This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 06/11/2019 at 11:05:45 (UTC).

CARMELO IGLESIAS VS MAZGANI SOCIAL SERVICES INC ET AL

Case Summary

On 04/10/2017 CARMELO IGLESIAS filed a Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury lawsuit against MAZGANI SOCIAL SERVICES INC. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is MICHELLE WILLIAMS COURT. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****7191

  • Filing Date:

    04/10/2017

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

MICHELLE WILLIAMS COURT

 

Party Details

Petitioner and Plaintiff

IGLESIAS CARMELO

Claimant

COURTCALL LLC

Defendants and Respondents

MAZGANI MAHVASH

MAZGANI SOCIAL SERVICES INC

MAZGANI NEYAZ

DOES 1 TO 25

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Petitioner and Plaintiff Attorneys

JACOBSON BRIAN M.

JACOBSON BRIAN MICHAEL

Defendant and Respondent Attorneys

NAZANIN MAZGANI

KELETI S. MARTIN

MAZGANI NAZANIN

 

Court Documents

REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT

1/30/2018: REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT

REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT

1/30/2018: REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT

REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT

1/30/2018: REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT

ORDER ON EX-PARTE APPLICATION FOR THE FOLLOWING RELIEF:P 1. ADVANCE THE HEARING DATE ON THE MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT FROM CURRENTLY SET DATE OF OCTOBER 17, 2018, ETC

2/7/2018: ORDER ON EX-PARTE APPLICATION FOR THE FOLLOWING RELIEF:P 1. ADVANCE THE HEARING DATE ON THE MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT FROM CURRENTLY SET DATE OF OCTOBER 17, 2018, ETC

EX-PARTE APPLICATION FOR THE FOLLOWING RELIEF; 1. ADVANCE THE HEARING DATE ON THE MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT FROM CURRENTLY SET DATE OF OCTOBER 17, 2018, ETC

2/7/2018: EX-PARTE APPLICATION FOR THE FOLLOWING RELIEF; 1. ADVANCE THE HEARING DATE ON THE MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT FROM CURRENTLY SET DATE OF OCTOBER 17, 2018, ETC

Minute Order

2/7/2018: Minute Order

NOTICE OF ENTRY OF OTHER ORDER

2/22/2018: NOTICE OF ENTRY OF OTHER ORDER

OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO QUASH

3/27/2018: OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO QUASH

PLAINTIFF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT

4/2/2018: PLAINTIFF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT

Minute Order

4/9/2018: Minute Order

REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT

5/22/2018: REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT

PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

5/23/2018: PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT

6/11/2018: REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT

PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

6/11/2018: PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

PROOF OF SERVTCE OF SUMMONS

6/11/2018: PROOF OF SERVTCE OF SUMMONS

REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT

6/11/2018: REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT

Unknown

6/12/2018: Unknown

Minute Order

6/13/2018: Minute Order

96 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 04/18/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 74; Order to Show Cause Re: (sanctions, including dismissal, for failure to obtain default judgment) - Held - Continued

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/18/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Order to Show Cause Re: sanctions, including dismissal, for f...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/17/2019
  • Statement of Damages (Personal Injury or Wrongful Death); Filed by Carmelo Iglesias (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/17/2019
  • Statement of the Case; Filed by Carmelo Iglesias (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/17/2019
  • Notice of Limited Scope Representation; Filed by Carmelo Iglesias (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/17/2019
  • Declaration (OF CARMELO IGLESIAS SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF APPLICATION FOR COURT JUDGMENT); Filed by Carmelo Iglesias (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/17/2019
  • Request for Dismissal; Filed by Carmelo Iglesias (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/01/2019
  • at 1:30 PM in Department 74; Court Order

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/01/2019
  • Certificate of Mailing for (Minute Order (Court Order) of 03/01/2019); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/01/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Court Order)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
179 More Docket Entries
  • 05/01/2017
  • Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by Carmelo Iglesias (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/01/2017
  • Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by Carmelo Iglesias (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/01/2017
  • PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/01/2017
  • PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/25/2017
  • Notice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/25/2017
  • NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/10/2017
  • Complaint; Filed by Carmelo Iglesias (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/10/2017
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/10/2017
  • ORDER ON COURT FEE WAIVER

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/10/2017
  • VERIFIED COMPLAINT 1. MALICIOUS PROSECUTION ;ETC

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

b'

Case Number: BC657191 Hearing Date: August 11, 2021 Dept: 74

\r\n\r\n

BC657191 CARMELO\r\nIGLESIAS VS MAZGANI SOCIAL SERVICES INC

\r\n\r\n

Defendants’ Motion for Reconsideration of the court’s\r\nApril 23, 2021 order

\r\n\r\n

TENTATIVE RULING: \r\nDefendants’ request for judicial notice is GRANTED. Defendants’ motion for reconsideration is GRANTED\r\nIN PART. Documents produced pursuant to\r\nrequests 1, 10, 11, 12, 13, 18, 19, 20,\r\n21, 33, | 5 34, 35, 36, 37, 52, 62, 63, 69, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80 & 81 shall\r\nbe produced pursuant this protective order limiting the use of the documents to\r\njudgment collection purposes only in this case. \r\nThe motion for reconsideration of the order compelling production of tax\r\nreturns is DENIED.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n'

Case Number: BC657191    Hearing Date: February 24, 2021    Dept: 74

BC657191 CARMELO IGLESIAS VS MAZGANI SOCIAL SERVICES INC ET AL

Plaintiff’s Motion to Add Judgment Debtor

TENTATIVE RULING: The motion is DENIED.

Plaintiff moves for an order naming Nazanin Mazgani as a defendant judgment debtor to the judgment rendered in this suit.

A judgment may be amended to add additional judgment debtors upon the theory of alter ego. (NEC Electronics Inc. v. Hurt (1989) 208 Cal.App.3d 772, 778.) Despite such, when a defendant did not present an evidence-based defense and a default judgment was entered against the defendant, a new judgment debtor cannot be added on the basis of alter ego theory. (Wolf Metals Inc. v. Rand Pacific Sales, Inc. (2016) 4 Cal.App.5th 698, 709.)

The court entered default judgment against Defendants on June 18, 2019. The Court entered judgment against Defendants based upon Plaintiff’s testimony and written declaration. Furthermore, the Court’s record establishes that Defendants’ appearance in this suit included filing a motion to quash and motion to vacate. There were no other arguments set forth by Defendants related to a defense of this action. As a result, Defendants did not present an evidence-based defense before the Court entered judgment in this suit. This means Respondent cannot be added as a judgment debtor on the basis of alter ego as the Court entered judgment against Defendants without their presentation of an evidence-based defense.

The California Supreme Court has stated an individual’s due process rights are violated when a court amends a judgment to add a new judgment debtor where the judgment was the result of a default and the potential judgment debtor did not participate in the defense of the action. (NEC Electronics Inc., supra., at 779.)

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to add judgment debtor filed on 01/13/2021 is DENIED.

Case Number: BC657191    Hearing Date: February 02, 2021    Dept: 74

BC657191 CARMELO IGLESIAS vs MAZGANI SOCIAL SERVICES INC

Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration

TENTATIVE RULING: Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration is DENIED. Defendants’ request the sanctions is DENIED.

Plaintiff seeks reconsideration of the August 11, 2020 order on defendant’s motion to tax costs.

Any party affected by a court order may request a reconsideration of that order. (Code Civ. Proc. § 1008(a).) The propounding party must file an application within 10 days following service of the written notice of entry of the order. (Id.) A request to reconsider the matter must consider “new or different facts, circumstances, or law.” (Id.) The judge that granted or denied the order must hear the reconsideration. (Id.) The party seeking the reconsideration must state by affidavit “what application was made before, when and to what judge, what order or decisions were made, and what new or different facts, circumstances, or law are claimed to be shown.” (Id.)

When a court granted or denied a prior application for an order in whole or in part, the original party making the application may make an additional application for the same order when it based upon “new or different facts, circumstances, or law in which case it shall be shown by affidavit what application was made before, when and to what judge, what order or decisions were made, and what new or different facts, circumstances, or law are claimed to be shown.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 1008(b).) If a party fails to comply with CCP § 1008(b), the court may revoke or set aside on ex parte motion any order following the application. (Id.)

If a change in law warrants reconsideration of a prior order entered, the court may make a motion on its own and enter a new order. (Code Civ. Proc. § 1008(c).) An application that fails to comply with CCP § 1008 cannot be considered. (Code Civ. Proc. § 1008(e).)

Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration does not meet the requirements set forth in CCP § 1008.

Plaintiff noticed this motion for reconsideration based upon Code of Civ Proc. §§ 1008, 685.070(c), 473(b); however, Plaintiff failed to analyze its motion under CCP §§ 1008 or 473(b). Furthermore, CCP §1008 governs whether a court should grant a motion for consideration while CCP §473(b) governs whether the Court should vacate a prior order.

CCP §1008 requires parties to file motions for reconsideration within 10 days of service of the order. In this case, the Court ruled on Plaintiff’s motion to tax costs on August 11, 2020. The Clerk mailed the minute order to the parties on August 11, 2020. As such, this motion is timely as Plaintiff filed this motion on August 24, 2020. While August 24, 2020, is more than ten days after service of the Order, service of process through the mail increased the 10-day period to 15 days. (CCP § 1005.)

While Plaintiff complied with the limitation period, Plaintiff failed to present “new or different facts, circumstances, or law in which case it shall be shown by affidavit what application was made before, when and to what judge, what order or decisions were made, and what new or different facts, circumstances, or law are claimed to be shown.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 1008(b).) Plaintiff’s affidavit noting his failure to attend due to a scheduling conflict is not a new or different fact, circumstance or law to warrant reconsideration. In addition, the Court’s ruling fully analyzed the motion to tax costs. (Motion, Exhibit B.) Moreover, the attorney filing this motion is not the attorney of record in this case. (Opp., p.4:13; Exhibit 2.) As such, Plaintiff failed to set forth the requirements outlined in CCP § 1008. All other points raised by Defendants are moot as Plaintiff failed to meet his burden.

Sanctions

Defendants seek sanctions against Plaintiff under CCP §128.7; however, sanctions under CCP §128.7 must be filed separately from all other motions.

Case Number: BC657191    Hearing Date: January 12, 2021    Dept: 74

BC657191 CARMELO IGLESIAS VS MAZGANI SOCIAL SERVICES

Defendants’ Motion to Tax Costs

TENTATIVE RULING: The motion is GRANTED without prejudice to plaintiff filing a properly noticed motion for attorney fees.

Case Number: BC657191    Hearing Date: August 11, 2020    Dept: 74

BC657191 CARMELO IGLESIAS vs MAZGANI SOCIAL SERVICES INC

Defendants' Motion to Tax Costs

TENTATIVE RULING: The motion to tax costs is GRANTED.

Costs

A prevailing party is entitled to recover costs, as a matter of right, in any action or proceeding absent a statute expressly noting otherwise. (Cal Civ. Proc. Code § 1032, subd. (b).) Unless a statute provides otherwise, a court has no discretion to deny costs to a prevailing party. (Nelson v. Anderson (1999) 84 Cal.Rptr.2d 753, 764.) A prevailing party is (i) a party that receives a net monetary recovery, (ii) a defendant who obtains a dismissal in its favor (iii) a defendant, when neither the plaintiff nor defendant attained any relief and (iv) a defendant, where the plaintiff(s) obtains no recovery from the defendant. (Cal Civ. Proc. Code § 1032, subd. (a)(4).) “If any party recovers other than monetary relief and in situations other than as specified, the ‘prevailing party’ shall be as determined by the court, and under those circumstances, the court, in its discretion, may allow costs or not and, if allowed, may apportion costs between the parties on the same or adverse sides pursuant to rules adopted under Section 1034.” (Id.) Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 1033 sets forth the allowable costs and notes that allowable costs must be reasonably necessary to “the conduct of litigation.”

A party asserting it is the prevailing party must file a memorandum of costs “within 15 days of notice of entry of judgment or dismissal by the clerk or dismissal by the clerk under Code of Civil Procedure Section 664.5 or the date of service of written notice of entry of judgment or dismissal, or within 180 days after entry of judgment, whichever is first.” (California Rules of Court Rule 3.1700.) A party opposing those costs may file a motion to strike to challenge all costs or a motion to tax costs to challenge specific costs listed in the prevailing party’s memorandum of costs. The movant in the motion to strike or tax costs must serve and file its motion within 15 days after service of the cost memorandum. (Id.) If the prevailing party served the cost memorandum by mail or electronically, an extension may be allowed pursuant to a relevant statute. (Id.)

If the items are properly objected to, they are put in issue and the burden of proof is on the party claiming them as costs to establish that the costs were reasonable and necessary. (Ladas v. Calif. State Auto Assn. (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 761, 774.) However, “[i]f the items appear to be proper charges, the verified memorandum is prima facie evidence that the costs, expenses and services therein listed were necessarily incurred by the defendant [citations], and the burden of showing that an item is not properly chargeable or is unreasonable is upon the [objecting party].” (Nelson v. Anderson (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 111, 131.) Whether a cost item was reasonably necessary to the litigation presents a question of fact for the trial court and its decision is reviewed for abuse of discretion. Id. If the costs have been put in issue via a motion to tax costs, supporting documentation must be submitted, such as attorney declarations. (Jones v. Dumrichob (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 1258, 1267.)

The clerk entered judgment on June 18, 2019. Plaintiff filed his memorandum of costs on November 24, 2019. As such plaintiff’s memorandum of costs is untimely.

Attorney’s Fees

Plaintiff argues he is entitled to an ward of attorney’s fees pursuant to Civ. Code, § 52(b)(3).

Civ. Code, § 52 provides in pertinent part the following:

“(b) Whoever denies the right provided by Section 51.7 or 51.9, or aids, incites, or conspires in that denial, is liable for each and every offense for the actual damages suffered by any person denied that right and, in addition, the following:

(1) An amount to be determined by a jury, or a court sitting without a jury, for exemplary damages.

(2) A civil penalty of twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000) to be awarded to the person denied the right provided by Section 51.7 in any action brought by the person denied the right, or by the Attorney General, a district attorney, or a city attorney. An action for that penalty brought pursuant to Section 51.7 shall be commenced within three years of the alleged practice.

(3) Attorney's fees as may be determined by the court.”

Civ. Code, §§ 51.7 and 51.9 relate to violations of one’s civil rights. Nothing in the complaint asserts that Defendants’ violated Plaintiff’s civil rights based on sex, race or ethnicity.

The Court taxes the prayer for attorneys’ fees asserted in Plaintiff’s memorandum of costs as there is no applicable statute or contract that awards such fees nor did Plaintiff pray for such fees in its default judgment request.

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where Mazgani Social Services, Inc. is a litigant

Latest cases where COURTCALL LLC is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer JACOBSON BRIAN M.