include the case number and must identify the party submitting on the tentative. If all parties to a motion submit, the court will adopt this tentative as the final order. If the department does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on the tentative and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion may be placed off calendar.

Due to Covid-19, the court is strongly discouraging in-person appearances. Parties, counsel, and court reporters present are subject to temperature checks and health inquiries, and will be denied entry if admission could create a public health risk. The court encourages the parties wishing to argue to appear via CourtCall. For more information, please contact the court clerk at (213) 633-0517. Your understanding during these difficult times is appreciated.

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where CALIFORNIA CAPITAL VENTURE INC is a litigant

Latest cases where NORTHFIELD INSURANCE COMPANY is a litigant

Latest cases where NATIONWIDE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer SLAUGHTER YOLANDA A.