Pending - Other Pending
Property - Other Real Property
NANCY L. NEWMAN
10 NB PARTNERSHIP
01 BH PARTNERSHIP
BANK OF AMERICA N.A.
FELDMAN STEPHEN M.
GAVRILOV & BROOKS
LIPPA ALISON V.
LAWRENCE A. AJALAT
2/14/2017: Civil Case Cover Sheet
3/24/2017: Legacy Document
4/12/2017: Notice of Related Case
5/16/2017: Case Management Statement
6/6/2017: Minute Order
6/7/2017: Minute Order
6/7/2017: Case Management Statement
6/13/2017: Notice of Ruling
6/27/2017: NOTICE OF RULING
6/27/2017: Notice of Ruling
6/27/2017: Notice of Ruling
7/3/2017: Minute Order
7/6/2017: Legacy Document
7/6/2017: Legacy Document
7/6/2017: Legacy Document
DocketProof of Personal Service; Filed by CHRISTIAN SPANNHOFF (Plaintiff); 10 NB PARTNERSHIP (Plaintiff); 01 BH PARTNERSHIP (Plaintiff)[+] Read More [-] Read Less
DocketNotice (of Application for Mandatory Injunction); Filed by Derek Aghchay (Defendant)[+] Read More [-] Read Less
DocketApplication (For Mandatory Injunction); Filed by Derek Aghchay (Defendant)[+] Read More [-] Read Less
DocketNotice of Ruling; Filed by CHRISTIAN SPANNHOFF (Plaintiff); 10 NB PARTNERSHIP (Plaintiff); 01 BH PARTNERSHIP (Plaintiff)[+] Read More [-] Read Less
Docketat 10:00 AM in Department P; Contempt Hearing (with a one day estimate) - Held - Continued[+] Read More [-] Read Less
Docketat 09:00 AM in Department P; Order to Show Cause Re: (defendant's failure to appear) - Held[+] Read More [-] Read Less
Docketat 09:00 AM in Department P; Case Management Conference - Held - Continued[+] Read More [-] Read Less
Docketat 09:00 AM in Department P; Hearing on Motion to be Relieved as Counsel - Held[+] Read More [-] Read Less
DocketOrder Granting Attorney's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel-Civil; Filed by Ognian A Gavrilov (Attorney)[+] Read More [-] Read Less
DocketOther - (Substitution of Attorney - Civil); Filed by Derek Aghchay (Defendant)[+] Read More [-] Read Less
DocketAnswer to Complaint Filed (BEHALF OF: DEFENDANT DEREK AGHCHAY ); Filed by Attorney for Defendant[+] Read More [-] Read Less
DocketAnswer; Filed by Derek Aghchay (Defendant)[+] Read More [-] Read Less
DocketNotice-Related Cases (W/BC651893 DEPT. 36 ); Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff[+] Read More [-] Read Less
DocketProof-Service/Summons; Filed by CHRISTIAN SPANNHOFF (Plaintiff); 10 NB PARTNERSHIP (Plaintiff); 01 BH PARTNERSHIP (Plaintiff)[+] Read More [-] Read Less
DocketProof-Service/Summons; Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff[+] Read More [-] Read Less
DocketComplaint; Filed by CHRISTIAN SPANNHOFF (Plaintiff); 10 NB PARTNERSHIP (Plaintiff); 01 BH PARTNERSHIP (Plaintiff)[+] Read More [-] Read Less
DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet[+] Read More [-] Read Less
DocketComplaint Filed[+] Read More [-] Read Less
DocketSummons Filed; Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff[+] Read More [-] Read Less
DocketSummons; Filed by Plaintiff[+] Read More [-] Read Less
Case Number: ****7072 Hearing Date: April 30, 2021 Dept: P
Spannhoff v. Aghchay, Case No. ****7072
Hearing Date April 30, 2021
Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment/Adjudication
Plaintiffs allege defendant parks on their property without permission and move for summary judgment/adjudication on trespass and declaratory relief claims.
The pleadings determine the scope of the relevant issues on a summary judgment motion. Nieto v. Blue Shield of California Life & Health Ins. Co. (2010) 1818 Cal.App.4th 60.
The elements of trespass are (1) plaintiff’s ownership of the property, (2) defendant’s intentional, reckless, or negligent entry, (3) lack of permission, (4) harm and (5) causation. Ralph’s Grocery Company v. Victory Consultants (2017) 17 Cal.App.5th 245, 262. Plaintiffs revoked defendant’s permission to park on the property in January 2017. Plaintiff’s separate statement (PSS) 18. Defendant admitted at the contempt hearing that he parks on the property and the easement since January 16, 2017. PSS 20. Plaintiffs testify defendant blocked access to the property. PSS 19, 22, 23-24. This establishes the elements of trespass. The burden shifts to defendant to show a triable issue of material fact.
Defendant argues the motion exceeds the scope of the pleadings by referencing an easement on defendant’s own property. The complaint does not reference this alleged easement, addressing only defendant’s trespassing on plaintiffs’ property and interference with plaintiffs’ right of access. Complaint ¶¶11, 12. Plaintiffs claim paragraph 19 of the complaint references the alleged easement, but the court finds no such reference in that section (see para. 19). No reference is made to an easement on defendant’s property being used improperly. To the extent the MSJ seeks a ruling on matters outside the pleadings, it is disregarded.
Plaintiffs proffer evidence of defendant’s trespass. Defendant does not provide contrary evidence but provides a conclusory list of alleged “issues of material fact.” No evidence is cited to refute plaintiffs’ evidence. Defendant fails to carry his burden. Summary adjudication is GRANTED as to the cause of action for trespass.
The issues plaintiffs wish declared are listed in paragraph 19 of the complaint. Since plaintiffs established the elements of trespass, and defendant has not met his burden, the court makes the following declarations as to the following: 1) Defendant is parking on plaintiffs’ property without permission
2) Defendant is blocking plaintiffs’ access to the property
3) Plaintiffs have the right to post no parking signs on the property
4) Plaintiffs are the proper owners of the property with the right to possession
5) Defendant is trespassing and encroaching on the property by parking there
GRANTED. DUE TO THE ONGOING COVID-19 PANDEMIC, PARTIES AND COUNSEL ARE ENCOURAGED TO APPEAR VIA LA COURT CONNECT.
Case Number: ****7072 Hearing Date: October 05, 2020 Dept: P
Spannhoff v. Aghchay et al., Case No. ****7072
Hearing Date October 5, 2020
Aghchay’s Motion for Mandatory Injunction; Spannhoff’s Motion for Order of Contempt
Aghchay alleges his neighbor Spannhoff’s property contains an unsafe structure, and a wall on Spannhoff’s property collapsed onto Aghchay’s vehicle. Aghchay seeks an order requiring defendants to retrofit or tear down the structure. Spannhoff seeks an order of contempt, alleging Aghchay repeatedly violated an order not to park on Spannhoff’s property.
Aghchay’s Motion for Mandatory Injunction
When determining whether to grant a preliminary injunction, courts evaluate two interrelated factors: likelihood plaintiff will prevail and interim harm plaintiff is likely to sustain if the injunction were denied, versus harm defendant is likely to suffer if the injunction issued. Bd. of Supervisors of Butte County v. McMahon (1990) 219 Cal.App.3d 286. A mandatory injunction requiring a party to perform an affirmative act is “not permitted except in extreme cases where the right thereto is clearly established.” Shoemaker v. County of Los Angeles et. al. (1995) 37 Cal.App.4th 618, 625.
Aghchay alleges potential harm to his property and family, arguing Spannhoff’s property is dilapidated and has been damaged in recent earthquakes. Aghchay Decl. ¶¶15-19. Aghchay provides City of Los Angeles documents (including a misdemeanor complaint) regarding unpermitted conditions on Spannhoff’s property (Exh. A, C, L), along with photographs of the property and damage to Aghchay’s vehicle. Aghchay Decl. ¶20. Agchay’s evidence that damage is likely to occur due to earthquakes or deterioration is speculative and unsupported by expert opinion. The motion is silent as to the likelihood of prevailing prong. Given the deficiencies, and the significant burden were Spannhoff to be ordered to tear down his structure, Aghchay fails to meet the burden. DENIED.
Spanhnoff’s Motion for OSC Re: Contempt
When contempt occurs outside the presence of the court, the party seeking an order of contempt must present a declaration showing: (1) a valid order, (2) respondent’s knowledge of the order, (3) ability to comply, and (4) willful disobedience of the order. Conn v. Superior Court (1987) 196 Cal.App.3d 774.
On August 30, 2017 this court enjoined Aghchay from parking on Spannhoff’s property, blocking access from the property or interfering with Spannhoff’s “no parking” signs. Spannhoff exhibit B-2. Spannhoff provides declaratory and photographic evidence indicating Aghchay repeatedly violated the order by parking on the property, approximately 92 times between 8/18-4/19. See Feldman declaration ¶12, Spannhoff exhibit C. Aghchay argues the photographs are fabricated. This is not a compelling argument, given the number of violations and the length of time over which they occurred. The factors are met, and the tentative is to hold him in contempt, with sanctions of $5,000 (not the excessive $92,000 requested) and to decline Spannhoff’s request to imprison Aghchay. GRANTED.
DUE TO THE ONGOING COVID-19 PANDEMIC, PARTIES AND COUNSEL ARE ENCOURAGED TO APPEAR REMOTELY VIA LA COURT CONNECT.
Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases