This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 05/27/2019 at 04:55:44 (UTC).

AMIT JANWEJA ET AL VS AMWEST FUNDING CORP ET AL

Case Summary

On 06/27/2017 AMIT JANWEJA filed a Property - Other Real Property lawsuit against AMWEST FUNDING CORP. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are ROBERT L. HESS and ROBERT B. BROADBELT. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.
Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****6642

  • Filing Date:

    06/27/2017

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Property - Other Real Property

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

ROBERT L. HESS

ROBERT B. BROADBELT

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs and Petitioners

JANWEJA REEMA

JANWEJA AMIT

Respondents and Defendants

PEAK FORECLOSURE SERVICES INC

AMWEST FUNDING CORP

DOES 1 TO 25

PEAK FORECLOSURE SERVICES INC.

AMWEST FUNDING CORP.

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

JAMES A. MOSS

FIDELITY NATIONAL LAW GROUP

MOSS JAMES ALEXANDER

Defendant Attorneys

MARCUS WATANABE & ENOWITZ

MARCUS DAVID MORRIS

 

Court Documents

Minute Order

2/14/2018: Minute Order

Minute Order

3/16/2018: Minute Order

NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

3/19/2018: NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

NOTICE OF CASE REASSIGNMENT PURSUANT TO PEREMPTORY CHALLENGE

3/23/2018: NOTICE OF CASE REASSIGNMENT PURSUANT TO PEREMPTORY CHALLENGE

Unknown

4/5/2018: Unknown

Unknown

4/11/2018: Unknown

Minute Order

4/18/2018: Minute Order

NOTICE OF CONTINUANCE OF HEARING ON DEFENDANT AMWEST FUNDING CORP.'S DEMURRER TO VERIFIED FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT AND CONTINUANCE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

4/19/2018: NOTICE OF CONTINUANCE OF HEARING ON DEFENDANT AMWEST FUNDING CORP.'S DEMURRER TO VERIFIED FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT AND CONTINUANCE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

PLAINTIFFS' OBJECTIONS TOAMWEST'S REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE

8/29/2018: PLAINTIFFS' OBJECTIONS TOAMWEST'S REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE

PIA1NIIFFS? OPPOSITION TO DEMURRER TO VERIFIED FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

8/29/2018: PIA1NIIFFS? OPPOSITION TO DEMURRER TO VERIFIED FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT AMWEST FUNDING CORP.'S DEMURRER TO VERIFIED FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

8/31/2018: REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT AMWEST FUNDING CORP.'S DEMURRER TO VERIFIED FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

FURTHER REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT AMWEST FUNDING CORP.'S DEMURRER TO VERIFIED FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT, ETC

8/31/2018: FURTHER REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT AMWEST FUNDING CORP.'S DEMURRER TO VERIFIED FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT, ETC

NOTICE OF CASE REASSIGNMENT AND OF ORDER FOR PLAINTIFF TO GIVE NOTICE

9/4/2018: NOTICE OF CASE REASSIGNMENT AND OF ORDER FOR PLAINTIFF TO GIVE NOTICE

Minute Order

9/11/2018: Minute Order

Answer

11/19/2018: Answer

Case Management Statement

1/8/2019: Case Management Statement

Case Management Statement

1/9/2019: Case Management Statement

Minute Order

1/11/2019: Minute Order

18 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 01/11/2019
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 53, Robert B. Broadbelt, Presiding; Case Management Conference - Held

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 01/11/2019
  • DocketMinute Order ((Case Management Conference;)); Filed by Clerk

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 01/09/2019
  • DocketCase Management Statement; Filed by Amit Janweja (Plaintiff); Reema Janweja (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 01/08/2019
  • DocketCase Management Statement; Filed by Amwest Funding Corp. (Defendant)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 11/19/2018
  • DocketAnswer; Filed by Amwest Funding Corp. (Defendant)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 09/11/2018
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 53; Hearing on Demurrer - without Motion to Strike (Hearing on Demurrer; Demurrer overruled) -

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 09/11/2018
  • DocketMinute order entered: 2018-09-11 00:00:00; Filed by Clerk

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 09/11/2018
  • DocketMinute Order

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 09/04/2018
  • DocketNotice of Case Reassignment and Order for Plaintiff to Give Notice; Filed by Clerk

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 09/04/2018
  • DocketNOTICE OF CASE REASSIGNMENT AND OF ORDER FOR PLAINTIFF TO GIVE NOTICE

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
49 More Docket Entries
  • 08/18/2017
  • DocketPROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 08/18/2017
  • DocketProof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 08/08/2017
  • DocketNOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 08/08/2017
  • DocketNotice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 07/03/2017
  • DocketNotice of Lis Pendens; Filed by Amit Janweja (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 07/03/2017
  • DocketNOTICE OF PENDENCY OF ACTION (LIS PENDENS)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 06/27/2017
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Amit Janweja (Plaintiff); Reema Janweja (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 06/27/2017
  • DocketSUMMONS

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 06/27/2017
  • DocketVERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR: 1. QUIET TITLE; ETC

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 07/26/2010
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 53; Final Status Conference

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: ****6642 Hearing Date: March 8, 2022 Dept: 53

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles – Central District

Department 53

amit janweja , et al.;

Plaintiffs,

vs.

amwest funding corp. , et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.:

****6642

Hearing Date:

March 8, 2022

Time:

10:00 a.m.

[Tentative] Order RE:

motion for summary judgment

MOVING PARTY: Defendant Amwest Funding Corp.

RESPONDING PARTIES: Plaintiffs Amit Janweja and Reema Janweja

Motion for Summary Judgment

The court considered the moving, opposition, and reply papers filed in connection with this motion.

EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS

The court overrules Plaintiffs’ evidentiary objections.

The court overrules Defendant’s evidentiary objections for failure to comply with California Rules of Court, rule 3.1354. Each written objection must “[q]uote or set forth the objectionable statement or material” and follow one of the two formats outlined in the California Rules of Court. (Cal. Rules of Ct. rule 3.1354, subd. (b), (b)(3).) While Defendant includes the location of the objectionable material—which often includes several statements, and includes material submitted by Defendant itself—Defendant fails to quote or set forth the objectionable material.

JUDICIAL NOTICE

The court grants Defendant’s request for judicial notice as to exhibits 1 through 7 pursuant to California Evidence Code section 452, subdivisions (c) and (h). (Fontenot v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 256, 265 [“courts have taken judicial notice of the existence and recordation of real property records, including deeds of trust, when the authenticity of the documents is not challenged”].) The court grants Plaintiffs’ request for judicial notice pursuant to California Evidence Code section 452, subdivisions (c) and (h). (Ibid.)

LEGAL STANDARD

The purpose of a motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication “is to provide courts with a mechanism to cut through the parties’ pleadings in order to determine whether, despite their allegations, trial is in fact necessary to resolve their dispute.” (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 843.) “Code of Civil Procedure section 437c, subdivision (c), requires the trial judge to grant summary judgment if all the evidence submitted, and ‘all inferences reasonably deducible from the evidence’ and uncontradicted by other inferences or evidence, show that there is no triable issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” (Adler v. Manor Healthcare Corp. (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1110, 1119.)

“On a motion for summary judgment, the initial burden is always on the moving party to make a prima facie showing that there are no triable issues of material fact.” (Scalf v. D.B. Log Homes, Inc. (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 1510, 1519.) A defendant or cross-defendant moving for summary judgment or summary adjudication “has met his or her burden of showing that a cause of action has no merit if the party has shown that one or more elements of the cause of action . . . cannot be established, or that there is a complete defense to the cause of action.” (Code Civ. Proc., 437c, subd. (p)(2).) “Once the defendant or cross-defendant has met that burden, the burden shifts to the plaintiff or cross-complainant to show that a triable issue of one or more material facts exists as to the cause of action or a defense thereto.” (Code Civ. Proc., 437c, subd. (p)(2).) “If the plaintiff cannot do so, summary judgment should be granted.” (Avivi v. Centro Medico Urgente Medical Center (2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 463, 467.) “When deciding whether to grant summary judgment, the court must consider all of the evidence set forth in the papers (except evidence to which the court has sustained an objection), as well as all reasonable inferences that may be drawn from that evidence, in the light most favorable to the party opposing summary judgment.” (Id. at p. 467; Code Civ. Proc., 437c, subd. (c).)

DISCUSSION

Plaintiffs Amit Janweja and Reema Janweja (“Plaintiffs”) allege three causes of action in their Verified First Amended Complaint for (1) quiet title, (2) declaratory relief, and (3) temporary restraining order and permanent injunction.

The elements of a quiet title claim are (1) the plaintiff is the owner and in possession of the property and (2) the defendant claims an adverse interest without right. (Thornton v. Stevenson (1960) 185 Cal.App.2d 708, 713.) As to Plaintiffs’ request for declaratory relief, “[a]ny person interested under a written instrument…or who desires a declaration of his or her rights or duties with respect to another, or in respect to, in, over or upon property…may, in cases of actual controversy relating to the legal rights and duties of the respective parties, bring an original action or cross-complaint in the superior court for a declaration of his or her rights and duties in the premises, including a determination of any question of construction or validity arising under the instrument or contract….” (Code Civ. Proc., 1060.)

  1. Constructive Notice

Defendant Amwest Funding Corp. (“Defendant”) moves for summary judgment against Plaintiffs on the ground that Plaintiffs had constructive notice of the PMC Deed of Trust encumbering the subject property located at 8836 Comanche Avenue, Los Angeles, California 91306 (the “Property”), such that judgment should be entered in favor of Defendant.

The Property was acquired by Vahan Ter-Grigoryan—with a hyphen—by virtue of a grant deed from K-Kars, Inc., dba Ellena Pacific Investments, in 2009. (Undisputed Material Fact No. 2; RJN Ex. 1.) Later, Vahan Tergrigoryan—without a hyphen—borrowed $315,000 from PMC, Defendant’s predecessor, which was secured by the Property (the “PMC Deed of Trust”). (Undisputed Material Fact No. 5; RJN Ex. 2.) Vahan Ter-Grigoryan conveyed the Property to Vehanush Yamalyan, who later conveyed the property to her husband, Stepan Yamalyan by quitclaim deed. (Undisputed Material Fact Nos. 8, 10.) Stepan Yamalyan borrowed $295,000 from plaintiff Amit Janweja, securing it with a deed of trust against the Property, and later conveyed the Property to Plaintiffs by deed in lieu of foreclosure. (Undisputed Material Fact Nos. 11-12.)

Defendant moves for summary judgment on the ground that Plaintiffs had constructive notice of the PMC Deed of Trust, contending that the deed under which Vahan Ter-Grigoryan took title in 2009 was indexed without the hyphen and therefore put Plaintiffs on constructive notice thereof.

The court finds that Defendant has not met its burden of showing that Plaintiffs’ causes of action have no merit because Defendant’s moving papers show a triable issue of material fact exists as to Plaintiffs’ causes of action. Specifically, Defendant presents the previously prepared declaration of Plaintiffs’ expert, Lore Hilburg, who opines that “someone, such as the Plaintiffs, acquiring an interest in the Subject Property subsequent to the [PMC Deed of Trust] without actual knowledge of the [PMC Deed of Trust] would not find it in the grantor-grantee index and therefore would not be on constructive notice of said trust deed.” (Marcus Decl., Ex. 6, Hilburg Decl., 10.) Plaintiffs’ expert also stated that, upon searching the name of Vahan Ter-Grigoryan, the PMC Deed of Trust did not appear on the index. (Marcus Decl., Ex. 6, Hilburg Decl., 9.) Hilburg further opined that the PMC Deed of Trust “spelled the trustor’s name without the hyphen which might explain the omission.” (Marcus Decl., Ex. 6, Hilburg Decl., 9.) Accordingly, there is a triable issue of material fact as to whether Plaintiffs had constructive notice of the PMC Deed of Trust.

Moreover, even if Defendant were found to have shifted the burden to Plaintiffs, the evidence presented in opposition to the motion shows that triable issues of material fact exist because plaintiff Amit Janweja states in his declaration that neither Amit Janweja nor his wife “had notice or knowledge that Amwest Funding Corp. (Amwest) or its predecessors were claiming any interest in or to the Property. [Plaintiffs] also had no notice or knowledge that the [PMC Deed of Trust] was purportedly an encumberance on the Property.” (Janweja Decl., 4.)

  1. Order

The court therefore denies Defendant Amwest Funding Corp.’s motion for summary judgment.

The court orders plaintiffs Amit Janweja and Reema Janweja to give notice of this ruling.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: March 8, 2022

Robert B. Broadbelt III

Judge of the Superior Court



Case Number: ****6642    Hearing Date: July 23, 2020    Dept: 53

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles – Central District

Department 53

Amit janweja ,

Plaintiff,

vs.

amwest funding corp. , et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.:

****6642

Hearing Date:

July 23, 2020

Time:

10:00 a.m.

[Tentative] Order RE:

motion to compel third-party witness stepan yamalyan to appear for deposition, produce documents, and otherwise fully comply with deposition subpoena

MOVING PARTY: Defendant Amwest Funding Corp.

RESPONDING PARTY: n/a

Motion to Compel Third-Party Witness Stepan Yamalyan to Appear for Deposition, Produce Documents, and Otherwise Fully Comply With Deposition Subpoena

The court considered the moving papers. No opposition to the motion was filed.

BACKGROUND

On October 8, 2019, defendant Amwest Funding Corp. (“Amwest”) issued a Deposition Subpoena for Personal Appearance and Production of Documents and Things directed to nonparty Stepan Yamalyan (“Yamalyan”), and Amwest served that deposition subpoena on Yamalyan on October 19, 2019. (Chomsky Decl., ¶¶ 4-5, Exhs. A-B.) The deposition subpoena required Yamalyan to appear to testify as a witness at deposition and to produce the documents described in Attachment 3 on November 7, 2019. (Chomsky Decl., ¶ 4, Exh. A.) Yamalyan did not respond to the deposition subpoena and did not appear for deposition on November 7, 2019. (Chomsky Decl., ¶ 6, Exh. C.)

Amwest now moves for an order compelling Yamalyan to comply with the deposition subpoena by appearing and testifying at his deposition, and producing the documents requested in the deposition subpoena. No opposition to the motion was filed.

DISCUSSION

“If a subpoena requires the attendance of a witness or the production of . . . documents . . . at the taking of a deposition, the court, upon motion reasonably made by [a party] . . . may make an order . . . directing compliance with it upon those terms or conditions as the court shall declare . . . .” (Code Civ. Proc., ; 1987.1, subd. (a).) “A written notice and all moving papers supporting a motion to compel an answer to a deposition question or to compel production of a document or tangible thing from a nonparty deponent must be personally served on the nonparty deponent unless the nonparty deponent agrees to accept service by mail or electronic service at an address or electronic service address specified on the deposition record.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1346.)

On June 4, 2020, Amwest filed a Proof of Service showing that, on May 27, 2020, Yamalyan was served with Amwest’s notice of motion and all moving papers filed in support of this motion, as required by California Rules of Court, rule 3.1346 and due process. In light of Yamalyan’s failure to file an opposition to the motion and the court’s finding of good cause to grant the motion, the court grants Amwest’s motion to compel compliance with deposition subpoena for nonparty Stepan Yamalyan.

Amwest also requests that the court impose monetary sanctions in the amount of $500 against Yamalyan pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 2020.240 and 1992. Section 2020.240 provides, in relevant part: “A deponent who disobeys a deposition subpoena . . . may be punished for contempt . . . without the necessity of a prior order of court directing compliance by the witness. The deponent is also subject to the forfeiture and the payment of damages set forth in Section 1992.” Section 1992 provides: “A person failing to appear pursuant to a subpoena or a court order also forfeits to the party aggrieved the sum of five hundred dollars ($500), and all damages that he or she may sustain by the failure of the person to appear pursuant to the subpoena or court order, which forfeiture and damages may be recovered in a civil action.”

“The maximum sanction [under Code of Civil Procedure section 1992] is a $500 forfeiture plus actual damages, and the party aggrieved by the failure to make discovery can recover the sanctions only by bringing an independent civil action.” (New York Times Co. v. Superior Court (1990) 51 Cal.3d 453, 464 (emphasis added).) Because the sanction under section 1992 can only be recovered in an action separate and independent from this action, the court denies Amwest’s request for monetary sanctions without prejudice.

ORDER

For the reasons set forth above, the court makes the following orders.

The court grants defendant Amwest Funding Corp.’s motion to compel compliance with the Deposition Subpoena for Personal Appearance and Production of Documents and Things directed to nonparty Stepan Yamalyan, issued October 8, 2019.

The court orders nonparty Stepan Yamalyan (1) to appear in person to testify as a witness in this action on _________________, 2020, at 10:00 a.m., at the office of Marcus, Watanabe & Enowitz, located at 11377 W. Olympic Boulevard, 5th Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90064, and (2) to produce the documents and things described in Attachment 3 to the Deposition Subpoena for Personal Appearance and Production of Documents and Things directed to nonparty Stepan Yamalyan, issued October 8, 2019. Pursuant to Appendix I to the California Rules of Court, Emergency Rules Related to COVID-19, Emergency rule 11(a), nonparty deponent Stepan Yamalyan, at his election or the election of the deposing party, is not required to be present with the deposition officer at the time of the deposition. In light of the concerns about the COVID-19 pandemic, if nonparty deponent Stepan Yamalyan and defendant Amwest Funding Corp. agree to conduct the deposition by videoconference, they may do so.

The court denies defendant Amwest Funding Corp.’s request for an order imposing monetary sanctions against Stepan Yamalyan.

Defendant Amwest Funding Corp. is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: July 23, 2020

_____________________________

Robert B. Broadbelt III

Judge of the Superior Court



related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where AMWEST FUNDING CORP. is a litigant

Latest cases where PEAK FORECLOSURE SERVICES is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer MARCUS DAVID M.