This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 06/08/2019 at 03:21:41 (UTC).

EYMUN TALASAZAN VS FARSHID YASSIAN

Case Summary

On 04/07/2017 EYMUN TALASAZAN filed a Contract - Other Contract lawsuit against FARSHID YASSIAN. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is NANCY L. NEWMAN. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****7345

  • Filing Date:

    04/07/2017

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Contract - Other Contract

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

NANCY L. NEWMAN

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Cross Defendant

TALASAZAN EYMUN

Defendant and Cross Plaintiff

YASSIAN FARSHID

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

MARSHALL WAYNE S.

Defendant and Cross Plaintiff Attorney

NAHAI BEHZAD

 

Court Documents

Unknown

4/11/2017: Unknown

Unknown

5/31/2018: Unknown

Declaration

7/2/2018: Declaration

Motion to Expunge Lis Pendens

7/20/2018: Motion to Expunge Lis Pendens

Declaration

7/20/2018: Declaration

Notice

7/30/2018: Notice

Opposition

7/31/2018: Opposition

Ex Parte Application

8/1/2018: Ex Parte Application

Objection

8/14/2018: Objection

Reply

8/14/2018: Reply

Request for Judicial Notice

8/15/2018: Request for Judicial Notice

Objection

8/15/2018: Objection

Case Management Statement

8/15/2018: Case Management Statement

Substitution of Attorney

9/14/2018: Substitution of Attorney

Memorandum of Points & Authorities

9/27/2018: Memorandum of Points & Authorities

Brief

10/2/2018: Brief

Minute Order

10/10/2018: Minute Order

Unknown

10/10/2018: Unknown

27 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 06/03/2019
  • Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/31/2019
  • Motion to Compel Discovery (not Further Discovery) - 1 moving party, 1 motion; Filed by Farshid Yassian (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/23/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department P; Order to Show Cause Re: (plaintiff's failure to appear) - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/23/2019
  • Certificate of Mailing for (Minute Order (Order to Show Cause Re: plaintiff's failure to appear) of 05/23/2019); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/23/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Order to Show Cause Re: plaintiff's failure to appear)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/20/2019
  • Answer (to second amended cross complaint of Farshid Yassian for 1. specific performance 2. breach of fiduciary duty); Filed by Eymun Talasazan (Cross-Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/24/2019
  • Notice (of Hearing on OSC and Setting of Jury Trial and Final Status Conference); Filed by Farshid Yassian (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/23/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department P; Case Management Conference - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/23/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Case Management Conference)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/09/2019
  • Notice of Ruling; Filed by Farshid Yassian (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
154 More Docket Entries
  • 07/14/2017
  • First Amended Complaint; Filed by Eymun Talasazan (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/21/2017
  • Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by Eymun Talasazan (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/21/2017
  • Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by Eymun Talasazan (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/21/2017
  • Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/11/2017
  • Notice-Pending Action; Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/11/2017
  • Notice-Pending Action; Filed by Eymun Talasazan (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/07/2017
  • Summons Filed; Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/07/2017
  • Complaint; Filed by Eymun Talasazan (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/07/2017
  • Summons; Filed by Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/07/2017
  • Complaint Filed

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: SC127345    Hearing Date: March 19, 2021    Dept: P

Tentative Ruling

Eymun Talasazan v. Farshid Yassian, Case No. SC127345

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: SC127345    Hearing Date: March 18, 2021    Dept: P

Tentative Ruling

Talasazan v. Yassian, Case No. SC127345

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: SC127345    Hearing Date: January 08, 2021    Dept: P

Tentative Ruling

Talasazan v. Yassian, Case No. SC127345

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.

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases represented by Lawyer NAHAI BEHZAD