This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 10/01/2021 at 08:15:12 (UTC).

ALEKSANDR KULIKOV VS THE MANDEL, LLC

Case Summary

On 02/26/2021 ALEKSANDR KULIKOV filed a Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury lawsuit against THE MANDEL, LLC. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is LAURA A. SEIGLE. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *******7681

  • Filing Date:

    02/26/2021

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

LAURA A. SEIGLE

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

KULIKOV ALEKSANDR

Defendant

THE MANDEL LLC

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

ALEKSEYEFF ILYA

Defendant Attorney

ROSHAN-ZAMIR PERRY

 

Court Documents

Notice of Case Management Conference

3/2/2021: Notice of Case Management Conference

Summons - SUMMONS ON COMPLAINT

2/26/2021: Summons - SUMMONS ON COMPLAINT

Civil Case Cover Sheet

2/26/2021: Civil Case Cover Sheet

Notice of Case Assignment - Unlimited Civil Case

2/26/2021: Notice of Case Assignment - Unlimited Civil Case

Complaint

2/26/2021: Complaint

Civil Case Cover Sheet

2/26/2021: Civil Case Cover Sheet

Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (COURT ORDER RE: CONTINUANCE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE) OF 06/29/2021

6/29/2021: Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (COURT ORDER RE: CONTINUANCE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE) OF 06/29/2021

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER RE: CONTINUANCE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE)

6/29/2021: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER RE: CONTINUANCE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE)

Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint) - PROOF OF SERVICE (NOT SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE RE: CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

6/25/2021: Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint) - PROOF OF SERVICE (NOT SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE RE: CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

Case Management Statement

6/25/2021: Case Management Statement

Demurrer - without Motion to Strike

5/12/2021: Demurrer - without Motion to Strike

Memorandum - MEMORANDUM REGARDING OSC RE TRANSFER OF THE CASE

8/10/2021: Memorandum - MEMORANDUM REGARDING OSC RE TRANSFER OF THE CASE

Opposition - OPPOSITION TO DEMURRER

8/10/2021: Opposition - OPPOSITION TO DEMURRER

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON DEMURRER - WITHOUT MOTION TO STRIKE; CASE MANAGEME...)

8/25/2021: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON DEMURRER - WITHOUT MOTION TO STRIKE; CASE MANAGEME...)

Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (HEARING ON DEMURRER - WITHOUT MOTION TO STRIKE; CASE MANAGEME...) OF 08/25/2021

8/25/2021: Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (HEARING ON DEMURRER - WITHOUT MOTION TO STRIKE; CASE MANAGEME...) OF 08/25/2021

Notice of Ruling

9/2/2021: Notice of Ruling

Amended Complaint - AMENDED COMPLAINT (1ST)

9/13/2021: Amended Complaint - AMENDED COMPLAINT (1ST)

5 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 10/11/2022
  • Hearing10/11/2022 at 10:00 AM in Department 48 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Non-Jury Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/26/2022
  • Hearing09/26/2022 at 08:30 AM in Department 48 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Final Status Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/13/2021
  • DocketAmended Complaint ( (1st)); Filed by ALEKSANDR KULIKOV (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/02/2021
  • DocketNotice of Ruling; Filed by THE MANDEL, LLC (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/25/2021
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 48, Laura A. Seigle, Presiding; Order to Show Cause Re: (Why The Case Should Not Be Transferred To A Limited Civil Department Because The Apparent Alleged Damages Appear To Be Less Than $25,000) - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/25/2021
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 48, Laura A. Seigle, Presiding; Case Management Conference - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/25/2021
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 48, Laura A. Seigle, Presiding; Hearing on Demurrer - without Motion to Strike - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/25/2021
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Hearing on Demurrer - without Motion to Strike; Case Manageme...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/25/2021
  • DocketCertificate of Mailing for ((Hearing on Demurrer - without Motion to Strike; Case Manageme...) of 08/25/2021); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/10/2021
  • DocketOpposition (to demurrer); Filed by ALEKSANDR KULIKOV (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
4 More Docket Entries
  • 06/29/2021
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Court Order re: Continuance of Case Management Conference)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/25/2021
  • DocketProof of Service (not Summons and Complaint) (CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE RE: CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT); Filed by ALEKSANDR KULIKOV (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/25/2021
  • DocketCase Management Statement; Filed by ALEKSANDR KULIKOV (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/12/2021
  • DocketDemurrer - without Motion to Strike; Filed by THE MANDEL, LLC (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/02/2021
  • DocketNotice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/26/2021
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by ALEKSANDR KULIKOV (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/26/2021
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by ALEKSANDR KULIKOV (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/26/2021
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by ALEKSANDR KULIKOV (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/26/2021
  • DocketSummons (on Complaint); Filed by ALEKSANDR KULIKOV (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/26/2021
  • DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Unlimited Civil Case; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

b"

Case Number: 21STCV07681 Hearing Date: August 25, 2021 Dept: 48

\r\n\r\n

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: DEFENDANT’S DEMURRER

\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n

On February 26, 2021, Plaintiff Aleksandr\r\nKulikov filed this action against Defendant The Mandel, LLC for (1) conversion; (2) intentional infliction of emotional distress (“IIED”);\r\nand (3) unfair competition based on the allegations that Defendant had\r\nPlaintiff’s car towed from a common driveway without justification, causing\r\nPlaintiff to incur $802.00 and suffer severe emotional distress. (Complaint, ¶¶ 11, 13, 21.)

\r\n\r\n

On May 12, 2021, Defendant demurred on the grounds that each cause\r\nof action fails to state sufficient facts and is uncertain. When considering demurrers, courts read the allegations\r\nliberally and in context, accepting the alleged facts as true. (Nolte v. Cedars-Sinai Medical Center (2015)\r\n236 Cal.App.4th 1401, 1406.) A special demurrer\r\nfor uncertainty under Code of Civil Procedure section 430.10, subdivision (f) is\r\ndisfavored and will only be sustained where the pleading is so bad that defendant\r\nor plaintiff cannot reasonably respond—i.e., cannot reasonably determine what issues\r\nmust be admitted or denied, or what counts or claims are directed against him or\r\nher. (Khoury v. Maly’s of Calif., Inc.\r\n(1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 612, 616.) Even\r\nif the pleading is somewhat vague, “ambiguities can be clarified under modern discovery\r\nprocedures.” (Ibid.)

\r\n\r\n

A. First Cause of Action\r\n– Conversion

\r\n\r\n

Defendant argues that Plaintiff failed to show wrongful interference\r\nwith property, the interference was not substantial, Defendant’s refusal to deliver\r\nproperty pending a reasonable inquiry into Plaintiff’s rights to the property is\r\nnot conversion, and moving of personal property without asserting ownership is not\r\nconversion. (Demurrer at pp. 4-5.)

\r\n\r\n

“Stated generally, ‘Conversion is any act of dominion wrongfully\r\nexerted over another’s personal property in denial of or inconsistent with his\r\nrights therein.’ [Citations.]” (Zaslow v. Kroenert (1946) 29 Cal.2d\r\n541, 549.) In Zaslow, the\r\ndefendant entered the property where the plaintiff was living, took possession,\r\nchanged the locks, and sent a letter to the plaintiff stating that he could\r\nobtain the personal property he had left at the premises by applying for it\r\nwithin 10 days. Otherwise, it would be\r\nplaced in storage, at his expense. (Id.\r\nat pp. 545-546.) The California Supreme\r\nCourt held that the defendant had wrongfully ousted the plaintiff from the\r\npremises, but reversed a judgment of conversion of the personal property. (Id. at pp. 549, 551.) The Court held, “It is clear that, under some\r\ncircumstances, refusal of one in possession of real property to permit, upon\r\ndemand, the owner of chattels which were left there to remove his goods,\r\nconstitutes conversion. [Citations.] And if the possessor of the real estate\r\nappropriates the chattels to his own use in obvious defiance of the owner's\r\nrights, he is liable to the owner for the conversion of them. [Citations.] \r\nHowever, every failure to deliver is not such a serious interference\r\nwith the owner's dominion that the defendant should be required to pay the full\r\nvalue of the goods. [Citation.] And the act of taking possession of a building\r\nand locking it does not, of itself, constitute a conversion of the personal\r\nproperty therein. . . . To establish a\r\nconversion, it is incumbent upon the plaintiff to show an intention or purpose\r\nto convert the goods and to exercise ownership over them, or to prevent the\r\nowner from taking possession of his property.” (Id. at pp.\r\n549-550.) \r\nThe Court explained that taking the goods and placing them in storage\r\nwas not evidence that the defendant exerted dominion over the personal property\r\nin denial of or inconsistent with the plaintiff’s rights. (Id. at p. 551.) If the defendant had refused to return the\r\npersonal property, that “would have constituted evidence of a conversion.” (Ibid.)

\r\n\r\n

Similarly, in Jordan v. Talbot (1961) 55 Cal.2d 597, the\r\ndefendant wrongfully entered the plaintiff’s apartment, removed her furniture\r\nand personal items, and stored them in a warehouse. (Id. at p. 610.) The defendant “did not use any of plaintiff’s\r\nbelongings or make any claim of ownership to them.” (Ibid.) The California Supreme Court held that “the\r\nremoval of another’s property and storing it in the owner’s name without any\r\nother exercise of dominion or control is not a conversion.” (Ibid.)

\r\n\r\n

Plaintiff alleges that Defendant wrongfully took possession of his\r\npersonal property by having his car towed without lawful justification and\r\nwithout his consent. (Complaint, ¶¶ 5,\r\n6.) Plaintiff then had to pay towing and\r\nstorage fees to reclaim his vehicle. (Complaint,\r\n¶ 18.) Plaintiff did not allege that\r\nDefendants used the vehicle or made any claim of ownership to it. As in Jordan and Zaslow, the\r\nremoval of the personal property and the storing of it without exercising\r\ndominion or control over it, without denying Plaintiff’s right of ownership,\r\nand without refusing to return the property, is not conversion.

\r\n\r\n

As Plaintiff has not shown that he can remedy this defect, the demurrer\r\nto the first cause of action is sustained without leave to amend.

\r\n\r\n

B. Second Cause of Action\r\n– IIED

\r\n\r\n

Defendant argues that Plaintiff does not allege any extreme or outrageous\r\nconduct or intentionality. (Demurrer at p.\r\n6.) “‘[T]o state a cause of action\r\nfor intentional infliction of emotional distress a plaintiff must show: (1) outrageous\r\nconduct by the defendant; (2) the defendant’s intention of causing or reckless disregard\r\nof the probability of causing emotional distress; (3) the plaintiff’s suffering\r\nsevere or extreme emotional distress; and (4) actual and proximate causation of\r\nthe emotional distress by the defendant’s outrageous conduct.’ [Citation.] \r\n‘Conduct, to be ‘outrageous’ must be so extreme as to exceed all bounds of\r\nthat usually tolerated in a civilized society.’ \r\n[Citation.]” (Huntingdon Life Sciences,\r\nInc. v. Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty USA, Inc. (2005) 129 Cal.App.4th 1228,\r\n1259.)

\r\n\r\n

Plaintiff\r\nalleges that when he arrived at the building to help a tenant, he parked in a common\r\ndriveway. (Complaint ¶ 11.) Without lawful authority or notice, Defendant\r\nhad Plaintiff’s vehicle towed, knowing or acting with reckless disregard for whether\r\nthat conduct would cause mental distress to the owner by making him likely to believe\r\nthe vehicle was stolen. (Id. at ¶¶\r\n11-12.) Plaintiff alleges that Defendant\r\ntowed the vehicle without lawful authority and alleges “on information and\r\nbelief” Defendant had the intention of earning a fee or kick-back from the towing\r\ncompany. (Id. at ¶ 15.) As a result, Plaintiff claims he suffered severe\r\nemotional distress (including suffering, anguish, fright, horror, nervousness, anxiety,\r\nworry, and shock) because he concluded that his vehicle had been stolen. (Id. at ¶¶ 13-14.)

\r\n\r\n

Towing\r\na car is not conduct that rises to the level of being so outrageous as to exceed\r\nall bounds of that tolerated in a civilized society. As Plaintiff has not shown how he can amend this\r\ncause of action to remedy the defect, the demurrer to the second cause of action\r\nis sustained without leave to amend.

\r\n\r\n

C. Third Cause of Action\r\n– Unfair Competition

\r\n\r\n

Defendant argues that Plaintiff does not allege any unlawful, unfair,\r\nor fraudulent business practices with specificity. (Demurrer at pp. 6-7.) Unfair competition is any unlawful, unfair, or\r\nfraudulent business practice or act. (Bus.\r\n& Prof. Code, § 17200.) “An ‘unlawful’\r\nbusiness practice or act within the meaning of the [Unfair Competition Law] ‘is\r\nan act or practice, committed pursuant to business activity, that is at the same\r\ntime forbidden by law. [Citation.]’” (Bernardo v. Planned Parenthood Federation\r\nof America (2004) 115 Cal.App.4th 322, 351.) A plaintiff must identify statutory, regulatory,\r\nor decisional law that the defendant has violated. (Id. at p. 352.) Unfair conduct must be violative of public policy\r\nand “‘“tethered” to specific constitutional, statutory or regulatory provisions.’ [Citation.]” \r\n(Scripps Clinic v. Superior Court (2003) 108 Cal.App.4th 917, 940.)

\r\n\r\n

Plaintiff alleges that Defendant did not display in plain view at all\r\nentrances a sign no less than 24 inches by 24 inches prohibiting public parking,\r\nin violation of Vehicle Code section 22658, subdivision (a)(1) and Los Angeles Municipal\r\nCode section 80.71.4, subdivision (c). (Complaint\r\n¶ 18.) Plaintiff suffered a pecuniary loss\r\nby having to pay a fee to reclaim his vehicle from the tow company, and Plaintiff\r\nalleges that only injunctive relief will ensure that the public is protected from\r\nDefendant’s unlawful business practices. \r\n(Id. at ¶¶ 19-20.) Plaintiff\r\nhad adequately alleged the specific unfair business practice and the law that it\r\nviolated.

\r\n\r\n

The demurrer to the third cause of action is overruled.

\r\n\r\n

D. Conclusion

\r\n\r\n

The demurrer to the first and second causes of action is SUSTAINED\r\nwithout leave to amend, and is otherwise OVERRULED.

\r\n\r\n

Moving party to give notice.

\r\n\r\n

Parties\r\nwho intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMCDEPT48@lacourt.org\r\nindicating intention to submit. Parties intending\r\nto appear are STRONGLY encouraged to appear remotely.

\r\n\r\n"
related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where THE MANDEL LLC is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer PERRY ROSHAN-ZAMIR