Search

Attributes

This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 04/02/2016 at 17:00:24 (UTC).

TESSIE CLEVELAND COMMUNITY SVCS CORP VS MOHSEN LOGHMANI ET A

Case Summary

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.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****8489

  • Filing Date:

    09/23/2014

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Property - Other Real Property

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

ROLF M. TREU

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner

TESSIE CLEVELAND COMMUNITY SERVICES

Defendants and Respondents

1518 ELEVENTH STREET CONDOMINIUMS LLC

DOES 1 THROUGH 50

L.A. DESIGN GROUP

LOGHMANI ARIANNE K.

LOGHMANI CIAMACK

LOGHMANI CIAVASH MATTHEW

LOGHMANI MAHSHID

LOGHMANI MOHSEN

SADOUGHI ALI

CIAVASH MATTHEW LOGHMANI

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorney

J.J. LITTLE & ASSOCIATES P.C.

Defendant and Respondent Attorney

CAMPBELL FRANCES M. ESQ.

 

Court Documents

NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

10/2/2014: NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

10/16/2014: PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

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

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

OPPOSITION OF PLAINTIFF TESSIE CLEVELAND COMMUNITY SERVICES CORPORATION TO THE MOTION TO STRIKE OF DEFENDANTS 1518 ELEVENTH STREET CONDOMINIUMS, LLC. AND ALL SADOUGHI

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

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

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

ORDER & RULING: SPECIAL MOTION TO STRIKE IS DENIED. ATTORNEY FEES ARE AWARDED AS REQUESTED, PAYABLE BY MOVING PARTY NO LATER THAN MARCH 9, 2015.

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.

CIVIL DEPOSIT

3/25/2015: CIVIL DEPOSIT

NOTICE OF APPEAL

4/2/2015: NOTICE OF APPEAL

STATUS REPORT RE APPEAL

8/3/2015: STATUS REPORT RE APPEAL

Minute Order

1/13/2016: Minute Order

NOTICE OF CASE REASSIGNMENT

4/20/2016: NOTICE OF CASE REASSIGNMENT

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

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

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

7/5/2016: 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

Minute Order

7/22/2016: Minute Order

CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER

7/22/2016: CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER

Minute Order

8/11/2016: Minute Order

Minute Order

2/22/2017: Minute Order

STATUS OF ADVERSARY PROCEEDINGS (1:16-AP-O1150-MT)

4/20/2017: STATUS OF ADVERSARY PROCEEDINGS (1:16-AP-O1150-MT)

93 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 02/11/2016
  • Notice of Reassignment and Order Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/24/2015
  • Notice (notice of default unlimited civil appeals ) Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/23/2015
  • Notice (notice of default unlimited civil appeals ) Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/10/2015
  • Notice of Designation of Record Filed by Appellant, Appellant in Pro Per

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/02/2015
  • Request-Waive Court Fees Filed by Appellant

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/02/2015
  • Notice of Appeal Filed by Appellant

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/09/2015
  • Order (ADOPTING TENTATIVE RULING; ) Filed by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/09/2015
  • Ord-Appt Apprv Rptr as Rptr protem Filed by Certified Shorthand Reporter

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/23/2014
  • Ord-Appt Apprv Rptr as Rptr protem ( TRACY DYRNESS #12323 ) Filed by Attorney for Defendant/Respondent

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/15/2014
  • Reply to Opposition ( TO MOTION TO STRIKE ) Filed by Attorney for Defendant/Respondent

    Read MoreRead Less
13 More Docket Entries
  • 11/06/2014
  • Answer (CIAVASH MATTHEW LOGHMANI ) Filed by Defendant & Defendant in Pro Per

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/24/2014
  • Answer ( MOHSEN LOGHMANI MAHSHID LOGHMANI ) Filed by Defendant & Defendant in Pro Per

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/17/2014
  • Proof of Service (OF SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT ) Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/16/2014
  • Proof-Service/Summons Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/16/2014
  • Proof of Service Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/02/2014
  • OSC-Failure to File Proof of Serv Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/02/2014
  • Notice-Case Management Conference Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/24/2014
  • Notice-Related Cases (this BC case is the newer case. proposed related case EC057134 was filed 10-28-11 ) Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/23/2014
  • Complaint

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/02/2014
  • Answer to Complaint Filed by Attorney for Defendant/Respondent

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

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 LOGHMANIs responses to requests for production, set one (filed 03/02/2021)Motion to COMPEL CIAMACK LOGHMANIs responses to requests for production, set one (filed 03/02/2021)

TENTATIVE RULING

The OSC re status of automatic stay is continued to _______________.  The parties are ordered to file a joint status report regarding the bankruptcy courts 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 ___________. 

Discussion

Procedural History

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 Mohens family, and a limited liability company created by Mohsens 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 Plaintiffs 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 Mohsens 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 Mohsens and Mahsids 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 Mohsens 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 Mohsens 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 Mohsens bankruptcy estate filed a notice of substitution as plaintiff and real party in interest and briefed the automatic stay issue. 

ANALYSIS Because Plaintiffs causes of action against Defendants allege causes of action for fraudulent conveyance, to avoid and recover the bankruptcy debtors pre-bankruptcy transfers, the Chapter 7 Trustee claims that Plaintiffs 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 Plaintiffs 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 Trustees 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 Trustees exclusive rights to these claims are time-barred under 11 USC § 546, (3) the extent of the Chapter 7 Trustees 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 Trustees 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 courts 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.    

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where L.A. DESIGN GROUP is a litigant

Latest cases where TESSIE CLEVELAND COMMUNITY SERVICES CORP. is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer CAMPBELL FRANCES MILLER