On 11/03/2017 ANTHONY KLING filed an Other lawsuit against ALIREZA VARASTEHPOUR. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are MICHELLE WILLIAMS COURT and MONICA BACHNER. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.
Pending - Other Pending
Los Angeles County Superior Courts
Stanley Mosk Courthouse
Los Angeles, California
MICHELLE WILLIAMS COURT
DOES 1 TO 30
170 CLIFFWOOD LLC
KLING LAW FIRM
KLING ANTHONY N
FERRARIS JAMES PATRICK
KEOUGH BARBARA ANN
5/16/2019: Minute Order
2/25/2019: Minute Order
4/3/2019: Memorandum of Points & Authorities
4/25/2019: Exhibit List
4/25/2019: Exhibit List
5/6/2019: Request for Judicial Notice
5/6/2019: Exhibit List
5/6/2019: Exhibit List
6/7/2018: Minute Order
Notice (EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO DEFENDANT'S UNSUPPORTED & CONTRADICTORY STATEMENTS IN REPLY BRIEF); Filed by Cliffwood LLC (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
Notice ( OF COUNSEL DAVID KNIERIEM TO APPEAR BY COURT CALL AND ANTHONY KLING IN PERSON FOR HEARING); Filed by Cliffwood LLC (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
Reply (to opposition to motion to continue trial); Filed by Alireza Varastehpour (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
Notice (OF TRIAL READINESS FOR TRIAL JUNE 24); Filed by Cliffwood LLC (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
Declaration (OF DAVID KNIERIEM & CRC RULE 3.1332(d) (5)-(6) STATEMENT OF PREJUDICE TO TRIAL COUNSEL); Filed by Cliffwood LLC (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
Request for Judicial Notice; Filed by Cliffwood LLC (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
Exhibit List; Filed by Cliffwood LLC (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
Declaration (OF ANTHONY KLING & CRC RULE 3.1332(d) (5) STATEMENT OF PREJUDICE TO PLAINTIFF ANTHONY KLING); Filed by Cliffwood LLC (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
Opposition (PLAINTIFFS' OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT ALIREZA VARASTEHPOUR'S MOTION FOR TRIAL CONTINUANCE (6TH REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCE); MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES); Filed by Cliffwood LLC (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
Declaration (OF CLIFFWOOD LLC & CRC RULE 3.1332(d) (5) STATEMENT OF PREJUDICE TO PLAINTIFF CLIFFWOOD LLC); Filed by Cliffwood LLC (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
Notice of Motion; Filed by ANTHONY KLING (Plaintiff); CLIFFORD LLC (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
DECLARATION OF DAVID KNIERIEM IN SUPPORT OF APPLICATION FOR ADMISSION PRO HAC VICE OF DAVID KNIERIEMRead MoreRead Less
PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE OF COURT'S ORDER OF 11/27/17Read MoreRead Less
Notice of Case Management Conference; Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
OSC-Failure to File Proof of Serv; Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE HEARINGRead MoreRead Less
NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCERead MoreRead Less
Complaint; Filed by ANTHONY KLING (Plaintiff); CLIFFORD LLC (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND EQUITABLE RELIEF 1. NEGLIGENCE; ETCRead MoreRead Less
SUMMONSRead MoreRead Less
Case Number: BC682319 Hearing Date: January 19, 2021 Dept: 74
BC682319 ANTHONY KLING VS ALIREZA VARASTEHPOUR
Defendant’s Motion to Tax Costs
TENTATIVE RULING: The motion is granted in part. Item 1 is taxed $1,282; Item 12 is taxed $4,178.67; and Item 16 is taxed $15,583.70.
First, the Court rejects Cliffwood’s procedural arguments as to the entire memorandum of costs. Although it would have been easier for the Court to rule on this motion if Defendant had clearly identified the memorandum of costs and/or included the specific memorandum with her motion, Cliffwood does not cite any supporting authority to show that Defendant was required to do so. Evidence Code section 210, as cited by Cliffwood, relates to a definition of “relevant evidence.” Defendant’s notice of motion does note that the motion is based on the “papers and records in this action.” (Motion 2:3.) Those papers, which includes the subject memorandum of costs, are indeed relevant evidence.
Second, the Court finds that Defendant’s noncompliance with California Rules of Court rule 3.1700(b)(2) to be harmless. It is clear based on Defendant’s motion that Item 11 (court reporter fees) refers to Item 12 (models, enlargements, and photocopies of exhibits). In any event, Cliffwood cites no supporting authority that this error requires denial of Defendant’s motion.
Third, the court finds the motion should be granted, in part, on the merits.
Regarding Item 1 (filing and motion fees), Cliffwood seeks $2,868.75 in costs, including $870 for first appearance fee, $500 for pro hac admission, $652.75 for e-filing fees, and $846 for CourtCall fees. Defendant seeks to tax $435 for the first appearance fee, $500 for pro hac admission, and $846 for CourtCall fees. The Court rules as follows: (1) GRANTED as to $435 for first appearance fee because the appearance fee did not double based on two plaintiffs; (2) DENIED as to $500 for pro hac admission because Cliffwood had a right to choose its counsel and the chosen counsel admitted under pro hac vice was a successful trial counsel in this case; (3) GRANTED as to $846 for CourtCall fees because these are not “filing and motion fees” but “other fees” and Cliffwood shows no evidence that all costs were necessary because of Covid-19 limitations on in-person appearances. In summary, the Court taxes $435 for first appearance fee and $846 for CourtCall fees for a total of $1,282.
Regarding Item 12 (models, enlargements, and photocopies of exhibits), Cliffwood seeks $4,178.67 in costs, including $1,238.67 for trial photocopies and $2,940.00 for law and motion photocopies. Defendant seeks to tax the entire item. The Court rules as follows: (1) GRANTED as $1,238.67 for trial photocopies; and (2) GRANTED as to $2,940.00 for law and motion photocopies. In making this ruling, the Court notes that “photocopies” are expressly not allowed by statute unless used as for exhibits. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1033.5, subd. (a)(13), (b)(3).) The items, as stated on the memorandum, do not appear to be proper charges because the information provided merely identifies them as photocopies. Although Defendant argues that these photocopies were for the trial binders or otherwise used at trial, Defendant provides no evidence (i.e., declaration) substantiating that claim. In summary, the Court taxes the entire $4,178.67 for this item.
Regarding Item 16 (other), Cliffwood seeks $15,583.70 in costs, including $60 in parking fees, $3,333.07 in hotel fees for trial, and $12,190.63 for expert witness fees. Defendant seeks to tax the entire item. The Court rules as follows: (1) GRANTED as to $60 in parking fees because even though such a charge is reasonably necessary if in fact incurred to drop off court-ordered trial binders (Opposition 9:15-17), Defendant provides no evidence (i.e., declaration) substantiating that claim; (2) GRANTED as to $3,333.07 in hotel fees for trial because although Plaintiffs’ counsel had to be physically present for trial, that does not mean that Defendant must pay for hotel costs because Plaintiffs’ chose a trial counsel who is not local (and in any event there is no indication about the reasonableness of the choice of hotel); and (3) GRANTED as to $12,190.63 for expert witness fees because they were not incurred to compensate for a court-ordered expert. In summary, the Court taxes the entire $15,583.70 for this item.
Case Number: BC682319 Hearing Date: January 15, 2021 Dept: 74
BC682319 ANTHONY KLING ET AL VS ALIREZA VARASTEHPOUR
Plaintiffs’ Unopposed Motion to Compel Post-Judgment Discovery
TENTATIVE RULING: The motion is DENED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to refiling after the resolution of the appeal and subsequent lifting of the stay.
Pursuant to Code Civ. Proc., § 708.030, a judgment creditor is permitted to engage in limited discovery through inspection demands to aid in the enforcement of the money judgment. Such discovery “may be enforced to the extent practicable, in the same manner as . . . in a civil action.” (Id. at subd. (c).) “The purpose of such supplementary proceedings is to discover and reach assets of a judgment debtor so as to apply them to the satisfaction of the judgment.” (Kyne v. Eustice (1963) 215 Cal.App.3d 627, 632.)
However, “[i]f enforcement of the judgment is stayed on appeal by the giving of a sufficient undertaking. . .all proceedings under this article are stayed.” Code Civ. Proc., § 708.010 subd. (b), That is, where the enforcement of a judgment is stayed on appeal by the filing of a sufficient undertaking under Code Civ. Proc., § 916 et seq., inspection demands to the judgment debtor are stayed as well. (Code Civ. Proc., § 780.010 subd. (b); Cal. Prac. Guide (Rutter) Enf. J. & Debt Ch. 6G-3, Inspection Demand to Judgment Debtor.)
Plaintiffs seek an order compelling defendant Varastehpour to provide discovery responses to Plaintiffs’ first set of post-judgment requests for production of documents (“RFP”). Plaintiffs state they served the RFP on Varastehpour on September 10, 2020. (Decl. A. Kling, Exh. A.) Plaintiffs issued an extension for responses to Varastehpour, setting the due date for responses due to October 15, 2020. (Id. at Exh. B.) Receiving no responses, on October 20, 2020, Plaintiffs’ counsel met and conferred with opposing counsel to informally resolve the matter. No agreement was met, necessitating Plaintiffs’ timely filing of the instant motion on October 23, 2020, which is brought under Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.300.
Defendant Varastehpour filed the Notice of Appeal on October 21, 2020. Then, on December 23, 2020 Varastehpour filed a sufficient undertaking, secured by the Aspen American Insurance Company in the amount of $360,000, which is approximately one and a half times the amount ordered by the Court’s October 07, 2020 amended judgment, compliant with Code Civ. Proc. § 917.1 subd. (b). Since a sufficient undertaking has been given, the exception of Code Civ. Proc. § 708.010 subd. (b) applies. Thus, the enforcement of the judgment is stayed pending resolution on appeal, and, pursuant to Code Civ. Proc. § 780.010 subd. (b), inspection demands to Varastehpour, debtor, are stayed as well.
Case Number: BC682319 Hearing Date: August 19, 2020 Dept: 74
BC682319 ANTHONY KLING vs ALIREZA VARASTEHPOUR
Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike the March 27, 2020 Notice of Lien
RECOMMENDED RULING: Plaintiff’s motion to strike the notice of lien pursuant to CCP §435 is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. CCP §435 does not authorize the relief sought.
Objections to Evidence
Plaintiff’s objections to the evidence submitted in opposition to this motion are OVERRULED.
Plaintiff’s requests for judicial notice are GRANTED.
Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases