EYMUN TALASAZAN VS FARSHID YASSIAN

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: ****7345 Hearing Date: February 15, 2022 Dept: P

Tentative Ruling

Talasazan v. Yassian, Case No. ****7345

Hearing Date February 15, 2022

Parties’ Further Briefing Regarding Distribution of Sale Proceeds

The dispute regarding the purchase of a property arose out of a one-page partnership agreement, wherein defendant Yasssian agreed to “put up all the money necessary to purchase the property,” with the parties agreeing to share all profit or loss 50/50. See complaint exhibit 1. The parties settled, and the property was sold for $4,100,000. See 10/21/2021 Order 3. Per the settlement, $2,871,926.98 was paid to defendant Yassian ($2,378,303.00 (the principal purchase amount) plus 4% return per annum from August 16, 2016) after payment of closing costs. Id. 5.

The court ordered that after the payment of the closing costs, principal, and interest, the remainder (“net proceeds”) would be held back by the escrow holder, to be divided according to court order after a hearing. Id. 7. The net proceeds in escrow, as agreed by the parties, is $843,950.

The court issued a tentative ruling regarding the distribution, with each reimbursed for some claimed expenses, and the remaining amount divided evenly. Under this tentative, plaintiff Talasazan was allocated $441,335.63 and Yassian allocated $409,274.50. After argument, the court allowed the parties to provide supplemental briefs regarding the division of the proceeds.

Talasazan states he agrees with the court’s tentative ruling granting him a “baseline” of $441,335 from the net proceeds, but argues he should be granted an additional credit of $73,500.00 representing his initial deposit and credit of $158,016.09 for property taxes, with a total allocation $672,851.72 to Talasazan and $171,098.28 to Yassian.

Yassian provides two alternative distribution plans: One in which the net proceeds are to be split evenly, less the $158,016.09 in tax reimbursements allocated to Yassian, amounting to a distribution of $421,975.02 to Yassian and $263,958.93 to Talasazan. Yassian also suggests a division according to a partnership dissolution formula, which would result in a $427,384.54 distribution to Yassian and, after deducting the already ordered tax reimbursement, a $269,368.45 distribution to Talasazan.

Ultimately, the most equitable distribution is according to the formula in the initial tentative, with each party reimbursed reasonable and proven costs, and the remainder split 50/50. The one-page hand-written contract does not provide for such a reimbursement, nor does it preclude such. The court will not grant Talasazan’ request to reverse the $158,16.09 credit for property taxes already allocated to Yassian. The court will grant Talasazan a further reimbursement of $73,500.00 to represent his initial deposit. The final allocation of the remaining amount held in escrow will be 514,835.63 to Talasazan and $329,115.00 to Yassian.

DUE TO THE ONGOING COVID-19 PANDEMIC PARTIES AND COUNSEL ARE ENCOURAGED TO APPEAR BY MICROSOFT OFFICE TEAMS.

Case Number: ****7345 Hearing Date: February 8, 2022 Dept: P

Tentative Ruling

Talasazan v. Yassian et al., Case No. ****7345

Hearing Date February 8, 2022

Hearing on Allocation of Net Proceeds from Sale of Property

The parties settled their dispute, agreeing to sell the disputed property for $4,100,000 to Dr. Jadali on October 21, 2021. See 10/21/2021 Order 3. Per the settlement, $2,871,926.98 was paid to defendant Yassian ($2,378,303.00 (the principal amount) plus 4% return per annum from August 16, 2016) after payment of closing costs. Id. 5.

The court ordered that after the payment of the closing costs, principal and interest, the remainder (“net proceeds”) would be held back by the escrow holder, to be divided according to court order after a hearing. Id. 7. The parties filed briefs regarding distribution of the net proceeds, which the parties agree is $843,950.04. The court ordered $158,016.09 of the net proceeds to be released from escrow to Yassian.

Yassian’s Claim

Yassian argues he is entitled to repayment of property taxes paid from December 2016 through March 30, 2021, totaling $158,016.09. He concedes Talasazan is entitled to reimbursement of $7,903. He argues he is entitled to an overpayment and security deposit reimbursement of $25,400 and reimbursements for expenses totaling $23,265.68.

Yassian seeks reimbursement of attorney’s fees; the settlement order states each party is to bear its own attorney’s fees. Order 1. Yassian’s fees will not be reimbursed. Yassian’s claimed reimbursements are proper. He is entitled to reimbursement of $206,681.77.

Talasazan Distribution

Yassian concedes a $7,903 reimbursement to Talsasazan. Talasazan seeks a credit of $237,500, the cost of 4% of Yassian’s line of credit. Talasazan also seeks reimbursement of $200,000 for Stan Lee memorabilia lost after the property was sold. Talasazan has not presented adequate evidence of the value of the memorabilia. Additionally, he requests attorney’s fees, but the parties were ordered to bear their own fees. Talasazan will be credited $245,403.00.

Remainder of the Proceeds

After credits, the remaining net proceeds are $391,865.27, to be divided evenly, each party receiving $195,932.63.

DUE TO THE ONGOING COVID-19 PANDEMIC PARTIES ARE ENCOURAGED TO APPEAR BY MICROSOFT OFFICE TEAMS.

Case Number: ****7345    Hearing Date: March 19, 2021    Dept: P

Tentative Ruling

Eymun Talasazan v. Farshid Yassian, Case No. ****7345

Hearing Date March 19, 2021

Defendant’s Motion to Modify Court’s Undertaking Order

On October 10, 2018, the court granted defendant’s motion to extinguish lis pendens on the grounds that plaintiff’s evidence presented in opposition to the motion did not establish a reasonable probability of obtaining title to the property in dispute. The court ordered defendant to post an undertaking. Defendant now moves to modify that order under Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. ;405.32, which states “[t]he court shall not order an undertaking to be given as a condition of expunging the notice where the court finds the pleading does not contain a real property claim.”

Although the court previously ruled plaintiff is “not likely to prevail on his specific performance claim,” the relevant pleading still contains multiple real property claims, including the claims for partition, injunctive relief, and specific performance. See, reply, p. 2. DENIED.

DUE TO THE ONGOING COVID-19 PANDEMIC PARTIES AND COUNSEL ARE ENCOURAGED TO APPEAR BY LA COURT CONNECT.

Case Number: ****7345    Hearing Date: March 18, 2021    Dept: P

Tentative Ruling

Talasazan v. Yassian, Case No. ****7345

Hearing Date March 18, 2021

Motion to Modify Court’s Undertaking Order

On October 10, 2018 the court granted defendant’s motion to extinguish lis pendens on the grounds that plaintiff’s evidence presented in opposition to the motion did not establish a reasonable probability of obtaining title to the property in dispute. The court ordered defendant to post an undertaking. Defendant moves to modify that order under Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. ;405.32, which states “[t]he court shall not order an undertaking to be given as a condition of expunging the notice where the court finds the pleading does not contain a real property claim.” The motion is unopposed. GRANTED. The prior order of 10/10/18 is amended to omit the undertaking requirement.

DUE TO THE ONGOING COVID-19 PANDEMIC PARTIES AND COUNSEL ARE ENCOURAGED TO APPEAR BY LA COURT CONNECT.

Case Number: ****7345    Hearing Date: January 08, 2021    Dept: P

Tentative Ruling

Talasazan v. Yassian, Case No. ****7345

Hearing Date January 8, 2021

Defendant Yassian’s Motion for Summary Adjudication

Plaintiff alleges defendant breached an agreement to develop real property. Defendant moves for summary adjudication as to contract, fraud and specific performance claims.

A court determining a summary judgment motion applies a three-step process: (1) identifying issues framed by the complaint, (2) determining whether moving party made an adequate showing that negates the opponent’s claim and (3) determining whether the opposing party raised a triable issue of fact. Bostrom v. County of San Bernardino (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 1654, 1662. A defendant has the initial burden to show one or more elements of a cause of action cannot be established. If defendant makes that showing, the burden shifts to plaintiff to show a triable issue of fact. Saelzler v. Advanced Group 400 (2001) 25 Cal. 4th 763, 768.

Breach of Contract

Defendant argues no breach of contract or resulting damages based on plaintiff’s discovery responses that he made no payments towards development of the property. Defendant’s Sep. St., 8. Plaintiff alleges defendant repudiated his duty to develop the property prior to sale, so he lost anticipated profits from the sale. Second Amended Complaint ¶¶10-13. Defendant provides no evidence this allegation is false, nor does he establish that plaintiff lacks evidence to support this allegation. Defendant failed to meet his initial burden. DENIED.

Fraud

Defendant argues no evidence of damages. As above, defendant failed to provide evidence refuting plaintiff’s lost profits claim. Defendant argues lack of misrepresentation and no basis for title in plaintiff’s name. The fraud cause of action is based on allegations that defendant promised to “develop the property based on the parties’ agreed upon development plan,” but had no intention of fulfilling that promise. SAC at ¶¶15-16. Defendant provides no evidence he adhered to the parties’ development plan, so failed to carry its initial burden. DENIED.

Specific Performance

Plaintiff asks the court to “place Plaintiff’s name on title to the property[.]” Defendant provides evidence that plaintiff has no right to acquire title to the property. Sep. st. 7. This carries defendant’s initial burden, which shifts to plaintiff, who did not opposition the motion. GRANTED as to plaintiff’s cause of action for specific performance.

DUE TO THE ONGOING COVID-19 PANDEMIC, PARTIES AND COUNSEL ARE ENCOURAGED TO APPEAR VIA LA COURT CONNECT.