Search

Attributes

This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 06/19/2019 at 00:55:25 (UTC).

HAMIDREZA GHASEMI VS. BANKERS LIFE AND CASUALTY COMPANY

Case Summary

On 04/13/2017 HAMIDREZA GHASEMI filed a Contract - Insurance lawsuit against BANKERS LIFE AND CASUALTY COMPANY. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Chatsworth Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is MELVIN D. SANDVIG. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****7690

  • Filing Date:

    04/13/2017

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Contract - Insurance

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Chatsworth Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

MELVIN D. SANDVIG

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

GHASEMI HAMIDREZA

Defendants

BANKERS LIFE AND CASUALTY COMPANY

BABAEIAN MOHSEN

LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP

FARMER CASE HACK & FEDOR

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

BARRINGTON LEGAL INC

Defendant Attorneys

CASE ANTHONY THOMAS

BARTON NICHOLAS

Court Documents

Court documents are not available for this case.

 

Docket Entries

  • 06/07/2019
  • Response (to OSC (Status Update)); Filed by MOHSEN BABAEIAN (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/07/2019
  • Declaration (of Nicholas Barton); Filed by MOHSEN BABAEIAN (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/07/2019
  • Motion for Order (Declaratory Relief); Filed by MOHSEN BABAEIAN (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/07/2019
  • Proof of Service by Mail; Filed by MOHSEN BABAEIAN (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/07/2019
  • Declaration (of Def. Mohsen Babaeian); Filed by MOHSEN BABAEIAN (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/16/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department F47, Melvin D. Sandvig, Presiding; Order to Show Cause Re: (Sanctions/Dismissal and/or Striking Answer and Entering Defaults for Parties FTA to FSC) - Not Held - Rescheduled by Party

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/15/2019
  • Notice of Appearance (OF NICHOLAS BARTON AS COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT MOHSEN BABAEIAN); Filed by MOHSEN BABAEIAN (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/14/2019
  • Notice (Notice of Continuance of OSC Hearing); Filed by MOHSEN BABAEIAN (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/09/2019
  • Declaration (Declaration of Joseph C. Campo in Support of Continuance of OSC); Filed by MOHSEN BABAEIAN (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/06/2019
  • Declaration (DECLARATION OF SCOTT D. DYLE IN SUPPORT OF CONTINUING THE ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE HEARING RE SETTLEMENT AND FINAL STATUS CONFERENCE); Filed by HAMIDREZA GHASEMI (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
153 More Docket Entries
  • 04/21/2017
  • Declaration; Filed by HAMIDREZA GHASEMI (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/21/2017
  • Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by HAMIDREZA GHASEMI (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/21/2017
  • Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by HAMIDREZA GHASEMI (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/17/2017
  • Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by HAMIDREZA GHASEMI (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/13/2017
  • Notice of Case Assignment - Unlimited Civil Case; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/13/2017
  • Complaint filed-Summons Issued; Filed by null

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/13/2017
  • Summons; Filed by null

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/13/2017
  • Notice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/13/2017
  • Civil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by HAMIDREZA GHASEMI (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/13/2013
  • Declaration

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: PC057690    Hearing Date: August 25, 2020    Dept: F47

Dept. F-47

Date: 8/25/20

Case #PC057690

MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

Motion filed on 7/15/20.

MOVING PARTY: Defendant/Cross-Complainant Bankers Life and Casualty Company

RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant Hamidreza Ghasemi

NOTICE: ok

RELIEF REQUESTED: An order and judgment enforcing the terms of the parties’ Release and Settlement Agreement against Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant Hamidreza Ghasemi. Alternatively, if the Court declines to enforce the Settlement Agreement, Bankers Life requests that the Court order Plaintiff to return Bankers Life’s settlement funds, with interest.

RULING: Bankers Life and Casualty Company’s request for an order and judgment enforcing the terms of the parties’ Release and Settlement Agreement is denied. The alternative request for an order requiring Plaintiff to return Bankers Life’s settlement funds, with interest, is granted, in part, and denied, in part. Plaintiff is ordered to return Bankers Life’s settlement funds without interest within 14 days of this order.

The parties are reminded to review the 5/3/19 First Amended General Order Re Mandatory Electronic Filing for Civil. When e-filing documents, parties must comply with the “TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS” which are set forth at page 4, line 4 through page 5, line 12 of the Court’s 5/3/19 First Amended General Order Re Mandatory Electronic Filing for Civil. Failure to comply with these requirements in the future may result in matters being placed off calendar, matters being continued so documents can be resubmitted in compliance with these requirements, documents not being considered and/or the imposition of sanctions.

Bankers Life and Casualty Company’s and Plaintiff’s Requests for Judicial Notice are granted.

This action arises out of a dispute as to whether a disability insurance policy purchased by Plaintiff from Defendant Bankers Life and Casualty Company (Bankers Life) provided benefits for 5 years or up until Plaintiff reached the age of 65. Although Plaintiff executed a form changing the benefit period to 5 years from “to age 65” as requested in his application, Plaintiff contends that Defendant Mohsen Babaeian, a Bankers Life insurance agent, acted as his interpreter and misrepresented that the policy provided benefits to age 65.

In 2011, Plaintiff was declared disabled. Bankers Life paid benefits for 5 years. When Bankers Life stopped paying under the policy, Plaintiff filed this action for: (1) fraud, (2) negligent misrepresentation, (3) reformation, (4) negligence, (5) breach of contract, (6) breach of implied obligation of good faith and fair dealing, (7) declaratory relief and (8) violation of Business & Professions Code 17200.

Bankers Life contends that Plaintiff’s claim submissions contained material misrepresentations and concealments; therefore, Bankers Life filed a cross-complaint against Plaintiff. The operative First Amended Cross-Complaint contains causes of action for: (1) breach of contract, (2) breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; (3) intentional misrepresentation/concealment, (4) negligent misrepresentation, (5) declaratory judgment/no loss of earnings, (6) declaratory judgment/rescission and (7) restitution for unjust enrichment.

On 3/4/19, the parties, through counsel, purportedly reached a global settlement. Plaintiff and Bankers Life signed the settlement agreement and Bankers Life tendered a portion of the settlement funds to Plaintiff. Babaeian did not sign the settlement agreement. Therefore, his errors and omissions insurance carrier would not tender his share of the settlement funds to Plaintiff.

As a result, Plaintiff filed a motion to enforce the settlement agreement which this Court denied on 10/30/19. (See 10/30/19 Minute Order). On 3/11/20, Bankers Life asked Plaintiff to return its settlement check. (Cotter Decl. ¶¶3-4, Ex.A, B p.4). On 4/13/20, Plaintiff advised that the check had been deposited in his counsel’s Client Trust Account. (Cotter Decl., Ex.C, p.4). In response, Bankers Life told Plaintiff he would either have to settle with Bankers Life or return the money. Id. On 4/17/20, Plaintiff indicated he would return the money, but has failed to do so. (Id. at Ex.C, pp.2-3, Ex.B-D). Thereafter, Bankers Life filed the instant motion seeking an order and judgment enforcing the terms of the parties’ Release and Settlement Agreement against Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant Hamidreza Ghasemi. Alternatively, Bankers Life requests that the Court order Plaintiff to return Bankers Life’s settlement funds, with interest.

CCP 664.6 provides:

If parties to pending litigation stipulate, in a writing signed by the parties outside the presence of the court or orally before the court, for settlement of the case, or part thereof, the court, upon motion, may enter judgment pursuant to the terms of the settlement. If requested by the parties, the court may retain jurisdiction over the parties to enforce the settlement until performance in full of the terms of the settlement.

Bankers Life and Plaintiff both concede that the subject settlement agreement was intended to be a “global settlement” involving Plaintiff, Bankers Life and Babaeian. (See Bankers Life Memo of Points and Authorities, p.2:10-11; Opp. p.3:3-5; Jafari Decl.¶¶4, 7, Ex.B ¶4). CCP 664.6 does not authorize this Court to create material terms of the settlement, as opposed to deciding terms upon which the parties themselves have previously agreed. Weddington Productions, Inc. (1998) 60 CA4th 793, 797; Osumi (2007) 151 CA4th 1355, 1360; Hernandez (2004) 126 CA4th 1161, 1176. As noted above, this Court denied Plaintiff’s prior motion which sought to have the same global settlement agreement enforced against Mohsen Babaeian. (See 10/30/19 Minute Order). The Court determined that Plaintiff could not enforce and/or have judgment entered against Babaeian under CCP 664.6 based upon the Release and Settlement Agreement which was not signed by Babaeian or a representative of his insurer. Id. In essence, this Court has already determined that the global settlement intended under the Release and Settlement Agreement, which is also the agreement at issue in this motion, was not reached. This Court cannot transform the intended global settlement into an enforceable settlement agreement between only Plaintiff and Bankers Life. Under the circumstances, Plaintiff acknowledges

Additionally, a party may not accept money for a settlement and continue the lawsuit. See Myerchin (2008) 162 CA4th 1562, 1529, disapproved on other grounds in Village Northridge Homeowners Ass’n (2010) 50 C4th 913, 929, n.6. Therefore, Plaintiff must return the settlement funds paid by Bankers Life.

Bankers Life has not presented any argument or authority for its request that the settlement funds be returned with interest. Additionally, Bankers Life’s requests to Plaintiff for the return of the settlement funds prior to filing this motion did not request the payment of interest. Therefore, Bankers Life’s request for interest in an unspecified amount on the funds is denied.

Case Number: PC057690    Hearing Date: August 19, 2020    Dept: F47

Dept. F-47

Date: 8/19/20

Case #PC057690

SUMMARY JUDGMENT/SUMMARY ADJUDICATION

Motion filed on 5/28/20. Joinder filed on 7/7/20.

MOVING PARTY: Defendant/Cross-Complainant Bankers Life and Casualty Company

JOINING PARTY: Defendant Mohsen Babaeian

RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant Hamidreza Ghasemi

NOTICE: ok

RELIEF REQUESTED: An order granting summary judgment as to the Complaint and summary adjudication as to the First Amended Cross-Complaint, in favor of Bankers Life and Casualty Company and against Hamidreza Ghasemi.

RULING: The motion is denied in its entirety.

The parties are reminded to review the 5/3/19 First Amended General Order Re Mandatory Electronic Filing for Civil. When efiling documents, parties must comply with the “TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS” which are set forth at page 4, line 4 through page 5, line 12 of the Court’s 5/3/19 First Amended General Order Re Mandatory Electronic Filing for Civil. Failure to comply with these requirements in the future may result in matters being continued so documents can be resubmitted in compliance with these requirements, documents not being considered and/or the imposition of sanctions.

This action arises out of a dispute as to whether a disability insurance policy purchased by Hamidreza Ghasemi (Ghasemi) from Bankers Life and Casualty Company (Bankers) provided benefits for 5 years or up until Ghasemi reached the age of 65. Although Ghasemi executed a form changing the benefit period to 5 years from “to age 65” as requested in his application, Ghasemi contends that Defendant Mohsen Babaeian, a Bankers insurance agent, acted as his interpreter and misrepresented that the policy provided benefits to age 65.

In 2011, Ghasemi was declared disabled. Bankers paid benefits for 5 years. When Bankers stopped paying under the policy, Ghasemi filed this action for: (1) fraud, (2) negligent misrepresentation, (3) reformation, (4) negligence, (5) breach of contract, (6) breach of implied obligation of good faith and fair dealing, (7) declaratory relief and (8) violation of Business & Professions Code 17200.

Bankers contends that Ghasemi’s claim submissions contained material misrepresentations and concealments; therefore, Bankers filed a cross-complaint against Ghasemi. The operative First Amended Cross-Complaint contains causes of action for: (1) breach of contract, (2) breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; (3) intentional misrepresentation/concealment, (4) negligent misrepresentation, (5) declaratory judgment/no loss of earnings, (6) declaratory judgment/rescission and (7) restitution for unjust enrichment.

The instant motion is procedurally defective. By way of the instant motion, Bankers improperly seeks reconsideration of this Court’s 2/22/18 denial of Banker’s motion for summary judgment, or in the alternative, summary adjudication of Plaintiff’s complaint. (See 2/22/18 Minute Order pp.4-6). Bankers has not complied with the requirements of CCP 1008. Bankers has not “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.” CCP 1008(b). Therefore, Bankers’ request for summary judgment of Plaintiff’s complaint must be denied. See CCP 1008(b), (e).

The request for summary adjudication as to Bankers’ First Amended Cross-Complaint is also defective. “A party may move for summary adjudication as to one or more causes of action within an action, one or more affirmative defenses, one or more claims for damages, or one or more issues of duty, if the party contends that the cause of action has no merit, that there is no affirmative defense to the cause of action, that there is no merit to an affirmative defense as to any cause of action, that there is no merit to a claim for damages, as specified in Section 3294 of the Civil Code, or that one or more defendants either owed or did not owe a duty to the plaintiff or plaintiffs. A motion for summary adjudication shall be granted only if it completely disposes of a cause of action, an affirmative defense, a claim for damages, or an issue of duty.” CCP 473(c)(f)(1). “If summary adjudication is sought, whether separately or as an alternative to the motion for summary judgment, the specific cause of action, affirmative defense, claims for damages, or issues of duty must be stated specifically in the notice of motion and be repeated, verbatim, in the separate statement of undisputed material facts.” CRC 3.1350(b); See also CRC 3.1350(h).

Here, the issues set forth in the Notice of Motion are: “Issue 1: Ghasemi’s claim submissions contained material misrepresentations and concealments; therefore, the Policy must be rescinded” and “Issue 2: If the Policy is rescinded, all of Ghasemi’s claims fail because no policy

ever existed and Ghasemi has no damages. See Ghasemi’s Complaint, First Cause of Action

(Fraud), Second Cause of Action (Negligent Misrepresentation), Third Cause of Action (Reformation), Fourth Cause of Action (Negligence), Fifth Cause of Action (Breach of Contract), Sixth Cause of Action (Breach of the Implied Obligation of Good Faith and Fair Dealing), Seventh Cause of Action (Declaratory Relief), Eighth Cause of Action (Violation of Business and Professions Code § 17200).” (See Notice of Motion p.2:19-p.3:1). The notice goes on to state “[a]dditionally, a finding in favor of rescission will summarily adjudicate Bankers Life’s First Amended Cross-Complaint, Sixth Cause of Action (Declaratory Judgment—Rescission). Bankers Life’s additional claims against Ghasemi should remain for trial.” (Notice of Motion p.3:2-4).

Based on the foregoing, it appears that the “issues” set forth in the Notice of Motion relate to the improper request for summary judgment on Plaintiff’s complaint. The mention of summary adjudication of the 6th cause of action for declaratory judgment - rescission in the First Amended Cross-Complaint is not set forth as a separate issue. In addition to the foregoing, no issues to be adjudicated are set forth in the separate statement as is required. See CRC 3.1350(b), (h).

Since the motion fails, Defendant Mohsen Babaeian’s joinder in the motion also fails. However, even the motion was not procedurally defective, the joinder is defective. Babaeian did not provide the requisite notice for a request for summary judgment/summary adjudication. The joinder was served only 42 days before the hearing date; therefore, it is untimely. See CCP 437c(a); Frazee (2002) 95 CA4th 627, 636-637; Barak (2006) 135 CA4th 654, 660-661. Additionally, Babaeian did not file his own separate statement as is required when joining in another party’s motion for summary judgment. Frazee, supra at 636. Further, Babaeian’s attempt to submit argument and evidence in support of his position in his “reply” is improper. Finally, like Bankers’ request for summary judgment on Ghasemi’s complaint, Babaeian’s joinder is also an improper request for reconsideration of this Court’s 2/22/18 denial of his motion for summary judgment, or in the alternative summary adjudication. (See 2/22/18 Minute Order, pp.1-4).

Based on the foregoing, there is no need to rule on the evidentiary objections made in relation to the motion.

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where BANKERS LIFE AND CASUALTY COMPANY is a litigant

Latest cases where LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP is a litigant