This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 11/13/2021 at 05:04:04 (UTC).

ARDEN B. SILVERMAN VS P. PAUL ABAHALA, ET AL.

Case Summary

On 12/09/2020 ARDEN B SILVERMAN filed a Contract - Other Contract lawsuit against P PAUL ABAHALA. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are RANDOLPH M. HAMMOCK and STUART M. RICE. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *******7007

  • Filing Date:

    12/09/2020

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Contract - Other Contract

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

RANDOLPH M. HAMMOCK

STUART M. RICE

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

SILVERMAN ARDEN B. DBA CAPITAL ASSET PROTECTION

Defendants and Cross Plaintiffs

ABAHALA P. PAUL

KRUBIN 26 INTERNATIONAL

SOLEYMANI DAVID

KRUBIM 26 INTERNATIONAL INC.

SOLEYMANI DAVID AKA DAVID MEYERS

AGHABALA P. PAUL

Defendants, Cross Defendants and Cross Plaintiffs

KRUBIN 26 INTERNATIONAL

SOLEYMANI DAVID

SOLEYMANI DAVID AKA DAVID MEYERS

AGHABALA P. PAUL

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

KALAJIAN JOHN MARTIN

Defendant and Cross Plaintiff Attorneys

AGHABALA PAYAM PAUL

SHABANI NATALI

WEISS THOMAS J.

Cross Plaintiff and Cross Defendant Attorneys

WEISS THOMAS J.

KLIER-ERLICH RINAT

 

Court Documents

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION FOR SANCTIONS; TRIAL SETTING CONFERENCE AND...)

10/25/2021: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION FOR SANCTIONS; TRIAL SETTING CONFERENCE AND...)

Association of Attorney

11/3/2021: Association of Attorney

Answer - ANSWER CROSS-COMPLAINT

11/3/2021: Answer - ANSWER CROSS-COMPLAINT

Notice of Posting of Jury Fees

11/4/2021: Notice of Posting of Jury Fees

Unknown - AMENDED CROSS-COMPLAINT (1ST)

9/28/2021: Unknown - AMENDED CROSS-COMPLAINT (1ST)

Demurrer - without Motion to Strike

9/29/2021: Demurrer - without Motion to Strike

Opposition - OPPOSITION OPPOSITION TO DEMURRER TO FIRST AMENDED CROSS COMPLAINT

10/8/2021: Opposition - OPPOSITION OPPOSITION TO DEMURRER TO FIRST AMENDED CROSS COMPLAINT

Notice of Case Reassignment and Order for Plaintiff to Give Notice

10/14/2021: Notice of Case Reassignment and Order for Plaintiff to Give Notice

Reply - REPLY AGHABALA REPLY TO KRUBIM 26 OPPOSITION

8/3/2021: Reply - REPLY AGHABALA REPLY TO KRUBIM 26 OPPOSITION

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION FOR SANCTIONS; TRIAL SETTING CONFERENCE AND...)

8/11/2021: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION FOR SANCTIONS; TRIAL SETTING CONFERENCE AND...)

Opposition - OPPOSITION OPPOSITION OF DAVID SOLEYMANI AND KRUBIM 26 INTERNATIONAL, INC., TO MOTION FOR SANCTIONS FILED BY P. PAUL AGHABALA; DECLARATION OF DAVID SOLEYMANI

7/29/2021: Opposition - OPPOSITION OPPOSITION OF DAVID SOLEYMANI AND KRUBIM 26 INTERNATIONAL, INC., TO MOTION FOR SANCTIONS FILED BY P. PAUL AGHABALA; DECLARATION OF DAVID SOLEYMANI

Case Management Statement - CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT AMENDED

7/26/2021: Case Management Statement - CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT AMENDED

Case Management Statement

7/22/2021: Case Management Statement

Order - ORDER DISCHARGING PLAINTIFF, DISMISSING PLAINTIFF AND AWARDING FEES AND COSTS

4/19/2021: Order - ORDER DISCHARGING PLAINTIFF, DISMISSING PLAINTIFF AND AWARDING FEES AND COSTS

Order - ORDER RULING

4/19/2021: Order - ORDER RULING

Motion for Sanctions

5/27/2021: Motion for Sanctions

Order - ORDER DISCHARGING PLAINTIFF, DISMISSING PLAINTIFF AND AWARDING FEES AND COSTS

4/19/2021: Order - ORDER DISCHARGING PLAINTIFF, DISMISSING PLAINTIFF AND AWARDING FEES AND COSTS

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE; HEARING ON MOTION FOR ORDER RE: I...)

4/19/2021: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE; HEARING ON MOTION FOR ORDER RE: I...)

34 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 10/24/2022
  • Hearing10/24/2022 at 09:30 AM in Department 49 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Jury Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/18/2022
  • Hearing10/18/2022 at 09:30 AM in Department 49 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Final Status Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/09/2022
  • Hearing09/09/2022 at 08:30 AM in Department 49 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Post-Mediation Status Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/04/2021
  • DocketNotice of Posting of Jury Fees; Filed by DAVID SOLEYMANI (Defendant); Krubim 26 International, Inc. (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/03/2021
  • DocketAnswer (CROSS-COMPLAINT); Filed by P. Paul Aghabala (Cross-Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/03/2021
  • DocketAssociation of Attorney; Filed by P. Paul Aghabala (Cross-Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/27/2021
  • Docketat 08:31 AM in Department 49, Randolph M. Hammock, Presiding; Hearing on Demurrer - without Motion to Strike - Not Held - Rescheduled by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/25/2021
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 49, Randolph M. Hammock, Presiding; Hearing on Demurrer - without Motion to Strike ((advanced from 10/27/21 on court's own motion)) - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/25/2021
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 49, Randolph M. Hammock, Presiding; Hearing on Motion - Other (reany pleading's challenge is RESERVED) - Not Held - Vacated by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/25/2021
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 49, Randolph M. Hammock, Presiding; Trial Setting Conference (and a Status Conference reADR (c/f 8/11/21)) - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
40 More Docket Entries
  • 01/19/2021
  • DocketRequest for Dismissal (as to David Soleymani only); Filed by ARDEN B. SILVERMAN (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/31/2020
  • DocketAnswer; Filed by P. Paul Aghabala (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/31/2020
  • DocketCross-Complaint; Filed by P. Paul Aghabala (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/29/2020
  • DocketAmendment to Complaint (Fictitious/Incorrect Name); Filed by ARDEN B. SILVERMAN (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/29/2020
  • DocketNotice (Notice of case management conference); Filed by ARDEN B. SILVERMAN (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/10/2020
  • DocketNotice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/09/2020
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by ARDEN B. SILVERMAN (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/09/2020
  • DocketSummons (on Complaint); Filed by ARDEN B. SILVERMAN (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/09/2020
  • DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Unlimited Civil Case; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/09/2020
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by ARDEN B. SILVERMAN (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: 20STCV47007    Hearing Date: April 19, 2021    Dept: 49

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Arden Silverman,

Plaintiff,

Case No.

20STCV47007

v.

[Tentative] Ruling

P. Paul Ahabala, et al.,

Defendants.

Hearing Date: April 19, 2021

Department 49, Judge Stuart M. Rice

Moving Parties:  Plaintiff Arden Silverman

Responding Party: None

Ruling: The motion is granted. Arden Silverman shall be dismissed from this action and discharged from further liability with respect to the interpleaded funds. Fees and costs are awarded in the amount of $10,292.34.  

Plaintiff Arden Silverman (“Plaintiff”) moves the court for orders discharging Plaintiff from any further liability with respect to the $122,500 in interpleader funds on deposit with the court, dismissing Plaintiff from the case, and for fees and costs.

Interpleader is a procedure whereby a person holding money or personal property to which conflicting claims are being made by others, can join the adverse claimants and force them to litigate their claims among themselves.  (Hancock Oil Co. v. Hopkins (1944) 24 Cal.2d 497, 508; City of Morgan Hill v. Brown (1999) 71 Cal.App.4th 1114, 1122.)  CCP section 386(b) provides that “[a]ny person, firm, corporation, association or other entity against whom double or multiple claims are made, or may be made, by two or more persons which are such that they may give rise to double or multiple liability, may bring an action against the claimants to compel them to interplead and litigate their several claims.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 386(b).)

Once the stakeholder’s right to interplead is established, and he or she deposits the money or personal property in court, he or she may be discharged from liability to any of the claimants. This enables the stakeholder to avoid multiplicity of actions, and the risk of inconsistent results if each of the claimants were to sue him or her separately.  (Cantu v. Resolution Trust Corp. (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 857, 874; City of Morgan Hill, supra, 71 Cal.App.4th at 1122.)

“An interpleader action is traditionally viewed as two suits: one between the stakeholder and the claimants to determine the stakeholder's right to interplead, and the other among the claimants to determine who shall receive the funds interpleaded ... As against the stakeholder, claimants may raise only matters which go to whether the suit is properly one for interpleader, i.e., whether the elements of an interpleader action are present.”  (State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Pietak (2001) 90 Cal.App.4th 600, 612.)

The stakeholder may seek reimbursement for his or her costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees incurred.  (UAP-Columbus JV 326132 v. Nesbitt (1991) 234 Cal.App.3d 1028, 1036.)  The court may order payment thereof out of the funds deposited by the stakeholder.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 386.6.)

Discussion

Discharge of Interpleader Plaintiff

The Court finds relief is proper pursuant to CCP section 386(b). The subject matter of this action is $122,500.00.  Plaintiff asserts that he is a disinterested stakeholder and cannot determine which of the defendants/claimants is entitled to the disputed funds without possible multiple liability. Plaintiff has now provided proper notice to all interested parties. 

As Plaintiff has already deposited the $122,500.00 in funds with the Court on January 4, 2021, Plaintiff may be discharged from this action and from further liability.

Attorney’s Fees and Costs

Plaintiff seeks attorney’s fees and costs in the amount of $10,292.34 pursuant to CCP section 386.6. These fees and costs are proper. Plaintiff has expended $9,135.00 in attorney’s fees and $1,157.34 in costs in bringing this action to protect itself from liability. These fees and costs include bringing and maintaining this interpleader action; serving the defendants/claimants; and preparing and filing this motion. (Motion, Kalajian Decl., ¶¶ 9-27, Ex. D.) As such, Plaintiff’s request for attorney’s fees and costs is granted in the amount of $10,292.34.

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, the motion for discharge and award of attorney’s fees and costs is GRANTED.

Plaintiff is discharged from all liability and dismissed from this action.

Plaintiff is awarded attorney’s fees and costs in the amount of $10,292.34.

Order will be signed this date.

Plaintiff to give notice and file proof of service of such.

Date: April 19, 2021

Honorable Stuart M. Rice

Judge of the Superior Court

Case Number: 20STCV47007    Hearing Date: March 25, 2021    Dept: 49

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Arden Silverman dba Capital Asset Protection,

Plaintiff,

Case No.

20STCV47007

v.

[Tentative] Ruling

P. Paul Aghabala, et al.,

Defendants.

Hearing Date: March 25, 2021

Department 49, Judge Stuart M. Rice

Motion for Interpleader Discharge and for Award of Attorney’s Fees and Costs

Moving Party: Plaintiff Arden Silverman dba Capital Asset Protection

Responding Party:      None

Ruling: Plaintiff’s Motion for Interpleader Discharge and for Award of Attorney’s Fees and Costs is CONTINUED.  The parties are ordered to appear at the March 25, 2021 hearing.

Legal Standard

Interpleader is a procedure whereby a person holding money or personal property to which conflicting claims are being made by others, can join the adverse claimants and force them to litigate their claims among themselves.  (Hancock Oil Co. v. Hopkins (1944) 24 Cal.2d 497, 508; City of Morgan Hill v. Brown (1999) 71 Cal.App.4th 1114, 1122.)  CCP section 386(b) provides that “[a]ny person, firm, corporation, association or other entity against whom double or multiple claims are made, or may be made, by two or more persons which are such that they may give rise to double or multiple liability, may bring an action against the claimants to compel them to interplead and litigate their several claims.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 386(b).)

Once the stakeholder’s right to interplead is established, and he or she deposits the money or personal property in court, he or she may be discharged from liability to any of the claimants. This enables the stakeholder to avoid multiplicity of actions, and the risk of inconsistent results if each of the claimants were to sue him or her separately.  (Cantu v. Resolution Trust Corp. (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 857, 874; City of Morgan Hill, supra, 71 Cal.App.4th at 1122.)

“An interpleader action is traditionally viewed as two suits: one between the stakeholder and the claimants to determine the stakeholder's right to interplead, and the other among the claimants to determine who shall receive the funds interpleaded ... As against the stakeholder, claimants may raise only matters which go to whether the suit is properly one for interpleader; i.e., whether the elements of an interpleader action are present.”  (State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Pietak (2001) 90 Cal.App.4th 600, 612.)

The stakeholder may seek reimbursement for his or her costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees incurred.  (UAP-Columbus JV 326132 v. Nesbitt (1991) 234 Cal.App.3d 1028, 1036.)  The court may order payment thereof out of the funds deposited by the stakeholder.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 386.6.)

Discussion

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, the motion for interpleader discharge and award of attorney’s fees and costs is CONTINUED.   The new date will be decided at the court appearance on March 25, 2021.

Plaintiff is ordered to re-serve the moving papers on Defendant Krubim 26 International, Inc.

Plaintiff to give notice and file proof of service of such.

Date: March 25, 2021

Honorable Stuart M. Rice

Judge of the Superior Court

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where KRUBIN 26 INTERNATIONAL is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer KALAJIAN, JOHN M.