This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 11/17/2020 at 05:35:20 (UTC).

ALI KHAN VS YACOOB MOOSA MUNNEE

Case Summary

On 11/30/2017 ALI KHAN filed a Contract - Other Contract lawsuit against YACOOB MOOSA MUNNEE. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Santa Monica Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are RANDOLPH M. HAMMOCK, CRAIG D. KARLAN, DEBRE K. WEINTRAUB, DEBRE KATZ WEINTRAUB and DAVID J. COWAN. The case status is Disposed - Judgment Entered.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****8439

  • Filing Date:

    11/30/2017

  • Case Status:

    Disposed - Judgment Entered

  • Case Type:

    Contract - Other Contract

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Santa Monica Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

RANDOLPH M. HAMMOCK

CRAIG D. KARLAN

DEBRE K. WEINTRAUB

DEBRE KATZ WEINTRAUB

DAVID J. COWAN

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs and Petitioners

KHAN ALI

ALI KHAN

Defendants and Respondents

MUNNEE YACOOB MOOSA

YACOOB MOOSA MUNNEE

MUNNEE YACOOB MOOSA AKA JACOB MONEY AKA JOSHUA GOLDSTEIN

UNIVERSAL HEALTH CENTER INC. A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION

BISMILLAH INVESTORS GROUP INC

THE 710 CLUB INC. A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION

MUNNEE YACOOD MOOSA AKA JACOB MONEY AKA JOSHUA GOLDSTEIN

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

DYLE SCOTT D.

DYLE SCOTT DAVIDSON

 

Court Documents

Summary of the Case

10/6/2020: Summary of the Case

Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

10/6/2020: Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

Notice - NOTICE OF ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR TERMINATION SANCTIONS

7/21/2020: Notice - NOTICE OF ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR TERMINATION SANCTIONS

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER)

4/24/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER)

Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

1/7/2020: Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

Memorandum of Points & Authorities

1/7/2020: Memorandum of Points & Authorities

Notice - NOTICE PLAINTIFF ALI KHAN'S CORRECTED NOTICE OF MOTION

1/13/2020: Notice - NOTICE PLAINTIFF ALI KHAN'S CORRECTED NOTICE OF MOTION

Order - FINAL RULING-MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE

2/6/2020: Order - FINAL RULING-MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE

Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

2/7/2020: Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY (NOT "FURTHER DISCOVERY...)

2/7/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY (NOT "FURTHER DISCOVERY...)

Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

3/30/2020: Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

Proof of Personal Service

11/20/2018: Proof of Personal Service

Proof of Personal Service

11/20/2018: Proof of Personal Service

Proof of Personal Service

11/20/2018: Proof of Personal Service

Notice - Notice of Continued Case Management Conference

11/29/2018: Notice - Notice of Continued Case Management Conference

NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

4/23/2018: NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDER FOR POSTING OF SUMMONS, ETC

5/15/2018: EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDER FOR POSTING OF SUMMONS, ETC

NOTICE OF REJECTION APPLICATION AND ORDER FOR POSTING

6/4/2018: NOTICE OF REJECTION APPLICATION AND ORDER FOR POSTING

62 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 11/02/2020
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 47, Randolph M. Hammock, Presiding; Order to Show Cause Re: (default judgment) - Not Held - Vacated by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/15/2020
  • DocketJudgment (by Default by Court); Filed by ALI KHAN (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/06/2020
  • DocketRequest for Dismissal (Other*Does 1 through 10, Inclusive); Filed by ALI KHAN (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/06/2020
  • DocketDeclaration Pursuant to 585 CCP in Support of Default Judgment; Filed by ALI KHAN (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/06/2020
  • DocketProof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by ALI KHAN (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/06/2020
  • DocketSummary of the Case; Filed by ALI KHAN (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/06/2020
  • DocketRequest for Entry of Default / Judgment; Filed by ALI KHAN (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/21/2020
  • DocketProof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by ALI KHAN (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/21/2020
  • DocketNotice (of Order Regarding Plaintiffs Motion for Termination Sanctions); Filed by ALI KHAN (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/20/2020
  • Docketat 09:30 AM in Department 47, Randolph M. Hammock, Presiding; Non-Jury Trial - Not Held - Taken Off Calendar by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
99 More Docket Entries
  • 04/06/2018
  • DocketStatement-Case Management; Filed by Plaintiff & Plaintiff In Pro Per

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/02/2018
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department N; Case Management Conference (Conference-Case Management; Advanced to this date & continued) -

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/30/2017
  • DocketOrder on Court Fee Waiver (Superior Court)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/30/2017
  • DocketRequest to Waive Court Fees; Filed by Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/30/2017
  • DocketSummons; Filed by Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/30/2017
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by ALI KHAN (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/30/2017
  • DocketOrder-Court Fee Waiver (AS TO ALI KHAN ); Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/30/2017
  • DocketSummons Filed; Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/30/2017
  • DocketComplaint Filed

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/30/2017
  • DocketRequest-Waive Court Fees; Filed by Plaintiff & Plaintiff In Pro Per

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: SC128439    Hearing Date: July 17, 2020    Dept: 47

Ali Khan v. Yacoob Moosa Munnee aka Jacob Money aka Joshua Goldstein aka Joseph Silverstein, et al.

 

GIVEN THE RECENT CORONAVIRUS CRISIS, THE COURT STRONGLY ENCOURAGES REMOTE APPEARENCES BY “LACourtConnect.” PLEASE MAKE SUCH ARRANGEMENTS IF YOU WISH TO APPEAR REMOTELY AT WWW.LACOURT.ORG/LACC/. NO OTHER TYPES OF REMOTE APPEARANCES ARE AVAILABLE FOR THIS PARTICULAR COURTROOM, INCLUDING COURT CALL. IF YOU APPEAR IN PERSON AT THE HEARING, YOU WILL BE SUBJECT TO ALL SOCIAL DISTANCING RULES, INCLUDING THE WEARING OF AN APPROPRIATE FACE MASK/COVERING (ABSENT ANY EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES) AS CONTAINED IN THE APPLICABLE GENERAL ORDERS ISSUED BY THE PRESIDING JUDGE OF THE L.A.S.C.

MOTION FOR TERMINATING SANCTIONS AGAINST DEFENDANT

YACOOB MOOSA MUNNEE

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Ali Khan

RESPONDING PARTY(S): No opposition on eCourt as of July 15, 2020.

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:

Plaintiff alleges that he leased residential real property to Defendant Munnee on a month-to-month basis and that Defendant failed to pay rent, failed to maintain the property in a safe and livable condition, and committed “waste” by performing extensive construction and destroying the property’s framing and other aspects of it.

Plaintiff moves for terminating sanctions.

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff’s motion for terminating sanctions is GRANTED. The answer of Yakoob Munnee is hereby ordered stricken and his default entered. Plaintiff may submit a default judgment prove-up package against Munnee, if he desires.[1]

DISCUSSION:

Motion for Terminating Sanctions

Plaintiff seeks terminating sanctions and/or evidentiary sanctions against Defendant Yakoob Munnee for his failure to comply with this Court’s orders of February 6, 2020 and February 7, 2020 by failing to provide code-compliant and verified responses, without objection, to Plaintiff’s requests for production of documents (set one) and verified responses, without objection, to Plaintiff’s form interrogatories – general and by failing to pay the sanctions in those orders. (Declaration of Jacob R. Gould, Exhs. E, F.) Plaintiff also seeks monetary sanctions of $3,123 against Defendant in connection with this motion.

Terminating Sanctions

The Court has the authority to impose sanctions against a party that engages in the misuse of the discovery process. (CCP § 2023.030.) Misuse of the discovery process includes disobeying a court order to provide discovery. (CCP §§ 2023.010(g).) A party engaging in this conduct may be subject to sanctions including monetary and terminating sanctions. (CCP § 2023.030(a), (d).)

In addition, if a party fails to obey an order compelling responses to interrogatories or document requests, “the court may make those orders that are just, including the imposition of an issue sanction, an evidence sanction, or a terminating sanction . . . . In lieu of or in addition to that sanction, the court may impose a monetary sanction. . . .” (CCP § 2030.290(c); CCP § 2031.300(c).) Indeed, the Court may impose terminating sanctions after a party’s failure to comply with one court order to produce discovery, if the Court is “attempting to tailor the sanction to the harm caused by the withheld discovery.” (Collisson & Kaplan v. Hartunian (1994) 21 Cal.App.4th 1611, 1618-19.)

[T]he question before this court is not whether the trial court should have imposed a lesser sanction; rather, the question is whether the trial court abused its discretion by imposing the sanction it chose. [Citation.] Moreover, imposition of a lesser sanction would have permitted [defendants] to benefit from their stalling tactics. [Citation.] The trial court did not abuse its discretion by tailoring the sanction to the particular abuse. [Citation.]

(Id. at 1620.)

In deciding whether to impose a terminating sanction, the trial court is to consider the totality of the circumstances: the “conduct of the party to determine if the actions were willful; the detriment to the propounding party; and the number of formal and informal attempts to obtain the discovery.” (Lang v. Hochman (2000) 77 Cal.App.4th 1225, 1246.)

Here, not only has Defendant disobeyed two orders to provide responses to discovery,[2] he has also failed to participate in this litigation since he answered the complaint on December 24, 2018. Defendant has also not opposed this motion. By all appearances, Defendant has elected to no longer participate in this litigation. Because Plaintiff has been unable to obtain discovery, Plaintiff is prejudiced in preparing his case.

Accordingly, the motion for terminating sanctions against Defendant Yacoob Munnee is GRANTED. Defendant’s answer is hereby ordered stricken and his default entered. Plaintiff may submit a default judgment prove-up package.

Monetary Sanctions

In addition to terminating sanctions, Plaintiff requests as additional award of monetary sanctions against Defendant.  Given the totality of the circumstances, monetary sanctions are unwarranted, as a “terminating sanction” is the ultimate sanction. As such, the request for monetary sanctions is DENIED in the interests of justice. (CCP § 2023.030(a) [“The court may impose a monetary sanction . . .” (emphasis added)].)

Moving party to give notice, unless waived.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 20, 2020 ___________________________________

Randolph M. Hammock

Judge of the Superior Court

Any party may submit on the tentative ruling by contacting the courtroom via email at Smcdept47@lacourt.org by no later than 4:00 p.m. the day before the hearing.  All interested parties must be copied on the email.  It should be noted that if you submit on a tentative ruling the court will still conduct a hearing if any party appears. By submitting on the tentative you have, in essence, waived your right to be present at the hearing, and you should be aware that the court may not adopt the tentative, and may issue an order which modifies the tentative ruling in whole or in part.


[1] There is an old saying: “Be careful what you wish for, lest it come true!” Although a default can clearly be entered in this matter against Defendant Munnee, no default judgment in this case can exceed $25,000, given the content of the First Amended Complaint – which is the current viable complaint in this case. In a non-personal injury/wrongful death case (such as the case here) the specific amount of damages sought must be expressly contained in the Complaint itself to support any default judgment awarded. “According to proof, exceeding $25,000” can only support an award of a maximum of $25,000 in a default judgment. See, Dhawan v. Biring (2015) 241 CA4th 963. Accordingly, if Plaintiff desires a default judgment greater than $25,000, he must file and serve a Second Amended Complaint against Munnee, and then see if he appears within the statutory time period. If he does, we simply start from the beginning against him. Perhaps the Plaintiff may want to re-consider this motion’s request for “terminating sanctions” and the striking of the Answer, and instead, request only monetary sanctions?

[2] Whether Defendant complied with the Court’s orders to pay monetary sanctions in connection with these motions to compel is of no significance to this motion for sanctions. The Court has not considered that as a factor in granting this motion. The failure of a party to pay court-ordered sanctions is not an appropriate basis for a terminating sanction. (Newland v. Superior Court (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 608, 615 [“As we have explained, a terminating sanction issued solely because of a failure to pay a monetary discovery sanction is never justified.”].) The monetary sanction order can be reduced to and collected as a judgment, as allowed by law.

Case Number: SC128439    Hearing Date: February 07, 2020    Dept: 47

Ali Khan v. Yacoob Moosa Munnee aka Jacob Money aka Joshua Goldstein aka Joseph Silverstein, et al.

 

(1) MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES – GENERAL AND FOR THE IMPOSITION OF MONETARY SANCTIONS;

(2) MOTION FOR AN ORDER DEEMING ADMITTED TRUTH OF FACTS AND GENUINENESS OF DOCUMENTS AND IMPOSING MONETARY SANCTION

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Ali Khan

RESPONDING PARTY(S): No opposition on eCourt as of February 4, 2020.

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:

Plaintiff alleges that he leased residential real property to Defendant Munnee on a month-to-month basis and that Defendant failed to pay rent, failed to maintain the property in a safe and livable condition, and committed “waste” by performing extensive construction and destroying the property’s framing and other aspects of it.

Plaintiff moves to compel responses to form interrogatories – general and imposition of monetary sanctions. Plaintiff also moves for an order deeming admitted RFAs, Set One, and for sanctions.

TENTATIVE RULING:

If not mooted before the hearing, Plaintiff Ali Khan’s motion to compel responses to Plaintiff’s form interrogatories – general is GRANTED. Defendant Yacoob Moosa Munnee is ordered to provide verified responses, without objection, within 30 days of the date of this order.

If not mooted before the hearing, Plaintiff’s motion to deem matters in RFAs (set one) admitted is GRANTED.

Plaintiff’s requests for sanctions against Defendant Yacoob Moosa Munnee are GRANTED IN PART in the amount of $760.00 (motion to compel form interrogatories) and $760.00 (motion to deem RFAs admitted) for a total of $1520.00. Sanctions are to be paid to Plaintiff’s counsel within 30 days of the date of this order.

DISCUSSION:

  1. Motion To Compel Responses To Form Interrogatories

    When a party to whom interrogatories are directed fails to respond, a party propounding the interrogatories may move for an order compelling a response. (CCP § 2030.290(b).) A party who fails to provide a timely response waives any objection, including one based on privilege or work product. (CCP § 2030.290(a).) For a motion to compel initial responses, no meet and confer is required. All that must be shown is that a set of interrogatories was properly served on the opposing party, that the time to respond has expired, and that no response has been served. (Leach v. Sup. Ct. (1980) 111 Cal.App.3d 902, 905-06.)

    Here, the interrogatories were served by mail on January 2, 2019, and responses were due by February 8, 2019. (Declaration of Jacob R. Gould ¶ 2 & Exh. A.) When Defendant did not respond, Plaintiff requested responses by February 22, 2019, but they were not produced at that time. (Id. ¶¶ 3-5.) As of the date of the filing of this motion, Plaintiff had not received any responses. (Id. ¶¶ 5.)

    Therefore, if not mooted prior to the hearing, the motion to compel responses to request for production of documents (set one) is GRANTED. Defendant Yacoob Moosa Munnee is ordered to provide verified responses, without objection, within 30 days of the date of this order.

    Although Plaintiff erroneously asked for sanctions against Defendant “and his attorneys” when he is self-represented, Plaintiff’s request for sanctions against Defendant Yacoob Moosa Munnee is GRANTED IN PART in the total amount of $760.00. (Total of 2 hours @ $350/hr. plus $60 filing fee.) Sanctions are to be paid to Plaintiff’s counsel within 30 days of the date of this order.

  2. Motion To Deem Matters Admitted

    When a party to whom requests for admission are directed fails to respond, the party propounding the requests may move for an order that the truth of any matters specified in the requests be deemed admitted. (CCP § 2033.280(b).) “The court shall make this order [deem the requests admitted], unless it finds that the party to whom the request for admissions have been directed has served, before the hearing on the motion, a proposed response to the requests for admission that is in substantial compliance with section 2033.220.” (CCP § 2033.280(c).)

    Here, the requests for admission (set one) were served by mail on January 2, 2019, and responses were due by February 8, 2019. (Declaration of Jacob R. Gould ¶ 2 & Exh. A.) When Defendant did not respond, Plaintiff requested responses by February 22, 2019, but they were not produced at that time. (Id. ¶¶ 3-5.) As of the date of the filing of this motion, Plaintiff had not received any responses. (Id. ¶¶ 5.)

    Therefore, if not mooted prior to the hearing, the motion to deem matters in RFAs (set one) admitted is GRANTED.

    Although Plaintiff erroneously asked for sanctions against Defendant “and his attorneys” when he is self-represented, Plaintiff’s request for sanctions against Defendant Yacoob Moosa Munnee is GRANTED IN PART in the total amount of $760.00. (Total of 2 hours @ $350/hr. plus $60 filing fee.) Sanctions are to be paid to Plaintiff’s counsel within 30 days of the date of this order.

    Moving party to give notice, unless waived.

    IT IS SO ORDERED.

    Dated: February 7, 2020 ___________________________________

    Randolph M. Hammock

    Judge of the Superior Court

    Any party may submit on the tentative ruling by contacting the courtroom via email at Smcdept47@lacourt.org

Case Number: SC128439    Hearing Date: February 06, 2020    Dept: 47

Ali Khan v. Yacoob Moosa Munnee aka Jacob Money aka Joshua Goldstein aka Joseph Silverstein, et al.

 

MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE AND IMPOSITION OF MONETARY SANCTIONS

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Ali Khan

RESPONDING PARTY(S): No opposition on eCourt as of February 3, 2020.

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:

Plaintiff alleges that he leased residential real property to Defendant Munnee on a month-to-month basis and that Defendant failed to pay rent, failed to maintain the property in a safe and livable condition, and committed “waste” by performing extensive construction and destroying the property’s framing and other aspects of it.

Plaintiff moves to compel responses to request for production of documents, set one, and imposition of monetary

sanctions.

TENTATIVE RULING:

If not mooted prior to the hearing, Plaintiff Ali Khan’s motion to compel responses to Plaintiff’s request for production of documents, set one, is GRANTED. Defendant Yacoob Moosa Munnee is ordered to provide code-compliant, verified responses, without objection, within 30 days of the date of this order.

Plaintiff’s request for sanctions against Defendant Yacoob Moosa Munnee is GRANTED IN PART in the total amount of $760.00. Sanctions are to be paid to Plaintiff’s counsel within 30 days of the date of this order.

DISCUSSION:

Motion To Compel Responses To Request for Production of Documents

When a party to whom an inspection demand is directed fails to respond under CCP § 2031.300(b), a party making the demand may move for an order compelling a response to the inspection demand. A party who fails to provide timely responses waives any objection, including one based on privilege or work product. (CCP § 2031.300(a).)

Here, the requests for production were served by mail on January 2, 2019, and responses were due by February 8, 2019. (Declaration of Jacob R. Gould ¶ 2 & Exh. A.) When Defendant did not respond, Plaintiff \requested production of the responses by February 22, 2019, but they were not produced at that time. (Id. ¶¶ 3-5.) As of the date of the filing of this motion, Plaintiff had not received any responses. (Id. ¶¶ 5.)

Therefore, if not mooted prior to the hearing, the motion to compel responses to request for production of documents (set one) is GRANTED. Defendant Yacoob Moosa Munnee is ordered to provide code-compliant, verified responses, without objection, within 30 days of the date of this order.

Although Plaintiff erroneously asked for sanctions against Defendant “and his attorneys” when he is self-represented, Plaintiff’s request for sanctions against Defendant Yacoob Moosa Munnee is GRANTED IN PART in the total amount of $760.00. (Total of 2 hours @ $350/hr. plus $60 filing fee.) Sanctions are to be paid to Plaintiff’s counsel within 30 days of the date of this order.

Moving party to give notice, unless waived.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 6, 2020 ___________________________________

Randolph M. Hammock

Judge of the Superior Court

Any party may submit on the tentative ruling by contacting the courtroom via email at Smcdept47@lacourt.org