On 09/23/2014 TESSIE CLEVELAND COMMUNITY SVCS CORP filed a Property - Other Real Property lawsuit against MOHSEN LOGHMANI ET A. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is ROLF M. TREU. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.
Pending - Other Pending
Los Angeles County Superior Courts
Stanley Mosk Courthouse
Los Angeles, California
ROLF M. TREU
TESSIE CLEVELAND COMMUNITY SERVICES
1518 ELEVENTH STREET CONDOMINIUMS LLC
DOES 1 THROUGH 50
L.A. DESIGN GROUP
LOGHMANI ARIANNE K.
LOGHMANI CIAVASH MATTHEW
CIAVASH MATTHEW LOGHMANI
J.J. LITTLE & ASSOCIATES P.C.
CAMPBELL FRANCES M. ESQ.
10/2/2014: NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE
10/16/2014: PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS
11/24/2014: NOTICE OF SPECIAL MOTION AND SPECIAL MOTION TO STRIKE COMPLAINT (CGPR*42H6). SUPPORTING MEMORANDUM OF POINTS. AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARARIONS OF MOFLSEN.LOGIIMANI AND MAHSHED LOGHMANI
12/10/2014: OPPOSITION OF PLAINTIFF TESSIE CLEVELAND COMMUNITY SERVICES CORPORATION TO THE MOTION TO STRIKE OF DEFENDANTS 1518 ELEVENTH STREET CONDOMINIUMS, LLC. AND ALL SADOUGHI
1/30/2015: REPLY TO PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT MOHSEN LOGHMANI'S SPECIAL MOTION TO STRIKE COMPLAINT AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS IN THE AMOUNT $10,767.50
2/9/2015: ORDER & RULING: SPECIAL MOTION TO STRIKE IS DENIED. ATTORNEY FEES ARE AWARDED AS REQUESTED, PAYABLE BY MOVING PARTY NO LATER THAN MARCH 9, 2015.
3/25/2015: CIVIL DEPOSIT
4/2/2015: NOTICE OF APPEAL
8/3/2015: STATUS REPORT RE APPEAL
1/13/2016: Minute Order
4/20/2016: NOTICE OF CASE REASSIGNMENT
6/23/2016: EX-PARTE NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO QUASH PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE OF DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR PRODUCTION OF BUSINES RECORDS TO 24903 PCH LLC AND REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS AGAINST PLAINTIFF AND ITS
7/5/2016: NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO QUASH PLAINTIFF?S NOTICE OF DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR PRODUCTION OF BUSINES RECORDS TO 24903 PCH LLC AND REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS AGAINST PLAINTIFF AND ITS COUNSEL O
7/22/2016: Minute Order
7/22/2016: CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER
8/11/2016: Minute Order
2/22/2017: Minute Order
4/20/2017: STATUS OF ADVERSARY PROCEEDINGS (1:16-AP-O1150-MT)
Notice of Reassignment and Order Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
Notice (notice of default unlimited civil appeals ) Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
Notice (notice of default unlimited civil appeals ) Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
Notice of Designation of Record Filed by Appellant, Appellant in Pro PerRead MoreRead Less
Request-Waive Court Fees Filed by AppellantRead MoreRead Less
Notice of Appeal Filed by AppellantRead MoreRead Less
Order (ADOPTING TENTATIVE RULING; ) Filed by CourtRead MoreRead Less
Ord-Appt Apprv Rptr as Rptr protem Filed by Certified Shorthand ReporterRead MoreRead Less
Ord-Appt Apprv Rptr as Rptr protem ( TRACY DYRNESS #12323 ) Filed by Attorney for Defendant/RespondentRead MoreRead Less
Reply to Opposition ( TO MOTION TO STRIKE ) Filed by Attorney for Defendant/RespondentRead MoreRead Less
Answer (CIAVASH MATTHEW LOGHMANI ) Filed by Defendant & Defendant in Pro PerRead MoreRead Less
Answer ( MOHSEN LOGHMANI MAHSHID LOGHMANI ) Filed by Defendant & Defendant in Pro PerRead MoreRead Less
Proof of Service (OF SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT ) Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/PetitionerRead MoreRead Less
Proof-Service/Summons Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/PetitionerRead MoreRead Less
Proof of Service Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/PetitionerRead MoreRead Less
OSC-Failure to File Proof of Serv Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
Notice-Case Management Conference Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
Notice-Related Cases (this BC case is the newer case. proposed related case EC057134 was filed 10-28-11 ) Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/PetitionerRead MoreRead Less
ComplaintRead MoreRead Less
Answer to Complaint Filed by Attorney for Defendant/RespondentRead MoreRead Less
Case Number: BC558489 Hearing Date: April 14, 2021 Dept: 73
TESSIE CLEVELAND COMMUNITY SERVICES CORP. v. MOHSEN LOGHMANI, et. al. Counsel for Plaintiff: Anthony Zaller, Michael Thompson (Zaller Law Group, PC)Counsel for Chapter 7 Trustee/interested party: D. Edward Hays, Laila Masud (Marshack Hays LLP)
OSC re status of automatic stay (04/14/2021)Motion to COMPEL arianne LOGHMANI’s responses to requests for production, set one (filed 03/02/2021)Motion to COMPEL CIAMACK LOGHMANI’s responses to requests for production, set one (filed 03/02/2021)
The OSC re status of automatic stay is continued to _______________. The parties are ordered to file a joint status report regarding the bankruptcy court’s rulings/position on these issues within 5 court days before the continued OSC. The action is stayed until then. The hearing on the motions to compel are continued to ___________.
On September 23, 2014, Plaintiff Tessie Cleveland Community Services, Corp. filed this action against Defendants Mohsen Loghmani (d/b/a LA Design Group) (“Mohsen”), Mahsid Loghmani (“Mahsid”), Ciavash Loghmani, Ciamack Loghmani, Arianne Loghmani, 1518 Eleventh Street Condominiums, LLC, and Ali Saoughi for:
C/A 1: Intentional Fraudulent Transfer C/A 2: Constructive Fraudulent Transfer Common Law Fraudulent Conveyance Civil Conspiracy Imposition of a Trust Resulting Trust Declaratory Relief-Interest in Property Declaratory Relief-Alter Ego Liability
Plaintiff obtained a $2 million-plus judgment against Mohsen. The remaining defendants are Mohen’s family, and a limited liability company created by Mohsen’s close business associate. Plaintiff alleged that Mohsen and the defendants orchestrated a scheme to execute a series of fraudulent transfers to prevent Plaintiff from reaching assets to satisfy Plaintiff’s judgment against Mohsen. Plaintiff alleges that the majority of these fraudulent transfers were for little or no consideration, executed months after Plaintiff obtained multiple jury verdicts against Mohsen.
On February 9, 2015, the court, Honorable Rolf M. Treu presiding, denied Mohsen’s special motion to strike pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16 (the “anti-SLAPP order”). On April 2, 2015, Mohsen appealed the anti-SLAPP order, which automatically stayed further proceedings on the merits as to all causes of action.
On August 1, 2016, Mohsen and Mahsid filed for bankruptcy, which triggered an automatic bankruptcy stay. On October 24, 2019, the bankruptcy court issued discharge orders in Mohsen’s and Mahsid’s bankruptcy cases.
In March 2020, counsel for the chapter 7 trustee advised that his investigation of the assets in this action were complete, and the trustee would take no action and abandon any uncollected assets. On March 19, 2020, the court of appeal dismissed Mohsen’s appeal of the anti-SLAPP order. On July 6, 2020, the court entered a case management order, lifting the stay.
On March 2, 2021, Plaintiff filed the pending two motions to compel Defendants Arianna and Ciamack Loghmani to serve further responses to requests for production, set one. On March 18, 2021, Defendants filed an opposition.
On March 23, 2021, Defendants filed a notice that the reopening of Mohsen’s chapter 7 bankruptcy triggered an automatic stay of this entire action as against all parties. Plaintiff objected to the scope of the automatic stay. On March 26, 2021, the court issued an OSC re status of the automatic stay and ordered a briefing schedule on the automatic stay.
On April 8, 2021, Plaintiff filed a response to the OSC. On April 12, 2021 the Chapter 7 Trustee of Mohsen’s bankruptcy estate filed a notice of substitution as plaintiff and real party in interest and briefed the automatic stay issue.
ANALYSIS Because Plaintiff’s causes of action against Defendants allege causes of action for fraudulent conveyance, to avoid and recover the bankruptcy debtor’s pre-bankruptcy transfers, the Chapter 7 Trustee claims that Plaintiff’s claims are property of the bankruptcy estate. Accordingly, the Chapter 7 Trustee claims to be the real party-in-interest with standing to continue prosecuting Plaintiff’s claims for the benefit of all creditors. (See Daff v. Wallace (In re Cass), 2013 Bankr. LEXIS 4653 at *27 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 2013) (“It is undisputed that Trustee was the only party with standing to prosecute what became the Fraudulent Transfer Adversary…”). Finally, the Chapter 7 Trustee argues that to the extent that Plaintiff disputes the application of the automatic stay and property of the estate, the bankruptcy court has exclusive jurisdiction to determine that issue. 11 U.S.C. § 362(j) [“On request of a party in interest, the court shall issue an order under subsection (c) confirming that the automatic stay has been terminated.”].
Plaintiff responds by first arguing that the Chapter 7 Trustee’s notice is procedurally improper and ineffective because that Chapter 7 Trustee did not file a motion to substitute in as plaintiff. (Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 368.5). Further, Plaintiff disputes that the Chapter 7 Trustee is the real party in interest and that the claims are property of the estate. Finally, Plaintiff argues that this court has jurisdiction to determine the status of the automatic stay and whether or not the Chapter 7 Trustee has standing to pursue this action. Accordingly, although Plaintiff argues that Plaintiff has standing and the automatic stay does not apply to this section, Plaintiff acknowledges, “it seems the prudent course for Plaintiff and the Trustee to seek a determination from the Bankruptcy Court.”
The court finds that given that this dispute arises over claims that may or may not belong to the bankruptcy estate, that the automatic stay may or may not apply to some/all of the parties/claims, and that the bankruptcy court is in a better position to decide these issues, the court abstains from deciding these decisions at this time. The parties should seek guidance from the bankruptcy court regarding: (1) whether or not these claims are property of the estate, (2) whether or not the Chapter 7 Trustee’s exclusive rights to these claims are time-barred under 11 USC § 546, (3) the extent of the Chapter 7 Trustee’s interests in this case and whether or not the Chapter 7 Trustee has exclusive standing to prosecute these claims, (4) whether or not the Chapter 7 Trustee abandoned these claims upon closing of the estate, and (5) the scope and extent of the automatic stay in this case. To the extent that the bankruptcy court rules in the Chapter 7 Trustee’s favor, the Chapter 7 Trustee is ordered to file a motion to substitute in as plaintiff with this court. The OSC re status of automatic stay is continued to _______________. The parties are ordered to file a joint status report regarding the bankruptcy court’s rulings/position on these issues within 5 court days before the continued OSC. The action is stayed until then. The hearing on the motions to compel are continued to ___________. However, that date is a holding date for the court to determine how to proceed upon receiving guidance from the bankruptcy court—i.e., the court will not decide the merits of the case then.
Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases