Search

Attributes

This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 07/29/2021 at 11:53:33 (UTC).

SORAYA JVAHERI-LEITER ET AL VS AZIZOLAH JAVAHERY ET AL

Case Summary

On 04/23/2008 SORAYA JVAHERI-LEITER filed a Contract - Other Contract lawsuit against AZIZOLAH JAVAHERY. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are MARK A. BORENSTEIN, MATTHEW ST. GEORGE, ERNEST HIROSHIGE, JOHN P. SHOOK, CAROLYN B. KUHL, ERNEST M. HIROSHIGE, ANTHONY MOHR, EDWARD B. MORETON and MAURICE A. LEITER. The case status is Disposed - Judgment Entered.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****9609

  • Filing Date:

    04/23/2008

  • Case Status:

    Disposed - Judgment Entered

  • Case Type:

    Contract - Other Contract

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

MARK A. BORENSTEIN

MATTHEW ST. GEORGE

ERNEST HIROSHIGE

JOHN P. SHOOK

CAROLYN B. KUHL

ERNEST M. HIROSHIGE

ANTHONY MOHR

EDWARD B. MORETON

MAURICE A. LEITER

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs

JAVAHERY-KHOJASTEGAN SIMIN

JVAHERI-LEITER SORAYA

Defendants

DOES 1 THROUGH 10

JAVAHERY AZIZOLAH

JAVANIAN LLC.

NAMCO CAPITAL GROUP INC.

NAMVAR EZRI

Not Classified By Court and Assignees

UPSTREAM CAPITAL INVESTMENTS LLC

BOLOURCHI NEDA

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorneys

ESCANDARI ALEXANDER H. ESQ.

ETEHAD SIMON P. ESQ.

Defendant Attorneys

HAYDEN & KASSEL LAW OFFICES OF

NEUFELD TIMOTHY L. ESQ.

Assignee Attorney

YEARGIN COLE WILLIAM

 

Court Documents

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION TO COMPEL COMPLIANCE WITH DEPOSITION SUBPOE...)

6/4/2021: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION TO COMPEL COMPLIANCE WITH DEPOSITION SUBPOE...)

Order - ORDER TO ISSUE CONSUMER CREDIT REPORT

9/25/2020: Order - ORDER TO ISSUE CONSUMER CREDIT REPORT

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION FOR ORDER MOTION FOR ORDER TO ISSUE CONSUME...)

8/5/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION FOR ORDER MOTION FOR ORDER TO ISSUE CONSUME...)

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION FOR ORDER MOTION FOR ORDER TO ISSUE CONSUME...)

7/7/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION FOR ORDER MOTION FOR ORDER TO ISSUE CONSUME...)

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (NUNC PRO TUNC ORDER)

6/17/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (NUNC PRO TUNC ORDER)

NOTICE OF HEARING ON CLAIM OF EXEMPTION (WAGE GARNISHMENT?ENFORCEMENT OF JUDGMENT)

4/26/2018: NOTICE OF HEARING ON CLAIM OF EXEMPTION (WAGE GARNISHMENT?ENFORCEMENT OF JUDGMENT)

Minute Order -

6/7/2018: Minute Order -

AMENDED JUDGMENT

4/14/2016: AMENDED JUDGMENT

Request for Refund / Order

7/13/2021: Request for Refund / Order

 

Docket Entries

  • 07/13/2021
  • DocketRequest for Refund / Order; Filed by Azizolah Javahery (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/29/2021
  • DocketNotice of Ruling (RE: MOTION TO COMPEL); Filed by Upstream Capital Investments, LLC (Assignee)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/04/2021
  • Docketat 09:30 AM in Department 58; Hearing on Motion to Compel (Compliance With Deposition Subpoena for Production of Business Records to Non-Party Department of Transportation) - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/04/2021
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Hearing on Motion to Compel Compliance With Deposition Subpoe...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/26/2021
  • DocketReply (Assignee's Reply to Opposition to Motion to Compel Compliance with Deposition Subpoena for Production of Business Records to Non-Party Department of Transportation); Filed by Upstream Capital Investments, LLC (Assignee)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/21/2021
  • DocketOpposition (CONSUMER AZIZ OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL FILED BY UPSTREAM CAPITALDATE: JUNE 4, 2021 TIME: 9:30 AM DEPT: 58); Filed by JAVANIAN, LLC. (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/21/2021
  • DocketProof of Service by Mail; Filed by JAVANIAN, LLC. (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/01/2021
  • DocketMotion to Compel (Compliance With Deposition Subpoena for Production of Business Records to Non-Party Department of Transportation); Filed by Upstream Capital Investments, LLC (Assignee)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/14/2020
  • DocketNotice of Ruling; Filed by Upstream Capital Investments, LLC (Assignee)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/25/2020
  • DocketOrder to Issue Consumer Credit Report; Filed by Upstream Capital Investments, LLC (Assignee)

    Read MoreRead Less
679 More Docket Entries
  • 06/24/2008
  • DocketProof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/24/2008
  • DocketPROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/24/2008
  • DocketProof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/13/2008
  • DocketMiscellaneous-Other; Filed by Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/13/2008
  • DocketERRATA TO PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/11/2008
  • DocketNOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/11/2008
  • DocketNotice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/23/2008
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Simin Javahery-Khojastegan (Plaintiff); Soraya Jvaheri-Leiter (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/23/2008
  • DocketSUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/23/2008
  • DocketCOMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES BASED ON: 1. BREACH OF CONTRACT; ETC.

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC389609    Hearing Date: June 4, 2021    Dept: 58

Judge John P. Doyle

Department 58


Hearing Date: June 4, 2021

Case Name: Javahery v. Javahery

Case No.: BC389609

Matter: Motion to Compel Compliance

Moving Party: Judgment Creditor Upstream Capital Investments, LLC

Responding Party: Judgment Debtor Azizolah Javahery


Tentative Ruling: The Motion is granted in part.


Upstream Capital Investments, LLC (“Upstream”) is the judgment creditor in this action by assignment. Upstream served an earnings withholdings order on the California Department of Transportation (“DOT”), which is Judgment Debtor Azizolah Javahery’s employer. Upstream provides, “[d]espite the gross monthly earnings of Defendant in the amount of $9,455.40, the Assignee has received from the Earnings Withholding Order an amount of less than $2,000.00 (two thousand dollars) since the date the Earnings Withholding Order was served on January 17, 2020, some fourteen months ago. (Yeargin Declaration ¶ 15).”

Upstream, thus, served a business records subpoena on the DOT seeking the following:

1. Any and all copies of direct deposit applications submitted by Azizolah Javahery, an individual.

2. Copies (both sides) of Azizolah Javahery, an individual's cashed payroll checks and check stubs (including payments made year to date) for the period of January 1, 2020 to the present.

3. A copy (both sides) of Azizolah Javahery, an individual's most recent direct deposit statement

4. Any documents containing the most recent residential address for Azizolah Javahery, an individual.

5. Any and all documents which contain a complete listing and itemization of any and all withholdings from the gross earnings and/or gross pay made to Azizolah Javahery, an individual. Said documents should state to which entity or individual the withheld amounts are distributed to, including but not limited to financial institutions, government agencies, and individual persons.

6. If paychecks and/or direct deposits are not processed directly by the employer, then please provide the name and contact information of the business entity or individual responsible for processing payroll checks and/or direct deposits for Azizolah Javahery, and individual.

The DOT sent a letter to Upstream indicating it would not produce documents due to novel concerns about the propriety of such in light of Defendant’s privacy objections.

Upstream now seeks to compel compliance with its subpoena.

Defendant Azizolah Javahery has submitted an opposition, arguing that the documents are subject to privacy interests and there is no need for production because it will not make a difference. That is, regardless of the production, the amount paid by DOT pursuant to the garnishment order will not change.

Upstream indicates, “[a] Defendant and Judgment Debtor has no reasonable expectation of privacy as to records of income and employment as they become necessary to aid in the enforcement of the judgment entered against them. Code of Civil Procedure § 708.110, subd. (a). Such questions and requests for production concerning employment, banking, and income is comparable to that allowed through a Judgment Debtor Examination which offers the Judgment creditor a ‘wide scope of inquiry concerning property and business affairs of the judgment debtor.’ Lee v. Swansboro 26 Country Property Owners Assn. (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 575, 581. Further, these documents are needed to help explain why the Earnings Withholding Order seems to be almost completely ineffective against a judgment debtor with monthly earnings of some $9455.40.”

Defendant is correct that Upstream is only entitled to a certain amount under its garnishment order and that the documents sought would not seemingly change that.

On the other hand, some of the information, such as the existence of Defendant’s bank accounts, could be relevant to discovering Defendant’s other assets. Further, the information sought is similar to what could be obtained via subpoena for a debtor exam. (Ahart, Cal. Prac. Guide Enf. J. & Debt (The Rutter Guide 2021) Ch. 6G-1 [“The examination will usually be more effective if the judgment creditor subpoenas into court documents showing the debtor's assets and liabilities—e.g., checkbooks, cancelled checks, payroll check stubs, passbooks, bank statements, financial statements, deeds, promissory notes, stock registers, records of accounts payable and receivable, and state and federal income tax returns (the privilege not to disclose tax returns is waived if the debtor brings returns to the exam).”].)

Notably, it has been contemplated that similar records can be obtained from the judgment debtor’s employer. (Ibid. [“If ‘personal records’ of an individual judgment debtor (a ‘consumer’) are subpoenaed from a nonparty custodian (e.g., bank, attorney, accountant, title company, brokerage firm), or if a judgment debtor's ‘employment records’ are subpoenaed from a third party witness, special time and notice requirements must be met pursuant to CCP §§ 1985.3 and 1985.6 (see Weil & Brown et al., Cal. Prac. Guide: Civ. Pro. Before Trial (TRG), Ch. 8E).”].)

Thus, the Court will compel compliance, except that it will not require the production of any tax documents, including but not limited to W-2’s. The Motion is granted in part as set forth herein.

Case Number: BC389609    Hearing Date: August 06, 2020    Dept: 58


Hearing Date: August 6, 2020

Case Name: Gloudeman v. Rose Desert Congregate Care, Inc.

Case No.: 19STCP05253

Matter: (1) Motion to Deem Appeal Timely

(2) Motion to Dismiss

Moving Party: (1) Appellant Rose Desert Congregate Care, Inc.

(2) Respondent Katrina Gloudeman

Responding Party: (1) Respondent Katrina Gloudeman

(2) Appellant Rose Desert Congregate Care, Inc.


Tentative Ruling: The Motions are continued for supplemental briefing.


On December 9, 2019, Rose Desert Congregate Care, Inc. filed a Notice of Appeal (“Notice”) as to the Labor Commissioner’s award (“Award”) in State Case Number WC-CM-339735.

Respondent Katrina Gloudeman seeks to dismiss the appeal as untimely. Appellant Rose Desert Congregate Care, Inc. seeks to deem its Notice timely.

As an initial matter, the parties dispute the filing deadline for the Notice. Respondent contends that the deadline to file the Notice was December 4, 2019, while Appellant contends the deadline was December 6, 2019. The parties agree that there was a 15-day limitations period for filing the Notice given service by mail of the Award. (Lab. Code § 98.2(a); see also Code Civ. Proc. § 1013.) That is, the parties actually dispute the date of service by mail.

The Court finds that the date of service by mail was November 19, 2019, such that the filing deadline for the Notice was December 4, 2019. This is because the Notice filed by Appellant has an attached proof of service for the subject Award indicating that the Award was placed in the mail on November 19, 2019. While Appellant points to an envelope dated November 21, 2019, (Rosenthal Decl., Exhibit 1), this is irrelevant as this is simply when USPS received the Labor Commissioner’s envelope. Service by mail is instead completed upon placing an envelope in the mail. (Code Civ. Proc. § 1013(a); Silver v. McNamee (1999) 69 Cal.App.4th 269, 280.) As the attachment to Appellant’s Notice makes clear, this took place on November 19, 2019.

Appellant also argues that it attempted to file the Notice on both December 4, 2019, and December 6, 2019, but that these filings were improperly rejected. Appellant contends the December 4, 2019, filing was rejected because it was filed in the Antelope Valley Courthouse; Appellant was later told the Notice should have been filed at the Stanley Mosk Courthouse.

First, Appellant is correct that “the only basis to refuse to file a document which has a jurisdictional deadline is where the proposed document fails to comply with California Rules of Court, rule 2.100 et seq.” (Lezama-Carino v. Miller (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 55, 59.) Here, there is no indication that the December 4, 2019, filing failed to comply with California Rules of Court, rule 2.100 et seq.

Moreover, the stated basis for rejecting the December 4, 2019, filing is not necessarily correct. Local Rules, Rule 2.3(a)(1)(A) provides in relevant part, “Every appeal under Labor Code section 98.2 must be filed in the district where the office of the Labor Commissioner rendering the decision appealed from is located.” Here, the Notice’s attachments indicate that the Labor Commissioner rendered the subject decision in Bakersfield, CA. Per Local Rules, Rule 2.3(a)(1)(A), the Notice should have been filed in the district encompassing Bakersfield, CA; however, Bakersfield is not located in Los Angeles County at all. Rather, it is located in Kern County. Thus, it is unclear why the Notice was rejected for not having been filed at the Stanley Mosk Courthouse.

In any case, given that the Notice apparently complied with California Rules of Court, rule 2.100 et seq., its filing should not have been rejected. (Lezama-Carino v. Miller (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 55, 59.) If the Notice was filed in the wrong courthouse or county, a proceeding as to a transfer should have taken place.

On the other hand, timely filing of the Notice alone was not sufficient; Appellant is an employer also required to post a timely bond. (Labor Code § 98.2(b); Palagin v. Paniagua Construction, Inc. (2013) 222 Cal.App.4th 124, 126.) While a judicially noticeable document was provided indicating that Appellant attempted to file the Notice on December 4, 2019, (Rosenthal Decl., Exhibit 2), there is nothing specifically indicating that Appellant also attempted to tender a bond on December 4, 2019. Thus, the Court continues the Motions to acquire supplemental briefing/evidence as to whether Appellant attempted to post a bond on December 4, 2019. A hearing date and briefing schedule will be determined at the August 6, 2020, Motion hearing.

The evidence to be provided should come in the form of judicially noticeable documents as the Court construes the “Motion to Dismiss” as a demurrer.[1] (Code Civ. Proc. § 430.10 (a), (e).) If the parties dispute the accuracy of this view, they should indicate such in their supplemental briefing and explain their contentions.


[1] Appellant argues any demurrer would procedurally fail because there was no meet and confer effort prior to its filing. This lacks merit. A failure to meet and confer is not a basis to overrule a demurrer. (Code Civ. Proc. § 430.41(a)(4).)

Case Number: BC389609    Hearing Date: August 05, 2020    Dept: 58


Hearing Date: August 5, 2020

Case Name: Javahery v. Javahery

Case No.: BC389609

Matter: Motion for Order to Issue Consumer Credit Report

Moving Party: Upstream Capital Investments, LLC

Responding Party: Unopposed


Tentative Ruling: The Motion is granted.


Upstream Capital Investments, LLC is the judgment creditor in this action by assignment. It requests that a consumer credit report be issued as to Defendant Azizolah Javahery such that the judgment can be enforced.

Previously, the matter was continued at Defendant’s request despite that no opposition was ever filed.

Again, no opposition has been filed. There is no opposition on the Court’s docket. As the Motion is unopposed, there is an inference it has merit. (Sexton v. Superior Court (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1410.) The Motion is granted. (Civ. Code § 1785.11.)

A further continuance request will result in sanctions.

Case Number: BC389609    Hearing Date: July 07, 2020    Dept: 58

Judge John P. Doyle

Department 58


Hearing Date: July 7, 2020

Case Name: Javahery v. Javahery

Case No.: BC389609

Matter: Motion for Order to Issue Consumer Credit Report

Moving Party: Upstream Capital Investments, LLC

Responding Party: Unopposed


Tentative Ruling: The Motion is granted.


Upstream Capital Investments, LLC is the judgment creditor in this action by assignment. It requests that a consumer credit report be issued as to Defendant Azizolah Javahery such that the judgment can be enforced.

As the Motion is unopposed, there is an inference it has merit. (Sexton v. Superior Court (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1410.) The Motion is granted. (Civ. Code § 1785.11.)

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where NAMCO CAPITAL GROUP INC. is a litigant

Latest cases where UPSTREAM CAPITAL INVESTMENTS LLC is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer YEARGIN COLE