This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 06/27/2019 at 17:15:40 (UTC).

SHAHANEH A LIMONADI ET AL VS IKE A NWANONENYI

Case Summary

On 12/31/2015 SHAHANEH A LIMONADI filed a Property - Other Property Fraud lawsuit against IKE A NWANONENYI. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****5900

  • Filing Date:

    12/31/2015

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Property - Other Property Fraud

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs

LIMONADI LILA HAKIMI

LIMONADI SHAHANEH A.

Defendant and Respondent

NWANONENYI IKE A.

 

Court Documents

Minute Order

2/14/2018: Minute Order

STATEMENT OF DAMAGES (PERSONAL INJURY OR WRONGFUL DEATH)

4/19/2018: STATEMENT OF DAMAGES (PERSONAL INJURY OR WRONGFUL DEATH)

Minute Order

4/24/2018: Minute Order

NOTICE RE: CONTINUANCE OF HEARING

5/9/2018: NOTICE RE: CONTINUANCE OF HEARING

Certificate of Mailing for

1/30/2019: Certificate of Mailing for

Minute Order

1/30/2019: Minute Order

Minute Order

3/1/2019: Minute Order

ORDER ON COURT FEE WAIVER

12/31/2015: ORDER ON COURT FEE WAIVER

Minute Order

4/18/2016: Minute Order

PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

5/6/2016: PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

5/25/2016: CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

PROOF OF SERVICE BY FIRST-CLASS MAIL?CIVIL

5/25/2016: PROOF OF SERVICE BY FIRST-CLASS MAIL?CIVIL

Minute Order

6/24/2016: Minute Order

REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT

12/1/2016: REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT

Proof of Service by 1st Class Mail

12/2/2016: Proof of Service by 1st Class Mail

NOTICE RE: CONTINUANCE OF HEARING

8/7/2017: NOTICE RE: CONTINUANCE OF HEARING

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

9/15/2017: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

Minute Order

10/18/2017: Minute Order

48 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 05/21/2019
  • Notice of Rejection - Application for Default Judgment by Court - Contract or Tort; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/11/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 74; Order to Show Cause Re: (entry of default) - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/11/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 74; Hearing on Motion - Other ((Legacy)) - Not Held - Taken Off Calendar by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/11/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Order to Show Cause Re: entry of default; Hearing on Motion -...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/04/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 74; Hearing on Motion - Other ((Legacy)) - Not Held - Continued - Court's Motion

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/19/2019
  • Request for Entry of Default / Judgment; Filed by Shahaneh A. Limonadi (Plaintiff); Lila Hakimi Limonadi (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/19/2019
  • Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/01/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 74; Order to Show Cause Re: (Dismissal for Failure to Prosecute) - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/01/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal for Failure to Prosecute)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/11/2019
  • Notice of Hearing on Motion to Amend Pleading on Names on Original Complaint; Filed by Shahaneh A. Limonadi (Plaintiff); Lila Hakimi Limonadi (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
113 More Docket Entries
  • 04/18/2016
  • at 09:00 AM in Department 74; Case Management Conference (Conference-Case Management; Matter continued) -

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/18/2016
  • Minute Order

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/18/2016
  • Minute order entered: 2016-04-18 00:00:00; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/04/2016
  • Notice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/04/2016
  • NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/31/2015
  • Complaint; Filed by Shahaneh A. Limonadi (Plaintiff); Lila Hakimi Limonadi (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/31/2015
  • ORDER ON COURT FEE WAIVER

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/31/2015
  • COMPLAINT FOR: 1. FRAUD AND INTENTIONAL DECEIT; ETC

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/31/2015
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/31/2015
  • ORDER ON COURT FEE WAIVER

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC605900    Hearing Date: January 06, 2020    Dept: 74

BC605900 LIMONADI VS NWANONENYI

Plaintiffs’ Request for Entry of Default Judgment; OSC re Dismissal for Failure to Obtain Default Judgment

TENTATIVE RULING: The request for entry of default judgment is DENIED. As this case is over four years old and Plaintiffs have had ample opportunity to obtain default judgment, this case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

Plaintiffs’ previous request for entry of default judgment was rejected on May 21, 2019. Plaintiffs were ordered to resubmit the default judgment package within 10 days on October 8, 2019. Plaintiffs filed a declaration pursuant to CCP section 585 to support their request for default judgment on October 18, 2019. However, Plaintiffs did not resubmit the default judgment package until December 9, 2019. Plaintiffs only submitted a physical copy of the default judgment package to the Court and did not e-file the default judgment package papers.

The declaration of mailing is not signed on the CIV-100 Form. There are also no other indications that the request for entry of default judgment was served on Defendant.

Aside from the lack of proof of service of the request for entry of default judgment, Plaintiffs’ CCP section 585 declarations are insufficient to support the amount of damages sought. According to Plaintiffs, they arrived at the value of the items listed in the statement of damages by running a search using the Google search engine to locate pictures of the items and the prices of the items. Plaintiffs further declare that some items brought from Iran were treated as genuine articles and not “knock offs” and that they used the lower values of the items purchased in the United States in order to account for the fact that their items were not new. Plaintiffs’ declarations are insufficient to support the value of the items as internet search results widely vary and are not reliable sources of the value of the items. It is also unclear whether the exact same items were found as the items are vaguely described, some are improperly grouped together under a single total value, and there are no search printouts of the search results to support the values set forth in the attachments to the declarations. To this extent, the item values set forth in the declarations are speculative. In order to properly prove up the value of the items and obtain the requested damages, Plaintiffs must submit an appraisal report from an appraisal expert.

Additionally, based on the Plaintiffs’ declarations, it appears Plaintiffs are seeking a return of the items or payment for the items by Defendant. Plaintiffs may not seek alternative remedies at this stage of the action. Plaintiffs must elect either a judgment entitling them to a return of their items or a judgment entitling them to the value of the items.

A review of the proposed judgment also shows that Plaintiffs are only seeking damages pursuant to their conversion cause of action. To this extent, Plaintiffs should submit a request for dismissal of the first cause of action for fraud and intentional deceit and third cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress.

Based on the foregoing, the request for entry of default judgment is denied.

This case is over four years old. As plaintiffs have had ample opportunity to obtain default judgment, this case is dismissed without prejudice.