This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 09/25/2019 at 06:57:31 (UTC).

5975-5999 TOPANGA CANYON BLVD., LLC VS. AHANG ZARIN KELK

Case Summary

On 02/03/2017 5975-5999 TOPANGA CANYON BLVD , LLC filed a Contract - Business lawsuit against AHANG ZARIN KELK. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Van Nuys Courthouse East located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are FRANK J. JOHNSON, ELIZABETH A. LIPPITT, HUEY P. COTTON, MELVIN D. SANDVIG and DEBRE K. WEINTRAUB. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****5208

  • Filing Date:

    02/03/2017

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Contract - Business

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Van Nuys Courthouse East

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

FRANK J. JOHNSON

ELIZABETH A. LIPPITT

HUEY P. COTTON

MELVIN D. SANDVIG

DEBRE K. WEINTRAUB

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs

MIRSHOJAE HAMID REZA

5975-5999 TOPANGA CANYON BLVD. LLC

YEKTA LLC

1028 SAN FERNANOD ROAD LLC

Defendants

MIRSHOJAE AHANG

DOES 1-25

REGHABI ROSS

MIRSHOJAE AHANG Z.

KELK AHANG ZARIN

KELK AHANG ZARRIN

KELK AHANG Z.

YADEGAR ALLEN

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA LAW GROUP

Others

RECIEVER KEVIN SINGER-SUPERIOR COURT

HAGEMANN MICHAEL K.

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorneys

GOLDMAN JAMES LEWIS

MILLER BARONDESS LLP

Defendant Attorneys

SALTZMAN MARK ELLIOTT

TAYLOR DANIEL J.

HAGEMANN MICHAEL K.

QUINTANA ANDRES FELIPE

 

Court Documents

Stipulation and Order - JOINT STIPULATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL DATE AND (PROPOSED) ORDER

7/1/2019: Stipulation and Order - JOINT STIPULATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL DATE AND (PROPOSED) ORDER

Civil Case Cover Sheet

2/3/2017: Civil Case Cover Sheet

Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: PROOF OF SERVICE

3/8/2017: Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: PROOF OF SERVICE

Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: DECLARATION

3/9/2017: Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: DECLARATION

Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: MISCELLANEOUS

3/20/2017: Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: MISCELLANEOUS

Answer

3/30/2017: Answer

Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: NOTICE OF LODGING

4/20/2017: Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: NOTICE OF LODGING

Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: DECLARATION

4/27/2017: Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: DECLARATION

Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: REPLY TO OPPOSITION

5/12/2017: Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: REPLY TO OPPOSITION

Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: OBJECTION

5/12/2017: Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: OBJECTION

Case Management Statement

6/15/2017: Case Management Statement

Request for Judicial Notice

6/23/2017: Request for Judicial Notice

Notice of Ruling

6/26/2017: Notice of Ruling

Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: Motion to Compel

7/26/2017: Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: Motion to Compel

Minute Order - Minute order entered: 2017-11-02 00:00:00

11/2/2017: Minute Order - Minute order entered: 2017-11-02 00:00:00

Minute Order - Minute order entered: 2017-12-13 00:00:00

12/13/2017: Minute Order - Minute order entered: 2017-12-13 00:00:00

Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: Notice

12/26/2017: Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: Notice

Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

1/17/2019: Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

233 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 02/18/2020
  • Hearing02/18/2020 at 08:30 AM in Department F47 at 9425 Penfield Ave., Chatsworth, CA 91311; Jury Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/07/2020
  • Hearing02/07/2020 at 08:30 AM in Department F47 at 9425 Penfield Ave., Chatsworth, CA 91311; Final Status Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/15/2019
  • Docketat 08:35 AM in Department F47, Melvin D. Sandvig, Presiding; Jury Trial - Not Held - Continued - Stipulation

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/05/2019
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department F47, Melvin D. Sandvig, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Continued - Stipulation

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/01/2019
  • DocketJoint Stipulation to Continue Trial Date and (Proposed) Order; Filed by Hamid Reza Mirshojae (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/06/2019
  • Docketat 08:35 AM in Department F47, Melvin D. Sandvig, Presiding; Jury Trial - Not Held - Continued - Stipulation

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/11/2019
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department F47, Melvin D. Sandvig, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Continued - Stipulation

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/09/2019
  • DocketStipulation and Order (JOINT STIPULATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL DATE AND [PROPOSED] ORDER); Filed by Hamid Reza Mirshojae (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/04/2019
  • Docketat 08:35 AM in Department F47, Melvin D. Sandvig, Presiding; Jury Trial - Not Held - Continued - Stipulation

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/25/2019
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department F47, Melvin D. Sandvig, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Continued - Stipulation

    Read MoreRead Less
353 More Docket Entries
  • 02/03/2017
  • DocketSummons; Filed by null

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/03/2017
  • DocketNotice-Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/03/2017
  • DocketSummons Issued; Filed by Attorney-Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/03/2017
  • DocketNotice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/03/2017
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by 5975-5999 Topanga Canyon Blvd., LLC (Plaintiff); YEKTA LLC (Plaintiff); Yekta, LLC (Plaintiff) et al.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/03/2017
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by 5975-5999 Topanga Canyon Blvd., LLC (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/03/2017
  • DocketComplaint filed-Summons Issued; Filed by null

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/03/2017
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Attorney-Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/08/2014
  • DocketProof of Service; Filed by Attorney-Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/08/2014
  • DocketProof of Service; Filed by 5975-5999 Topanga Canyon Blvd., LLC (Plaintiff); Yekta, LLC (Plaintiff); Hamid Reza Mirshojae (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: LC105208    Hearing Date: August 18, 2020    Dept: F47

Motion filed on 7/23/20.

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff/Judgment Creditor Hamid Reza Mirshojae

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant/Judgment Debtor Ross Reghabi dba Southern California Law Group and Ahang Zarin Kelk

NOTICE: ok

RELIEF REQUESTED: An assignment order and related restraining order. Specifically, Plaintiff/Judgment Creditor Hamid Reza Mirshojae (Hamid) requests that the Court assign to him any and all interest of Defendant/Judgment Debtor Ross Reghabi dba Southern California Law Group (Reghabi) in Reghabi’s judgment against Ahang Zarin Kelk in LASC Case No. LC016094 (Ahang Judgment) and all rights to payment thereunder, including accrued interest through the date of payment. Additionally, Hamid requests that the Court enter an order restraining Reghabi and any others from assigning, encumbering, or modifying Reghabi’s rights to payment under the Ahang Judgment.

RULING: The unopposed motion is granted.

These are two consolidated actions, the “Mirshojae Case” (LC015208) and the “Reghabi Case” (LC106904). In the Mirshojae Case, Hamid Reza Mirshojae (Hamid) sued Khosro Reghabi aka Ross K. Reghabi dba Southern California Law Group (Reghabi) for malpractice, intentional misrepresentation and breach of fiduciary duty. In the Reghabi Case, Reghabi sued Hamid and Ahang Zarin Kelk (Ahang) for allegedly unpaid legal fees.

In the Reghabi Case, the Court issued terminating sanctions against Ahang and judgment against Ahang and in favor of Reghabi was entered in the amount of $390,274.24 (Ahang Judgment). (Beatty Decl. ¶3, Ex.A). Hamid’s claims against Reghabi and Reghabi’s claims against Hamid went to trial in February 2020. Hamid obtained a judgment against Reghabi in the amount of $5,482,269.18 and prevailed against Reghabi’s fee claims (Reghabi Judgment). (Beatty Decl. ¶¶4-5, Ex.B, C).

Hamid now seeks to have Reghabi’s judgment against Ahang (Ahang Judgment) assigned to him and for an order restraining Reghabi and any others from assigning, encumbering, or modifying Reghabi’s rights to payment under the Ahang Judgment.

“[U]pon 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…” CCP 708.510(a). An assignment order can be used to reach assignable property that is subject to levy, including judgments. Casiopea Bovet, LLC (2017) 12 CA5th 656, 661.

When determining whether to order an assignment, the Court may take into consideration all relevant factors, such as: (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; and (4) the amount being or to be received in satisfaction of the right to payment that may be assigned. CCP 708.510(c). However, a right to payment may be assigned only to the extent necessary to satisfy the money judgment. CCP 708.510(d).

Here, there has been no stay of enforcement with regard to either the Ahang Judgment or the Reghabi Judgment. (Beatty Decl. ¶6). Nor has a payment plan been plan been implemented or sought on either judgment. (Beatty Decl. ¶8). Therefore, Reghabi and Hamid can immediately collect on their respective judgments. Since Reghabi has made no payments toward Hamid’s judgment against him, even if Hamid collects the full amount of the Ahang Judgment, there would be no danger of overpayment. (Beatty Decl. ¶7). The Court finds that assigning the Ahang Judgment to Hamid is more efficient than requiring Hamid to levy on the judgment.

Additionally, the Court finds that an order restraining Reghabi and any others from assigning, encumbering, or modifying Reghabi’s rights to payment under the Ahang Judgment is warranted. See CCP 708.520.

Case Number: LC105208    Hearing Date: June 24, 2020    Dept: F47

Dept. F-47

Date: 6/24/20

Case #LC105208

MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL

Motion filed on 3/9/20.

MOVING ATTORNEY: Gary N. Schwartz

CLIENT: Ahang Mirshojhae

RELIEF REQUESTED: An order relieving Gary N. Schwartz as counsel for Ahang Mirshojhae in this action.

TENTATIVE RULING: The hearing on the motion will be continued.

The proof of service for the motion contains an incorrect address for Ross K. Reghabi/Southern California Law Group. The proof of service indicates that the motion was mailed to Reghabi/Southern California Law Group at 5023 N. Parkway Calabasas, Calabasas, CA 91302-1412. However, eCourt and the last document filed by Reghabi/Southern California Law Group indicate their address is 24007 Ventura Blvd., Ste.205, Calabasas, CA 91302.

Additionally, a proposed order has not been submitted.

Based on the foregoing, the hearing on the motion will be continued so that motion can be properly served on Reghabi/Southern California Law Group and a proposed order can be submitted.

MOTION TO SET ASIDE DEFAULT & DEFAULT JUDGMENT

Motion filed on 3/18/20.

MOVING PARTY: Defendant Ahang Zarrin Kelk

RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff Khosro Reghabi

JOINING PARTY: Plaintiff/Defendant Hamid Mirshojae

RELIEF REQUESTED: An order vacating and setting aside the entry of Default and Default Judgment and Clerk’s entry of default obtained by Plaintiff Khosro Reghabi.

TENTATIVE RULING: The joinder in the opposition is denied. The motion is denied.

These actions arise out of an attorney fee dispute filed by Plaintiff against Defendant Hamidreza Mirshojae and Defendant Ahang Zarrin Kelk (LC106094) and a complaint filed by Defendant Hamidreza Mirshojae against Plaintiff and Defendant Ahang Zarrin Kelk (LC105208).

Due to Defendant Ahang Zarrin Kelk’s failure to comply with this Court’s 6/25/19 order compelling her to provide further responses to discovery requests, on 10/9/19 in LC106094, this court imposed terminating sanctions against Ahang Zarrin Kelk by striking her answer and entering default against her. Default judgment was entered against Ahang Zarrin Kelk on 10/15/19. The trial of this matter took place in February 2020. Ahang Zarrin Kelk filed this motion on 3/18/20 wherein she seeks an order vacating and setting aside the entry of Default and Default Judgment and Clerk’s entry of default obtained by Plaintiff Khosro Reghabi.

Plaintiff Khosro Reghabi has opposed the motion. Plaintiff/Defendant Hamid Mirshojae has filed a joinder in the opposition. Hamid Mirshojae fails to provide any authority which gives him standing to oppose the relief sought by Ahang Zarrin Kelk in this motion. As such, his joinder in the opposition is denied.

Although Ahang Zarrin Kelk cites the portion of Code of Civil Procedure Section 473(b) relating to mandatory relief in the motion, she states in the conclusion that she seeks relief under the discretionary provision of Code of Civil Procedure Section 473(b). (See Motion p.4:6-17, p.10:3). Ahang Zarrin Kelk would not be entitled to mandatory relief based on attorney fault because she was representing herself at the time the motion for terminating sanctions was granted and default judgment was entered against her. Ahang Zarrin Kelk has also failed to establish that discretionary relief is warranted.

Code of Civil Procedure Section 473(b) provides, in relevant part:

The court may, upon any terms as may be just, relieve a party or his or her legal representative from a judgment, dismissal, order, or other proceeding taken against him or her through his or her mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect. Application for this relief shall be accompanied by a copy of the answer or other pleading proposed to be filed therein, otherwise the application shall not be granted, and shall be made within a reasonable time, in no case exceeding six months, after the judgment, dismissal, order, or proceeding was taken.

A proposed pleading (for instance, opposition to the motion for terminating sanctions) does not accompany the motion as is required. More importantly, Ahang Zarrin Kelk has not shown that the default and default judgment were the result of her mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect. As a self-represented litigant, Ahang Zarrin Kelk is held to the same standard as a represented party. See Burnete (2007) 148 CA4th 1262, 1267, 1270. Ahang Zarrin Kelk admits to receiving the motion for sanctions, but Ahang Zarrin Kelk claims that she was confused by it because she had served discovery responses on 3/5/19 and, therefore, believed that she did not have to respond to the motion. (Kelk Declaration ¶¶4-5). However, the motion for sanctions addressed Ahang Zarrin Kelk’s failure to comply with this court’s 6/25/19 order requiring Ahang Zarrin Kelk to provide further responses to discovery. (See 10/9/19 Minute Order in LC106094). Ahang Zarrin Kelk never states that she provided the further responses ordered by the court. (See Kelk Declaration). Additionally, Ahang Zarrin Kelk did not oppose the motion requesting terminating sanctions for such failure and Kelk did not appear at the hearing on the motion for sanctions. (See 10/9/19 Minute Order in LC106094). As such, the court found terminating sanctions were warranted. (See 6/25/19 Minute Order in LC106094; 10/9/19 Minute Order in LC106094). The court now finds that Ahang Zarrin Kelk’s failures were the result of inexcusable neglect. 

Additionally, the court finds that Ahang Zarrin Kelk did not act diligently in seeking relief. A motion for relief under the discretionary provision of Code of Civil Procedure Section 473(b) must be made within a reasonable time after the judgment is entered with the court losing jurisdiction to grant relief after six months. On 10/28/19, Ahang Zarrin Kelk was served with notice of the entry of the default judgment against her. (See Notice of Entry of Judgment filed on 10/28/19 in LC106094). Ahang Zarrin Kelk did not file the instant motion until almost five months later on 3/18/20. Ahang Zarrin Kelk fails to explain the delay other than to vaguely state in her 3/2/20 declaration that “[i]t was not until I recently realized that a Judgment had been entered against me that I hired counsel to assist me with setting aside the Judgment.” (See Kelk Declaration ¶7). As such, Ahang Zarrin Kelk did not seek relief within a reasonable time after the entry of the judgment against her.

Ahang Zarrin Kelk has also failed to establish that the court should set aside the default and default judgment on equitable grounds. Ahang Zarrin Kelk has not established that the default or default judgment were the result of extrinsic fraud or mistake.

Ahang Zarrin Kelk’s argument that the judgment against her is voidable because the amount is in excess of that demanded in the complaint is improperly made for the first time in the reply. Therefore, Plaintiff did not have the opportunity to respond to this argument and it cannot be considered.