This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 02/19/2020 at 21:00:21 (UTC).

IRAJ V KASHANI VS FARANZA SHEIKH

Case Summary

On 06/08/2018 IRAJ filed a Contract - Business lawsuit against KASHANI. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is MARY H. STROBEL. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****9480

  • Filing Date:

    06/08/2018

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Contract - Business

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

MARY H. STROBEL

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs, Petitioners and Not Classified By Court

KASHANI IRAJ V.

IRANG INC DBA WESTWOOD MOBIL

WESTWOOD MOBIL

IRANG INC

MOBIL WESTWOOD

IRANG INC. DBA WESTWOOD MOBIL

Defendants and Respondents

SHEIKH FARANZA

DOES 1 TO 10

SHEIKH SOHAIL

MALA SAEED

SHEIKH DANIAL

AZIZ DOE 4 SOHAIL

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

LAW OFFICES OF NEJEAT KOHAN INC.

LAW OFFICES OF NEJAT KOHAN INC.

KOHAN NEJAT

Defendant and Respondent Attorneys

BAER JOSEPH R. ESQ.

MARJIYA BASSAM

 

Court Documents

Request for Dismissal

1/22/2020: Request for Dismissal

Amended Complaint - AMENDED COMPLAINT FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT OF CONVERSION AND CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT CONVERSION

1/29/2020: Amended Complaint - AMENDED COMPLAINT FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT OF CONVERSION AND CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT CONVERSION

Declaration - DECLARATION FOR 24 HOURS NOTICE OF EX PARTE

2/13/2020: Declaration - DECLARATION FOR 24 HOURS NOTICE OF EX PARTE

Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order

10/9/2019: Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order

Demurrer - without Motion to Strike

6/20/2019: Demurrer - without Motion to Strike

Order - ORDER FOR MOTION

5/9/2019: Order - ORDER FOR MOTION

Reply - REPLY TO DEFENDANT'S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL

5/2/2019: Reply - REPLY TO DEFENDANT'S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL

Opposition - OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER DISCOVERY RESPONSES

4/26/2019: Opposition - OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER DISCOVERY RESPONSES

Amendment to Cross-Complaint (Fictitious/Incorrect Name)

3/26/2019: Amendment to Cross-Complaint (Fictitious/Incorrect Name)

Amendment to Cross-Complaint (Fictitious/Incorrect Name)

3/26/2019: Amendment to Cross-Complaint (Fictitious/Incorrect Name)

Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses

3/28/2019: Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses

Notice of Change of Address or Other Contact Information

1/31/2019: Notice of Change of Address or Other Contact Information

Minute Order - (Case Management Conference)

10/9/2018: Minute Order - (Case Management Conference)

CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT -

9/17/2018: CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT -

FINAL DECISION ON APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF ATTACHMENT: DENIED

9/18/2018: FINAL DECISION ON APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF ATTACHMENT: DENIED

APPLICATION FOR RIGHT TO ATTACH ORDER, TEMPORARY PROTECTIVE ORDER, ETC. (ATTACHMENT)

8/24/2018: APPLICATION FOR RIGHT TO ATTACH ORDER, TEMPORARY PROTECTIVE ORDER, ETC. (ATTACHMENT)

NOTICE OF APPLICATION AND APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF ATTACHMENT; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF IRAJ KASHANI IN SUPPORT OF APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF ATTACHMENT

8/24/2018: NOTICE OF APPLICATION AND APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF ATTACHMENT; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF IRAJ KASHANI IN SUPPORT OF APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF ATTACHMENT

NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

6/22/2018: NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

43 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 03/03/2020
  • Hearing03/03/2020 at 09:30 AM in Department 78 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Jury Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/02/2020
  • Hearing03/02/2020 at 15:30 PM in Department 78 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Informal Discovery Conference (IDC)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/14/2020
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 78; Hearing on Ex Parte Application (For Continuance of Trial) - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/14/2020
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Hearing on Ex Parte Application For Continuance of Trial)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/13/2020
  • DocketDeclaration in Support of Ex Parte Application; Filed by Irang, Inc. (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/13/2020
  • DocketDeclaration (For 24 Hours Notice of Ex parte); Filed by Irang, Inc. (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/13/2020
  • DocketEx Parte Application (For Continuance of Trial); Filed by Irang, Inc. (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/11/2020
  • DocketNotice of Ruling; Filed by Irang, Inc. (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/10/2020
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 78; Final Status Conference - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/10/2020
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Final Status Conference)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
77 More Docket Entries
  • 07/03/2018
  • DocketNOTICE OF CASE REASSIGNMENT AND OF ORDER FOR PLAINTIFF TO GIVE NOTICE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/03/2018
  • DocketNotice of Case Reassignment and Order for Plaintiff to Give Notice; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/22/2018
  • DocketNotice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/22/2018
  • DocketNOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/22/2018
  • DocketNOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/08/2018
  • DocketCERTIFICATE OF COUNSEL

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/08/2018
  • DocketSummons; Filed by Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/08/2018
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Irang, Inc (Plaintiff); Iraj V. Kashani (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/08/2018
  • DocketCOMPLAINT FOR: 1. EMBEZZLEMENT, ETC

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/08/2018
  • DocketSUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC709480    Hearing Date: January 06, 2020    Dept: 78

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 78

IRAJ V. KASHANI, et al.;

Plaintiffs,

vs.

FARANZA SHEIKH., et al.;

Defendants.

Case No.:

BC 709480

Hearing Date:

January 6, 2020

[TENTATIVE] RULING RE:

DEFENDANTS FARZANA SHEIKH, SOHIL AZIZ, SAEED MALA, AND DANIAL SHEIKH’S DEMURRER TO COMPLAINT

Defendants Farzana Sheikh, Sohil Aziz, Saeed Mala, and Danial Sheikh’s Demurrer to the Complaint is SUSTAINED without leave to amend as to the First Cause of Action; OVERRULED with regards to Defendant Farzana Sheikh as to the Second Cause of Action; SUSTAINED with leave to amend with regards to Defendants Aziz, Mala, and Danial Sheikh as to the Second Cause of Action; and SUSTAINED with leave to amend as to the Third Cause of Action.

Factual Background

This is an action for embezzlement. The Complaint alleges as follows. Plaintiffs Iraj V. Kashani and Irang, Inc. dba Westwood Mobil (“Plaintiffs”) employed Defendant Faranza Sheikh as a cashier at a Mobil gas station. (Complaint ¶ 11.) From 2014 through 2018, Farzana Sheikh failed to record sales of certain items, leading to a shortage of $119,338.00. (Complaint ¶ 12.) This money was misappropriated for Farzana Sheikh’s own benefit. (Complaint ¶ 13.)

Procedural history

Plaintiffs filed the Complaint on June 8, 2018, alleging three causes of action:

  1. Embezzlement

  2. Conversion

  3. Conspiracy

Defendants filed the present Demurrer on June 20, 2019.

On November 19, 2019, Plaintiffs filed an Opposition to the Demurrer.

Discussion

  1. DEMURRER

A demurrer should be sustained only where the defects appear on the face of the pleading or are judicially noticed. (Code Civ. Pro., §§ 430.30, et seq.) A court should sustain a demurrer if a complaint does not allege facts that are legally sufficient to constitute a cause of action.¿(See id.¿§ 430.10, subd. (e).) As the Supreme Court held in Blank v. Kirwan (1985) Cal.3d 311: “We treat the demurrer as admitting all material facts properly pleaded, but not contentions, deductions or conclusions of fact or law. . . . Further, we give the complaint a reasonable interpretation, reading it as a whole and its parts in their context.”¿(Id. at p. 318; see also Hahn. v. Mirda

“In determining whether the complaint is sufficient as against the demurrer … if on consideration of all the facts stated it appears the plaintiff is entitled to any relief at the hands of the court against the defendants the complaint will be held good although the facts may not be clearly stated.”  (Gressley

A demurrer for uncertainty is strictly construed, even where a complaint is in some respects uncertain, because ambiguities can be clarified under modern discovery procedures.” (Khoury v. Maly’s

A demurrer should not be sustained without leave to amend if the complaint, liberally construed, can state a cause of action under any theory or if there is a reasonable possibility the defect can be cured by amendment. (Schifando Krawitz Rusch

Defendants demurrer to all three causes of action: embezzlement, conversion, and conspiracy.

  1. Embezzlement

Defendants argue that first the cause of action for embezzlement is not a civil cause of action under California law. (Motion at p. 5.)

In Opposition, Plaintiffs argues that embezzlement and conversion are not the same cause of action, and that while embezzlement is only found in Penal Code section 503, a party may bring a civil cause of action for embezzlement. (Opposition at p. 2.) Plaintiffs do not provide any legal support for this contention.

Under California law, embezzlement is a criminal act. (Pen. Code, § 503.) There is no civil claim for embezzlement under California law. (Mohebbi v. Khazen (N.D. Cal. 2014) 50 F.Supp.3d 1234, 1257.)

Accordingly, the Demurrer to the First Cause of Action is SUSTAINED without leave to amend.

  1. Conversion

The elements of a conversion claim are: (1) the plaintiff’s ownership or right to possession of the property; (2) the defendant’s conversion by a wrongful act or disposition of property rights; and (3) damages. (Hodges v. County of Placer (2019) 41 Cal.App.5th 537, 551.)

Defendants argue that the second cause of action for conversion fails because the Complaint fails to allege any facts which establish that Plaintiff Kashani has ownership or right to possession of the alleged converted funds. (Motion at p. 6.) Defendants further contend that Plaintiffs’ claim that Defendants converted the property by failing to record sales and secure money, but that the Complaint does not allege that Defendants other than Farzana Sheikh were employed by Westwood Mobil or that they had access to recording sales or securing funds. (Motion at p. 6.)

The Complaint alleges that Farzana Sheikh misappropriated and converted $119,338 in 2014 through 2018 by “failing to record sales and secure money received from customers for those sales for the sole and exclusive benefit of Plaintiffs.” (Compl. ¶ 18.)

The Court finds that the Complaint sufficiently alleges a cause of action for conversion against Farzana Sheikh because it alleges that Kashani is a shareholder of Westwood Mobil and that Farzana Sheikh was an employee and manager of Westwood Mobil who was authorized to collect money from customers and secure it in the cash register, and that Farzana Sheikh failed to record sales of lottery tickets, cigarettes and other items to a total amount of no less than $119,338.00. (Compl. ¶¶ 1-2, 11-13, 18.) However, the Court agrees with Defendants that the Complaint does not sufficiently allege the cause of action against the other defendants Sohil Aziz, Saeed Mala, and Danial Sheikh as their involvement is limited in the Complaint to “Sheikh alone or jointly with Defendants Doe 1 and Doe 2[.]” (Compl. ¶ 13.)

Accordingly, the Demurrer is OVERRULED with regards to Defendant Farzana Sheikh, and SUSTAINED with leave to amend with regards to Defendants Aziz, Mala, and Danial Sheikh.

  1. Conspiracy

Defendants argue that the Third Cause of Action – Conspiracy, is not an independent tort and must be activated by the commission by an actual tort. (Motion at p. 7.) Defendants contend that the Complaint does not allege that the tort of conversion was committed as a result of the alleged conspiracy and thus the Complaint does not state a cause of action for conspiracy. (Motion at p. 7.)

In Opposition, Plaintiffs do not apply the law to the facts at hand, but instead state that “As long as two or more persons agree to an unlawful act, the law places civil liability for damages on all of them, regardless of whether they commit the act themselves.” (Opposition at p. 4, citing Wyatt v. Union Mortgage Co. (1979) 24 Cal. 3d 773, 784.)

The Court agrees with Defendants that Conspiracy is not an independent cause of action. “No cause of action exists for the conspiracy itself. The pleaded facts must show something which, without conspiracy, would give rise to a cause of action.” (117 Sales Corp. v. Olsen (1978) 80 Cal.App.3d 645, 649.)

“The elements of an action for civil conspiracy are the formation and operation of the conspiracy and damage resulting to plaintiff from an act or acts done in furtherance of the common design. The cause of action is the damage suffered.” (Mox, Inc., v. Woods (1927) 202 Cal. 675, 677.)

Here, the Court finds that the Complaint does not allege the formation and operation of a conspiracy. The Complaint alleges that “Defendants and each of them knowingly and willingly conspired and agreed among themselves to commit the tortuous and wrongful acts as herein alleged.” (Compl. ¶ 22.) However, the Complaint does not allege sufficient facts to establish such formation of a conspiracy because these allegations are conclusory. The allegation that Farzana Sheikh told her son and brother-in-law “not to return any money to Plaintiffs” is not sufficient to establish that Farzana Sheikh and her son and brother-in-law formed and operated a conspiracy.

The key element of establishing a cause of action for conspiracy is the agreement among the parties, but the Complaint does not allege any such agreement to conspire. The Complaint alleges that the Defendants “previously agreed to return the money by way of both disbursing to Plaintiffs the money in her bank accounts and continuing payments,” however this is not an allegation of an agreement to conspire but rather an agreement to return money. (Compl. ¶ 15.)

Accordingly, the Demurrer to the Third Cause of Action is SUSTAINED with leave to amend.

DATED: January 6, 2020

________________________________

Hon. Robert S. Draper

Judge of the Superior Court