This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 03/29/2019 at 00:03:36 (UTC).

UNITED GRAND CORPORATION VS MALIBU HILLBILLIES LLC ET AL

Case Summary

On 08/08/2014 UNITED GRAND CORPORATION filed a Contract - Other Contract lawsuit against MALIBU HILLBILLIES LLC. 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, MICHELLE R. ROSENBLATT and EDWARD B. MORETON. The case status is Disposed - Dismissed.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****4172

  • Filing Date:

    08/08/2014

  • Case Status:

    Disposed - Dismissed

  • 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

MICHELLE R. ROSENBLATT

EDWARD B. MORETON

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

UNITED GRAND CORPORATION

Defendants

DOES 1-10

EISENBERG JONATHAN D

HARVEY STEPHEN L

MALIBU HILLBILLIES LLC

STOLOFF MARCIE

EISENBERG JONATHAN D.

HARVEY STEPHEN L.

Not Classified By Court

STAUB D. JOSHUA

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorneys

SANAIS CYRUS M

CYRUS M. SANAIS ATTORNEY AT LAW

Defendant Attorney

D. JOSHUA STAUB LAW OFFICES OF

 

Court Documents

Minute Order

1/29/2018: Minute Order

MOTION IN LIMINE #2 TO EXCLUDE TESTIMONY OF JUDICIAL OFFICERS AND MARCIE STOLLOF

2/8/2018: MOTION IN LIMINE #2 TO EXCLUDE TESTIMONY OF JUDICIAL OFFICERS AND MARCIE STOLLOF

REPLY TO "OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR ENFORCEMENT FEES" SIGNED 2/27/18

3/2/2018: REPLY TO "OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR ENFORCEMENT FEES" SIGNED 2/27/18

REPLY TO OPPOSITION OF THE SUPERIOR COURT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY; ETC.

3/9/2018: REPLY TO OPPOSITION OF THE SUPERIOR COURT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY; ETC.

NOTICE OF ENTRY OF ORDER

6/8/2018: NOTICE OF ENTRY OF ORDER

ERRATA RE NOTICE OF ENTRY OF ORDER DATED 6/14/2018

6/26/2018: ERRATA RE NOTICE OF ENTRY OF ORDER DATED 6/14/2018

NOTICE OF ENTRY OF JUDGMENT OR ORDER

7/6/2015: NOTICE OF ENTRY OF JUDGMENT OR ORDER

REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO FIRST SET OF POST-JUDGMENT INTERROGATORIES PROPOUNDED ON JUDGMENT DEBTOR MARCIE STOLLOFAND TO AWARD SANCTIONS ON MARCIE STOLLOF AND D. JOSHUA

9/2/2015: REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO FIRST SET OF POST-JUDGMENT INTERROGATORIES PROPOUNDED ON JUDGMENT DEBTOR MARCIE STOLLOFAND TO AWARD SANCTIONS ON MARCIE STOLLOF AND D. JOSHUA

Proof of Service

9/25/2015: Proof of Service

NOTICE OF EX PARTE NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO STRIKE MOTIONS FILED BY MARCIE STOLLOF ON OCTOBER 16, 2015 FOR FRAUD ON THE COURT AND VIOLATION OF THIS COURT'S ORDER OF OCTOBER 14, 2015 MEMORANDUM O

10/20/2015: NOTICE OF EX PARTE NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO STRIKE MOTIONS FILED BY MARCIE STOLLOF ON OCTOBER 16, 2015 FOR FRAUD ON THE COURT AND VIOLATION OF THIS COURT'S ORDER OF OCTOBER 14, 2015 MEMORANDUM O

Proof of Service

4/22/2016: Proof of Service

NOTICE OF ERRATA; REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION AND MOTION TO VACATE AND RECONSIDER ORDER OF APRIL 29, 2016 AND AWARD SANCTIONS TO BE PAID TO COURT BY D.JOSHUA STAUB AND SANCTIONS, ETC

7/25/2016: NOTICE OF ERRATA; REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION AND MOTION TO VACATE AND RECONSIDER ORDER OF APRIL 29, 2016 AND AWARD SANCTIONS TO BE PAID TO COURT BY D.JOSHUA STAUB AND SANCTIONS, ETC

Proof of Service

1/5/2017: Proof of Service

Minute Order

2/6/2017: Minute Order

Proof of Service

2/8/2017: Proof of Service

Minute Order

4/11/2017: Minute Order

OPPOSITION TO THIRD MOTION TO DISSOLVE INJUNCTION, ETC

5/25/2017: OPPOSITION TO THIRD MOTION TO DISSOLVE INJUNCTION, ETC

MEMORANDUM OF COSTS AFTER JUDGMENT, ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF CREDIT, AND DECLARATION OF ACCRUED INTEREST

6/19/2017: MEMORANDUM OF COSTS AFTER JUDGMENT, ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF CREDIT, AND DECLARATION OF ACCRUED INTEREST

865 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 03/28/2019
  • Request (for Judicial Notice); Filed by D. Joshua Staub (Non-Party)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/28/2019
  • Response (STATEMENT PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA RULES OF COURT RULE 3.1312); Filed by D. Joshua Staub (Non-Party)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/21/2019
  • at 09:30 AM in Department 44, Edward B. Moreton, Presiding; Non-Appearance Case Review

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/21/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Continued Motion RE Compel Responses)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/19/2019
  • Proof of Personal Service; Filed by Marcie Stoloff (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/12/2019
  • Request for Judicial Notice; Filed by Marcie Stoloff (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/22/2019
  • Writ of Execution ((Los Angeles)); Filed by Marcie Stoloff (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/18/2018
  • Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by Marcie Stoloff (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/18/2018
  • Notice (of Continuance); Filed by Marcie Stoloff (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/26/2018
  • Proof of Service by Mail

    Read MoreRead Less
1,671 More Docket Entries
  • 10/17/2014
  • PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/17/2014
  • REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/17/2014
  • Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by United Grand Corporation (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/01/2014
  • NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/01/2014
  • Notice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/08/2014
  • PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/08/2014
  • Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by United Grand Corporation (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/08/2014
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/08/2014
  • Complaint; Filed by United Grand Corporation (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/08/2014
  • COMPLAINT-CONTRACT

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC554172    Hearing Date: October 26, 2020    Dept: 40

MOVING PARTY: Judgment Creditor D. Joshua Staub

OPPOSITION: Judgment Debtor Cyrus M. Sanai

The motion arises from a what was originally landlord-tenant dispute. Defendant Malibu Hillbillies LLC (“Defendant”) did not pay rent to its landlord Plaintiff United Grand Corporation (“Plaintiff”). Plaintiff filed a complaint for the unpaid rent against Defendant.

Debtor Cyrus M. Sanai represented Plaintiff while Creditor D. Joshua Staub represented Defendant’s guarantor Marcie Stollof (“Stollof”).

In February 2017, Sanai was ordered to pay Staub $3,600 in sanctions. Sanai refused to pay and in March 2018, the court held a trial and found Sanai guilty of contempt.

On June 14, 2018, the court ordered Sanai to pay Staub the sum of $29,531.2.

On July 6, 2019, the court ordered Sanai to pay Mr. Staub the sum of $27,562.50. Sanai has not paid the issued sanctions and has an outstanding bench warrant.

On September 23, 2020, Mr. Staub filed this motion requesting that the Court assign to him all of Sanai’s interest, and rights to payment due, or to become due from Darren Cobrae, Gary Cobrae, and United Grand Corporation. Currently, there is a pending arbitration proceeding between Darren Cobrae and Sanai before the Beverly Hills Bar Association which is scheduled to be heard on November 18, 2020.

Mr. Staub also requests that Sanai be enjoined from assigning or disposing of the right to payment.

The Court considered the moving papers, opposition, and reply and rules as follows

Judicial Notice: Counsel Staub requests judicial notice of the Sanctions Order, Contempt Conviction, Bench Warrant, 6/14/18 Order on Motion for Attorneys’ Fees, 7/16/19 Order Granting Special Prosecutor’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees, Response to Order to Show Cause in 19SMCV00158 (Sanai’s fee dispute), and 9/15/20 Minute Order in 19SMCV00158.

The Court will take judicial notice of the exhibits pursuant to Evidence Code section 452(d), official court records.

Standard: Code of Civil Procedure, section 708.510, subdivision (a) states, in relevant part:

(a) Except as otherwise provided by law, upon application of the judgment creditor on noticed motion, the court may order the judgment debtor to assign to the judgment creditor…all or part of a right to payment due or to become due, whether or not the right is conditioned on future developments, including but not limited to the following types of payments….

(Code of Civ. Proc., § 708.510(a).)

“In determining whether to order an assignment or the amount of an assignment, the court may consider all relevant factors, including the following: (1) The reasonable requirements of a judgment debtor who is a natural person and of persons supported, in whole or in part, by the judgment debtor. (2) Payments the judgment debtor is required to make or that are deducted in satisfaction of other judgments and wage assignments, including earnings assignment orders for support. (3) The amount remaining due on the money judgment. (4) The amount being or to be received in satisfaction of the right to payment that may be assigned.” (CCP § 708.510(c).)

“When an application is made pursuant to Section 708.510 or thereafter, the judgment creditor may apply to the court for an order restraining the judgment debtor from assigning or otherwise disposing of the right to payment that is sought to be assigned.” (CCP § 708.520(a).)

Assignment and Injunction: Sanai argues that the February 22, 2017 Sanction Order and the March 26, 2018 contempt conviction are void. This is not the first time Sanai has made this argument. Sanai has already challenged these orders at the Court of Appeal, which affirmed them. United Grand Corp. v. Malibu Hillbillies, LLC (2019) 36 Cal.App.5th 142. The Court considers the validity of the orders to be a settled matter.

In a supplemental opposition he argues that the motion should be continued or denied because Stollof’s current counsel was not served. The Court agrees with Daub that service was not required on Stollof’s current counsel. Code of Civil Procedure Section 708.510 requires that “the notice of [an assignment] motion shall be served on the judgment debtor. Service shall be made personally or by mail.” (CCP § 708.510(b).) Sanai is the judgment debtor and thus only service on him was required.

The Court grant the motion. Mr. Staub has demonstrated that Sanai has not paid the levied sanctions and he has an assignable payment in the form of the mandatory fee arbitration claim against Cobrae in the Beverly Hills Bar Association. (Mtn., Ex. F.) However, the Court has one issue with the proposed order. The order contains “but not limited to” language which would encompass any right to payment Sanai may possess. Mr. Staub has only demonstrated the existence of the instant right to payment and therefore the broader language should be stricken.

Accordingly, the motion is granted with that modification.

Misconduct under Judicial Canon 3(D)(2):

Mr. Staub in a supplemental filing encourages that Sanai should be reported to the State Bar for misconduct, as Sanai has repeatedly violated court orders, has misled the court, and has defamed several judicial officers in his opposition and exhibits.

The Court agrees with Sanai that the allegations and the “relief” requested was not part of the moving papers, however, that request is taken under submission and the Court invites Mr. Staub to prepare a summary letter to the State Bar for this Court’s consideration.

Conclusion: Creditor Staub’s motion for an assignment order and injunction is GRANTED.