Search

Attributes

This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 06/04/2019 at 07:13:04 (UTC).

ILAN N ROSEN JANFAZA VS ROYAL PALACE ROYAL GIRLS CABARET LLC

Case Summary

On 05/02/2017 ILAN N ROSEN JANFAZA filed a Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury lawsuit against ROYAL PALACE ROYAL GIRLS CABARET LLC. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is JON R. TAKASUGI. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****9846

  • Filing Date:

    05/02/2017

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

JON R. TAKASUGI

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner

JANFAZA ILAN N. ROSEN

Defendants and Respondents

ROYAL PALACE ROYAL GIRLS CABARET LLC

SYNN GENTLEMEN'S CLUB

MUDARRIS ANTHONY OMAR

DOES 1 TO 50

7180 SUNSET BLVD. INC.

LA CIENEGA CENTER LLC DOE 1

SYNN GENTLEMEN'S CLUB DBA SYNN GENTLKEMEN'S CLUB

SHABTAI DOE 2 MICHAEL

EZERZER DOE 4 MARCELLE

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

BERNS MARK R. ESQ.

BERNS MARK RICHARD ESQ.

Defendant Attorney

WESTON JOHN HALDANE ESQ.

 

Court Documents

Minute Order

10/16/2018: Minute Order

Other -

10/19/2018: Other -

Proof of Personal Service

10/19/2018: Proof of Personal Service

Answer

11/30/2018: Answer

Minute Order

12/18/2018: Minute Order

Unknown

12/18/2018: Unknown

Declaration

3/25/2019: Declaration

Motion for Summary Judgment

3/25/2019: Motion for Summary Judgment

Opposition

4/5/2019: Opposition

Notice

4/16/2019: Notice

Amendment to Complaint (Fictitious/Incorrect Name)

4/23/2019: Amendment to Complaint (Fictitious/Incorrect Name)

Amendment to Complaint (Fictitious/Incorrect Name)

4/23/2019: Amendment to Complaint (Fictitious/Incorrect Name)

Amendment to Complaint (Fictitious/Incorrect Name)

4/23/2019: Amendment to Complaint (Fictitious/Incorrect Name)

Amendment to Complaint (Fictitious/Incorrect Name)

4/23/2019: Amendment to Complaint (Fictitious/Incorrect Name)

Unknown

5/21/2019: Unknown

SUMMONS

5/2/2017: SUMMONS

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1. ASSAULT & BATTERY ; ETC

5/2/2017: COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1. ASSAULT & BATTERY ; ETC

5 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 05/21/2019
  • Notice of Rejection - Pleadings; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/23/2019
  • Amendment to Complaint (Fictitious/Incorrect Name); Filed by Ilan N. Rosen Janfaza (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/23/2019
  • Amendment to Complaint (Fictitious/Incorrect Name); Filed by Ilan N. Rosen Janfaza (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/23/2019
  • Amendment to Complaint (Fictitious/Incorrect Name); Filed by Ilan N. Rosen Janfaza (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/23/2019
  • Amendment to Complaint (Fictitious/Incorrect Name); Filed by Ilan N. Rosen Janfaza (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/18/2019
  • at 1:30 PM in Department 3, Jon R. Takasugi, Presiding; Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment - Not Held - Taken Off Calendar by Party

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/16/2019
  • Notice (DEFENDANTS WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT); Filed by Synn Gentlemen's Club (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/05/2019
  • Opposition (Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment); Filed by Ilan N. Rosen Janfaza (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/25/2019
  • Declaration (DECLARATION OF RON); Filed by Synn Gentlemen's Club (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/25/2019
  • Motion for Summary Judgment; Filed by Synn Gentlemen's Club (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
4 More Docket Entries
  • 11/02/2018
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 3, Jon R. Takasugi, Presiding; Non-Jury Trial - Not Held - Advanced and Vacated

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/22/2018
  • Proof of Personal Service; Filed by Ilan N. Rosen Janfaza (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/19/2018
  • Other - (Proof of Service of Summons); Filed by Ilan N. Rosen Janfaza (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/19/2018
  • Proof of Personal Service; Filed by Ilan N. Rosen Janfaza (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/16/2018
  • at 10:00 AM in Department 3, Jon R. Takasugi, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Advanced and Vacated

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/16/2018
  • Minute Order ((Final Status Conference;)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/16/2018
  • Minute order entered: 2018-10-16 00:00:00; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/02/2017
  • Complaint; Filed by Ilan N. Rosen Janfaza (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/02/2017
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/02/2017
  • COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1. ASSAULT & BATTERY ; ETC

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC659846    Hearing Date: July 17, 2020    Dept: 47

Ilan N. Rosen Janfaza v. Royal Palace Royal Girls Cabaret, LLC, et al.

GIVEN THE RECENT CORONAVIRUS CRISIS, THE COURT STRONGLY ENCOURAGES APPEARENCES BY COURT CALL. PLEASE MAKE SUCH ARRANGEMENTS IF YOU WISH TO APPEAR VIA COURT CALL AT (888) 882-6878 (OR WWW.COURTCALL.COM). IF YOU APPEAR IN PERSON AT THE HEARING, YOU WILL BE SUBJECT TO ALL SOCIAL DISTANCING RULES, INCLUDING THE WEARING OF AN APPROPRIATE FACE MASK/COVERING (ABSENT ANY EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES) AS CONTAINED IN THE APPLICABLE GENERAL ORDERS ISSUED BY THE PRESIDING JUDGE OF THE L.A.S.C.

(1) MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

(2) DEMURRER TO COMPLAINT;

(3) MOTION TO STRIKE PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT

MOVING PARTY: (1) Defendant 365 N. La Cienega Beverly Hills, LLC, improperly identified as Synn Gentlemen’s Club; (2)-(3) Defendants 7180 Sunset Blvd., Inc. and Marcelle Ezerzer

RESPONDING PARTY(S): (1) No opposition on eCourt as of July 14, 2020; (2)-(3) Plaintiff Ilan N. Rosen Janfaza

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:

Plaintiff alleges that he was assaulted by the security guards at the Defendant gentlemen’s club.

Defendant 365 N. La Cienega Beverly Hills, LLC, improperly identified as Synn Gentlemen’s Club, moves for summary judgment. Defendants 7180 Sunset Blvd., Inc. and Marcelle Ezerzer demur to the first amended complaint and move to strike portions of it.

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendant 365 N. La Cienega Beverly Hills, LLC, improperly identified as Synn Gentlemen’s Club’s motion for summary judgment is DENIED without prejudice.

Defendants 7180 Sunset Blvd., Inc. and Marcelle Ezerzer’s demurrer is OVERRULED.

Defendants’ motion to strike the prayer for punitive damages and related allegations is GRANTED. Generally speaking, leave to amend must be allowed where there is a reasonable possibility of successful amendment. (Goodman v. Kennedy (1976) 18 Cal.3d 335, 348.) Plaintiff must demonstrate this possibility at the hearing. Otherwise, no leave to amend will be given.

DISCUSSION:

Motion for Summary Judgment

Defendant 365 N. La Cienega Beverly Hills, LLC’s motion for summary judgment does not include the separate statement of undisputed facts that is required by CCP § 437c(b)(1). “The failure to comply with this requirement of a separate statement may in the court’s discretion constitute a sufficient ground for denying the motion.” (CCP § 437c(b)(1).) “Separate statements are required not to satisfy a sadistic urge to torment lawyers, but rather to afford due process to opposing parties and to permit trial courts to . . . determine quickly and efficiently whether material facts are disputed.” (United Community Church v. Garcin (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 327, 335, superseded by statute on another ground as stated in City of Pasadena v. Superior Court (2014) 228 Cal.App.4th 1228, 1238 n.4.)

Accordingly, the motion is DENIED without prejudice. The moving party may refile the same motion, but in full compliance with the applicable summary judgment procedures.

Demurrer

Meet and Confer

The Declaration of Attorney Mazyar H. Mazarei reflects that the meet-and-confer requirement of CCP § 430.41(a) was met.

All Causes of Action

Defendants demur to all causes of action on the ground that they are “fatally ambiguous and unintelligible” pursuant to CCP § 430.10(f).

Demurrers for uncertainty are disfavored, because discovery can be used for clarification, and apply only where defendants cannot reasonably determine what issues or claims are stated. (Chen v. Berenjian (2019) 33 Cal.App.5th 811, 822; Khoury v. Maly's of Cal., Inc. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 612, 616.) That is not the case here. Defendants perfectly understand that Plaintiff has made allegations that they claim cannot apply to them. Nevertheless, what Plaintiff is alleging, and against whom, is clear – or at least Defendants have not argued that they cannot reasonably determine what the claims are and whether they are alleged against them. If the 1AC is not so incomprehensible that Defendants cannot reasonably respond – and it is not – then the 1AC is not uncertain. (Mahan v. Charles W. Chan Ins. Agency, Inc. (2017) 14 Cal.App.5th 841, 848 n.3.)

Defendants also purport to ask rhetorical questions as a means of identifying ambiguities in the 1AC – such as “Who hired Defendant 7180 Sunset Blvd., Inc.?” – and then they proceed to definitively answer “the entity was not hired by anyone.” (Demurrer, at p. 5.) In other words, certain facts that they complain are ambiguous are actually already within their own knowledge. “A demurrer for uncertainty should be overruled when the facts as to which the complaint is uncertain are presumptively within the defendants’ knowledge.” (Chen, supra, 33 Cal.App.5th at 822.) That is the case with Defendants’ claimed ambiguities, and any that are not within their knowledge can be clarified in discovery.

If, as Defendants argue – presumably as to Defendant 7180 Sunset Blvd., Inc. alone, although the demurrer itself is ambiguous on that point and lumps together an entity defendant and an individual defendant in connection with every argument they make – certain causes of action cannot be maintained against an entity defendant, then Defendant 7180 Sunset Blvd., Inc. had a means to attack the 1AC on that basis: it could have argued that the 1AC failed to state a cause of action against the entity pursuant to CCP § 430.10(e) as to those particular causes of action. Defendants did not do so here, however, relying only on the disfavored ground of uncertainty.

Accordingly, the demurrer to all causes of action based on uncertainty is OVERRULED.

Motion To Strike

Meet and Confer

The Declaration of Attorney Mazyar H. Mazarei reflects that the meet-and-confer requirement of CCP § 435.5 was met.

Analysis

Defendants move to strike Plaintiff’s prayer for punitive damages and related allegations. The motion is GRANTED.

Plaintiff’s allegations are insufficient to show “malice, oppression, or fraud” for purposes of punitive damages under Civil Code § 3294(a). “Malice” is defined as conduct “intended to cause injury to the plaintiff or despicable conduct . . . carried on . . . with a willful and conscious disregard of the rights or safety of others.” (Civ. Code § 3294(c)(1).) “Oppression” means “despicable conduct that subjects a person to cruel and unjust hardship in conscious disregard of that person’s rights.” (Id. § 3294(c)(2).) “Fraud” is “intentional misrepresentation, deceit, or concealment of a material fact known to the defendant with the intention on the part of the defendant of thereby depriving a person of property or legal rights or otherwise causing injury.” (Id. § 3294(c)(3).) Plaintiff has not made any specific allegations of this type of conduct on the part of the demurring Defendants.

In addition, as to Defendant 7180 Sunset Blvd.Plaintiffs’ allegations are insufficient under Civil Code § 3294(b), which requires particular allegations when punitive damages are sought against a corporation, including that the “advance knowledge and conscious disregard, authorization, ratification or act of oppression, fraud, or malice must be on the part of an officer, director, or managing agent of the corporation.” (Civ. Code § 3294(b).) Plaintiffs’ conclusory allegations that each of the Defendants “worked as security guards, employees and owners, and in doing the things alleged here, was acting within the course or scope of that agency or employment” (1AC ¶ 24) and related allegations are insufficient.

Generally speaking, leave to amend must be allowed where there is a reasonable possibility of successful amendment. (Goodman v. Kennedy (1976) 18 Cal.3d 335, 348.) Plaintiff must demonstrate this possibility at the hearing. Otherwise, no leave to amend will be given.

Moving party to give notice, unless waived.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 17, 2020 ___________________________________

Randolph M. Hammock

Judge of the Superior Court

Any party may submit on the tentative ruling by contacting the courtroom via email at Smcdept47@lacourt.org

Case Number: BC659846    Hearing Date: December 05, 2019    Dept: 3

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES – CENTRAL DISTRICT

ILAN N. ROSEN JANFAZA,

Plaintiff,

v.

ROYAL PALACE ROYAL GIRLS CABARET, LLC , et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: BC659846

ORDER TRANSFERRING COMPLICATED PERSONAL INJURY (PI) CASE TO AN INDEPENDENT CALENDAR (IC) COURT

After review of the court file, the Court makes the following order:

Department 3 of the Personal Injury Court has determined that the above entitled action is complicated based upon the number of pretrial hearings and/or the complexity of the issues presented.

AT THE DIRECTION OF DEPARTMENT 1:

This case is hereby transferred and reassigned to the following Independent Calendar Court in THE CENTRAL DISTRICT, JUDGE RANDOLPH HAMMOCK presiding in DEPT. 47 of the STANLEY MOSK Courthouse, for all purposes except trial. Department 1 hereby delegates to the Independent Calendar Court the authority to assign the cause for trial to that Independent Calendar Court.

The Order is signed and filed this date, and incorporated herein by reference. Any pending motions or hearings, including trial and status conferences, will be reset, continued or vacated at the direction of the newly assigned Independent Calendar court.

Upon receipt of this notice, counsel for Plaintiff shall give notice to all parties of record.

DATED: December 5, 2019 ___________________________

Hon. Jon Takasugi

Judge of the Superior Court