This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 08/21/2021 at 00:38:48 (UTC).

4402 MAMMOTH INVESTORS, LLC VS SHAHRAM ELYASZADEH, ET AL.

Case Summary

On 11/27/2019 4402 MAMMOTH INVESTORS, LLC filed an Other lawsuit against SHAHRAM ELYASZADEH,. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Santa Monica Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The case status is Other.
Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *******2083

  • Filing Date:

    11/27/2019

  • Case Status:

    Other

  • Case Type:

    Other

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

4402 MAMMOTH INVESTORS LLC

Defendants

ELYASZADEH SHAHRAM AKA SHAHRAM ESMAILZADEH AKA SHAWN ELY

ELYASZADEH NARJES

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

ENDLER JEFFREY BRAD

Defendant Attorney

HEWITT ANDREW

 

Court Documents

Declaration in Support of Attorney's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel-Civil

3/15/2021: Declaration in Support of Attorney's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel-Civil

Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel

3/15/2021: Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel

Notice - NOTICE NOTICE OF ERRATA; NOTICE OF RULINGS FROM PLAINTIFF'S EX PARTE APPLICATION TO ADVANCE MSJ DATE; NOTICE OF RESULTS FROM TRIAL SETTING CONFERENCE; NOTICE OF MSJ DATE; NOTICE OF FSC DATE;

3/15/2021: Notice - NOTICE NOTICE OF ERRATA; NOTICE OF RULINGS FROM PLAINTIFF'S EX PARTE APPLICATION TO ADVANCE MSJ DATE; NOTICE OF RESULTS FROM TRIAL SETTING CONFERENCE; NOTICE OF MSJ DATE; NOTICE OF FSC DATE;

Motion for Protective Order

3/17/2021: Motion for Protective Order

Ex Parte Application - EX PARTE APPLICATION EX PARTE APPLICATION TO ADVANCE PLAINTIFF'S ATTORNEY JEFFREY B. ENDLER'S MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL, AND STAY ON ALL PROCEEDINGS UNTIL SAID DATE; ETC.

3/18/2021: Ex Parte Application - EX PARTE APPLICATION EX PARTE APPLICATION TO ADVANCE PLAINTIFF'S ATTORNEY JEFFREY B. ENDLER'S MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL, AND STAY ON ALL PROCEEDINGS UNTIL SAID DATE; ETC.

Request for Dismissal

3/18/2021: Request for Dismissal

Memorandum of Costs (Summary)

3/25/2021: Memorandum of Costs (Summary)

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON EX PARTE APPLICATION TO ADVANCE PLAINTIFF'S DATE O...)

2/23/2021: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON EX PARTE APPLICATION TO ADVANCE PLAINTIFF'S DATE O...)

Opposition - OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S EX PARTE APPLICATION TO ADVANCE HEARING ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

2/22/2021: Opposition - OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S EX PARTE APPLICATION TO ADVANCE HEARING ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Ex Parte Application - PLAINTIFF'S EX PARTE APPLICATION TO ADVANCE PLAINTIFF'S DATE OF MSJ, FROM 4/29/21 TO 3/03/21; POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF NOTICE

2/22/2021: Ex Parte Application - PLAINTIFF'S EX PARTE APPLICATION TO ADVANCE PLAINTIFF'S DATE OF MSJ, FROM 4/29/21 TO 3/03/21; POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF NOTICE

Request for Judicial Notice

2/9/2021: Request for Judicial Notice

Declaration - DECLARATION OF ARTHUR ASLANIAN IN SUPPORT OF MSJ

2/9/2021: Declaration - DECLARATION OF ARTHUR ASLANIAN IN SUPPORT OF MSJ

Declaration - DECLARATION OF ERICK SALAS IN SUPPORT OF MSJ

2/9/2021: Declaration - DECLARATION OF ERICK SALAS IN SUPPORT OF MSJ

Declaration - DECLARATION OF JEFFREY B. ENDLER IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; EXHIBITS 1- 3D

2/9/2021: Declaration - DECLARATION OF JEFFREY B. ENDLER IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; EXHIBITS 1- 3D

Memorandum of Points & Authorities

2/9/2021: Memorandum of Points & Authorities

Motion for Summary Judgment

2/9/2021: Motion for Summary Judgment

Separate Statement

2/9/2021: Separate Statement

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (TRIAL SETTING CONFERENCE)

1/27/2021: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (TRIAL SETTING CONFERENCE)

50 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 06/08/2021
  • Docketat 10:30 AM in Department O; Informal Discovery Conference (IDC) - Not Held - Vacated by Court

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 05/27/2021
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department O; Hearing on Motion for Protective Order - Not Held - Vacated by Court

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 04/29/2021
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department O; Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment - Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by Court

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 04/19/2021
  • Docketat 10:00 AM in Department O; Jury Trial ((5 days)) - Not Held - Vacated by Court

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 04/15/2021
  • Docketat 09:30 AM in Department O; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Vacated by Court

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 04/15/2021
  • Docketat 09:30 AM in Department O; Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment - Not Held - Vacated by Court

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 04/13/2021
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department O; Hearing on Motion to be Relieved as Counsel - Not Held - Vacated by Court

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 03/25/2021
  • DocketMemorandum of Costs (Summary); Filed by Shahram Elyaszadeh (Defendant)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 03/19/2021
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department O; Hearing on Ex Parte Application (Application to Advance Plaintiff's Attorney Jeffrey B. Endler's Motion to be Relieved As Counsel, and Stay on All Proceedings until Said Date; etc.) - Not Held - Vacated by Court

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 03/18/2021
  • DocketEx Parte Application (Ex Parte Application to Advance Plaintiff's Attorney Jeffrey B. Endler's Motion to be Relieved As Counsel, and Stay on All Proceedings until Said Date; etc.); Filed by Jeffrey Brad Endler (Attorney)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
67 More Docket Entries
  • 12/11/2019
  • DocketDeclaration re: Due Diligence; Filed by 4402 Mammoth Investors, LLC (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 12/04/2019
  • DocketNotice of Unlawful Detainer (Eviction) ((ALL OCCUPANTS)); Filed by Clerk

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 12/04/2019
  • DocketNotice of Unlawful Detainer (Eviction) ((Narjes Elyaszadeh)); Filed by Clerk

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 12/04/2019
  • DocketNotice of Unlawful Detainer (Eviction) ((Shahram Elyaszadeh)); Filed by Clerk

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 12/03/2019
  • DocketNotice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 11/27/2019
  • DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Unlimited Civil Case; Filed by Clerk

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 11/27/2019
  • DocketSummons (on Complaint); Filed by 4402 Mammoth Investors, LLC (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 11/27/2019
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by 4402 Mammoth Investors, LLC (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 11/27/2019
  • DocketComplaint (for Unlawful Detainer); Filed by 4402 Mammoth Investors, LLC (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 11/27/2019
  • DocketProperty Owner/Landlord Only Hearing Notice; Filed by Clerk

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: *******2083    Hearing Date: September 17, 2020    Dept: O

Case Name: 4402 Mammoth Investors, LLC v. Elyaszadeh, et al.

Case No.: *******2083

Complaint Filed: 11-27-19

Hearing Date: 9-17-20 (cont’d from 3- 17-20 and 5-5-20)

Discovery C/O: None

Calendar No.: 5

Discover Motion C/O: None

POS: OK

Trial Date: None

SUBJECT: DEMURRER TO COMPLAINT

MOVING PARTY:  Defendants Shahram Elyaszadeh and Narjes Elyaszadeh

RESP. PARTY: Plaintiff 4402 Mammoth Investors, LLC

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendants’ Demurrer is OVERRULED.  Defendants to answer in 20 days.

In general, affirmative defenses may not be resolved on demurrer unless the defense appears clearly and affirmatively from the face of the complaint.  See Asahi Kasei Pharma Corp. v. Actelion Ltd. (2013) 222 Cal.App.4th 945, 963 (quoting Woods v. Fox Broadcasting Sub., Inc. (2005) 129 Cal.App.4th 344, 351).  A “demurrer based on an affirmative defense cannot properly be sustained where the action might be barred by the defense, but is not necessarily barred.”  CrossTalk Productions, Inc. v. Jacobson (1998) 65 Cal.App.4th 631, 635. 

I.  The Court cannot find Plaintiff’s action for unlawful detainer under Code of Civil Procedure ;1161, subdivision 1, is barred by res judicata.

Defendants’ Request for Judicial Notice is GRANTED.

“As generally understood, ‘[t]he doctrine of res judicata gives certain conclusive effect to a former judgment in subsequent litigation involving the same controversy.’ ” (People v. Barragan (2004) 32 Cal.4th 236, 252.) “ ‘In its primary aspect,’ commonly known as claim preclusion, it ‘operates as a bar to the maintenance of a second suit between the same parties on the same cause of action. [Citation.]’ [Citation.] ‘In its secondary aspect,’ commonly known as collateral estoppel, ‘[t]he prior judgment ... “operates” ’ in ‘a second suit ... based on a different cause of action ... “as an estoppel or conclusive adjudication as to such issues in the second action as were actually litigated and determined in the first action.” ’ ” (People v. Barragan, supra, 32 Cal.4th at pp. 252–253.) The California Supreme Court clarified by using the term “res judicata” to signify the broader doctrine, including both its primary and secondary aspects, while using “the terms ‘claim preclusion’ to describe the primary aspect of the res judicata doctrine and ‘issue preclusion’ to encompass the notion of collateral estoppel.” (DKN Holdings LLC v. Faerber (2015) 61 Cal.4th 813, 824.)

As summarized in Hong Sang Market, Inc. v. Peng (2018) 20 Cal.App.5th 474:

“An unlawful detainer action is a summary proceeding designed to adjudicate the right of immediate possession; the only claims that are cognizable in such a proceeding are those bearing directly on the immediate right of possession. ( Citation.) An unlawful detainer judgment has a limited res judicata effect because the claim preclusion aspect of the res judicata doctrine applies only to matters that were raised or could have been raised in the earlier action on matters that were litigated or litigable.(FN omitted) (Citation.) A necessary corollary to this statement of the law relating to claim preclusion is that a prior judgment generally does not bar a subsequent claim if the matter could not have been raised or litigated in the earlier action. Thus, in a situation in which a “ ‘court in the first action would clearly not have had jurisdiction to entertain the omitted theory or ground ..., then a second action in a competent court presenting the omitted theory or ground should be held not precluded.’ ” (Citation.) Because the scope of an unlawful detainer proceeding is limited, the preclusive effect of an unlawful detainer judgment is likewise limited.”

The prior Unlawful Detainer (UD) proceedings did not involve the same causes of action. Each was premised on the service of a different statutorily required notice to pay rent or quit under CCP 1161, subdivision 2, or a notice to quit under CCP 1161a, subdivision (b)(3).  In this litigation, Plaintiff seeks to recover possession of the subject property pursuant to Civil Code (CC) ;1161(1) and CC ;789 based on Plaintiff’s rights under the Defendants’ alleged at-will tenancy. The complaint is premised on a 30-day notice to quit.

Defendant’s argument that Plaintiff could have asserted his present claim in the prior actions is mistaken because those actions were based on different notices to quit. Defendant’s reliance on Needelman v. DeWolf Realty Co., Inc. (2015) 239 Cal.App.4th 750, 760 is misplaced. In Needelman, the tenant and landlord settled their unlawful detainer action by entering into a settlement agreement and stipulation for judgment.  Thereafter the tenant sued the landlord for claims related to the prior unlawful detainer action and stipulated judgment.  The trial court sustained the former landlord’s demurrer without leave to amend.  The Court of Appeal affirmed holding the former tenant “appeared in the unlawful detainer action and chose to sign the stipulated agreement, which specifically waived any claims related to his personal property left at the residence, as well as all his defenses to the unlawful detainer action….” Id.

That factually specific holding is no help here.

Plaintiff is suing for recovery of possession of 120 Stonehaven Way, including the guest house located at 119 S. Bundy Dr.  And Plaintiff is suing Defendants Shahrem Elyaszadeh and Narjes Elyaszadeh.  The prior actions lack a complete identity of parties or privities:

(1)  14R08243.  UD action as to 119 S. Bundy Dr only.  Narjes not named as a defendant and 26 Malibu, LLC named as a defendant.  UD action per CCP ;1161(2) based on failure to pay rent per oral, month-to-month rental agreement entered into on or about 8-1-14 for $1700/mo.

(2)  14R08247.  Narjes not named as defendant and 26 Malibu, LLC named as defendant.  UD action per 1161a(b)(3) for unlawful detainer after foreclosure sale and service of either 3-day notice to former owner to quit or 90-day notice to tenant to quit.

(3)  SC125333.  Narjes not named as defendant and 26 Malibu, LLC named as defendant.  UD action per 1161(2) based on failure to pay rent per oral, month to month rental agreement entered into on 5-27-14 for $10,000/mo.

(4) *******2083 (instant action). 26 Malibu LLC not named as defendant.  UD action per 1161(1) based on at-will tenancy terminated per CC 789.

The Court finds Defendant has failed to show this action is barred by the defense of res judicata based on the face of the complaint or the judicially noticed documents. Demurrer based on res judicata is OVERRULED. 

II.  CCP ;318 is inapplicable

“No action for the recovery of real property, or for the recovery of the possession thereof, can be maintained, unless it appears that the plaintiff, his ancestor, predecessor, or grantor, was seized or possessed of the property in question, within five years before the commencement of the action.”  CCP ;318. 

Defendants fail to cite to any authority applying CCP ;318 to an unlawful detainer action based on termination of a tenancy-at-will under CCP 1161, subdivision 1 or to CC ;789.  Defendants cite to Sorensen v. Costa (1948) 32 Cal.3d 453 for the proposition that CCP ;318 bars the UD claim.  However, Sorenson involved adverse possession, not unlawful detainer.

An action for unlawful detainer based on termination of a tenancy at-will is brought under CCP ;1161(1), which does not contain any express limitations period, unlike CCP ;1161(2).  The Court is unaware of any authority applying any other statute of limitation to an action for unlawful detainer. See, Gaab, et al., Cal. Prac. Guide:  Civil Procedure Before Trial Claims & Defenses (Rutter Group 2019), ¶11:250. (“[g]iven the summary and limited nature of unlawful detainer proceedings, rules relating to statutes of limitations generally do not apply.”)  Demurrer on grounds of the claim is barred by CCP 318 is OVERRULED.]



Case Number: *******2083    Hearing Date: March 17, 2020    Dept: O

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendants’ Demurrer is OVERRULED. Defendants to answer in 20 days.

In general, affirmative defenses may not be resolved on demurrer unless the defense appears clearly and affirmatively from the face of the complaint. See Asahi Kasei Pharma Corp. v. Actelion Ltd. (2013) 222 Cal.App.4th 945, 963 (quoting Woods v. Fox Broadcasting Sub., Inc. (2005) 129 Cal.App.4th 344, 351). A “demurrer based on an affirmative defense cannot properly be sustained where the action might be barred by the defense, but is not necessarily barred.” CrossTalk Productions, Inc. v. Jacobson (1998) 65 Cal.App.4th 631, 635.

I. Plaintiff’s UD action is not barred by res judicata based on the face of the complaint or judicially noticeable documents.

Defendants’ RJN is GRANTED.

“The doctrine of res judicata rests upon the ground that the party to be affected, or some other with whom he is in privity, has litigated, or had an opportunity to litigate the same matter in a former action in a court of competent jurisdiction, and should not be permitted to litigate it again to the harassment and vexation of his opponent. Public policy and the interest of litigants alike require that there be an end to litigation. The doctrine precludes parties or their privies from relitigating a cause of action that has been finally determined by a court of competent jurisdiction. This aspect of res judicata has traditionally been referred to as ‘res judicata' or ‘claim preclusion.’” Roos v. Red (2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 870, 879.

The prior UD proceedings did not involve the same “causes of action.” In this litigation, Plaintiff seeks to recover possession of the subject property pursuant to CC ;1161(1) and CC ;789 based on Plaintiff’s rights under the Defendants’ alleged at-will tenancy. Plaintiff is also suing for recovery of possession of 120 Stonehaven Way, including the guest house located at 119 S. Bundy Dr. Plaintiff is suing Defendants Shahrem Elyaszadeh and Narjes Elyaszadeh.

The prior actions do not have res judicata effect for multiple reasons, including lack of complete identity of parties or privities and different primary right/cause of action at issue, i.e. different rental agreements or grounds for termination of possession:

(1) 14R08243. UD action as to 119 S. Bundy Dr only. Narjes not named as a defendant and 26 Malibu, LLC named as a defendant. UD action per CCP ;1161(2) based on failure to pay rent per oral, month-to-month rental agreement entered into on or about 8-1-14 for $1700/mo.

(2) 14R08247. Narjes not named as defendant and 26 Malibu, LLC named as defendant. UD action per 1161a(b)(3) for unlawful detainer after foreclosure sale and service of either 3-day notice to former owner to quit or 90-day notice to tenant to quit.

(3) SC125333. Narjes not named as defendant and 26 Malibu, LLC named as defendant. UD action per 1161(2) based on failure to pay rent per oral, month to month rental agreement entered into on 5-27-14 for $10,000/mo.

(4) *******2083 (instant action). 26 Malibu LLC not named as defendant. UD action per 1161(1) based on at-will tenancy terminated per CC 789.

The instant action is not barred by the defense of res judicata based on the face of the complaint or the judicially noticed documents. None of these documents establish that the same primary right or cause of action asserted in this action was asserted in the prior UD actions. Demurrer based on res judicata is OVERRULED.

II. CCP ;318 is inapplicable

“No action for the recovery of real property, or for the recovery of the possession thereof, can be maintained, unless it appear that the plaintiff, his ancestor, predecessor, or grantor, was seized or possessed of the property in question, within five years before the commencement of the action.” CCP ;318.

Defendants fail to cite to any authority applying CCP ;318 to an unlawful detainer action based on termination of a tenancy-at-will pursuant to CC ;789. Defendants cite to Sorensen v. Costa (1948) 32 Cal.3d 453 for the proposition that CCP ;318 bars the UD claim. However, Sorenson involved adverse possession, not unlawful detainer. Defendants’ Demurrer per the SOL set forth under CCP ;318 is OVERRULED.



related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where 4402 MAMMOTH INVESTORS LLC is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer HEWITT ANDREW E.