Search

Attributes

This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 06/27/2019 at 05:14:54 (UTC).

KATAYOUN TAGHIZADEH FAZLI ET AL VS ACTION PROPERTY MANAGMENT

Case Summary

On 01/03/2018 KATAYOUN TAGHIZADEH FAZLI filed a Contract - Other Contract lawsuit against ACTION PROPERTY MANAGMENT. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Governor George Deukmejian Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are PATRICK T. MADDEN and MARK C. KIM. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****1566

  • Filing Date:

    01/03/2018

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Contract - Other Contract

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Governor George Deukmejian Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

PATRICK T. MADDEN

MARK C. KIM

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs

KATHY T. FAZLI

KATAYOUN TAGHIZADEH FAZLI + AKA

FAZLI KATAYOUN TAGHIZADEH AKA KATHY T. FAZLI

Defendants

COMMONWEALTH SERVICE CORP(TRUSTEE GLENDOR

ACTION MANAGEMENT - A CA ENTITY UNK FORM

WILLIAM T BYRON - INDIV.

ACTION PROPERTY MANAGEMENT - CA ENTITY UN

JEREMY LAWS - INDIV.

DOES 1 - 50 INC.

INDIV. JEREMY LAWS -

INDIV. WILLIAM T BYRON -

COMMONWEALTH SERVICE CORPTRUSTEE GLENDOR

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorneys

ROBERT RETTENMAIER LAW OFFICE

SMITH HALL STRONGIN LLP (STRONGIN )

RETTENMAIER ROBERT THOMAS

STRONGIN ERIC BURTON

Defendant Attorneys

SLAUGHTER REAGAN & COLE LLP

HANGER STEINBERG SHAPIRO & ASH (V BLEDSOE

SHAPIRO MARC STEVEN

REAGAN BARRY

 

Court Documents

Civil Case Cover Sheet

1/3/2018: Civil Case Cover Sheet

Complaint

1/3/2018: Complaint

Legacy Document

2/5/2018: Legacy Document

Legacy Document

3/2/2018: Legacy Document

Legacy Document

3/15/2018: Legacy Document

Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

5/31/2018: Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

Opposition

7/12/2018: Opposition

Opposition

7/13/2018: Opposition

Proof of Service by Mail

7/13/2018: Proof of Service by Mail

Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order

11/7/2018: Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order

Proof of Service by Mail

11/21/2018: Proof of Service by Mail

Reply

2/13/2019: Reply

Minute Order

2/22/2019: Minute Order

Notice of Ruling

2/27/2019: Notice of Ruling

Motion to Strike (not initial pleading)

3/22/2019: Motion to Strike (not initial pleading)

Demurrer - with Motion to Strike

3/22/2019: Demurrer - with Motion to Strike

Case Management Statement

5/13/2019: Case Management Statement

Notice of Change of Address or Other Contact Information

5/24/2019: Notice of Change of Address or Other Contact Information

36 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 06/11/2019
  • Motion to Deem RFA's Admitted; Filed by WILLIAM T BYRON - INDIV. (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/24/2019
  • Notice of Change of Address or Other Contact Information; Filed by robert Thomas Rettenmaier (Attorney)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/23/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department S27, Mark C. Kim, Presiding; Case Management Conference - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/23/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Case Management Conference)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/23/2019
  • Notice of Ruling; Filed by WILLIAM T BYRON - INDIV. (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/13/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department S27, Mark C. Kim, Presiding; Jury Trial - Not Held - Advanced and Vacated

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/13/2019
  • Case Management Statement; Filed by WILLIAM T BYRON - INDIV. (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/08/2019
  • Case Management Statement; Filed by ACTION PROPERTY MANAGEMENT - CA ENTITY UN (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/29/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department S27, Mark C. Kim, Presiding; Jury Trial - Not Held - Rescheduled by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/25/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department S27, Mark C. Kim, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Rescheduled by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
50 More Docket Entries
  • 02/05/2018
  • Declaration; Filed by KATHY T. FAZLI (Legacy Party); Katayoun Taghizadeh Fazli (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/05/2018
  • Rtn of Service of Summons & Compl

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/05/2018
  • Declaration; Filed by KATHY T. FAZLI (Legacy Party); Katayoun Taghizadeh Fazli (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/05/2018
  • Rtn of Service of Summons & Compl; Filed by KATHY T. FAZLI (Legacy Party); Katayoun Taghizadeh Fazli (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/05/2018
  • Declaration; Filed by KATHY T. FAZLI (Legacy Party); Katayoun Taghizadeh Fazli (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/30/2018
  • Declaration (Of Mailing-P.S. Action Property Management); Filed by Katayoun Taghizadeh Fazli (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/30/2018
  • Rtn of Service of Summons & Compl; Filed by KATHY T. FAZLI (Legacy Party); Eric Burton Strongin (Attorney); Katayoun Taghizadeh Fazli (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/03/2018
  • Civil Case Cover Sheet

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/03/2018
  • Complaint; Filed by Katayoun Taghizadeh Fazli (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/03/2018
  • Summons; Filed by Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: NC061566    Hearing Date: March 16, 2021    Dept: S27

Plaintiff, Katayoun Taghizadeh Fazli aka Kathy T. Fazli filed this action against Defendants, Action Property Management, Action Management William T. Byron, Common Wealth Service Corporation, and Jeremy Laws for various claims arising out of the parties’ landlord-tenant relationship. Plaintiff filed her complaint on 1/03/18, and she seeks imposition of punitive damages in addition to special and general damages. Trial is scheduled for 3/16/21.

Defendant moves to bifurcate the trial such that the issue of whether punitive damages are warranted is heard prior to trial on the amount of punitive damages, such that no evidence of wealth, including assets, income, financial condition, etc., is introduced until after liability is determined. Civil Code §3295(d) provides, “The court shall, on application of any defendant, preclude the admission of evidence of that defendant's profits or financial condition until after the trier of fact returns a verdict for plaintiff awarding actual damages and finds that a defendant is guilty of malice, oppression, or fraud in accordance with Section 3294. Evidence of profit and financial condition shall be admissible only as to the defendant or defendants found to be liable to the plaintiff and to be guilty of malice, oppression, or fraud. Evidence of profit and financial condition shall be presented to the same trier of fact that found for the plaintiff and found one or more defendants guilty of malice, oppression, or fraud.”

Thus, bifurcate is mandatory under the Code. The motion is therefore granted. Trial on the issue of the amount of punitive damages will go forward, if necessary, after the jury finds Defendant guilty of malice, oppression, or fraud.

Defendant is ordered to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at gdcdepts27@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  If the department does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on the tentative and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion may be placed off calendar. If a party submits on the tentative, the party’s email must include the case number and must identify the party submitting on the tentative. If any party does not submit on the tentative, the party should make arrangements to appear remotely at the hearing on this matter.

Case Number: NC061566    Hearing Date: July 02, 2020    Dept: S27

INTRODUCTION

Defendant William Byron moves for Summary Judgment on Plaintiff Katayoun Fazli’s First Amended Complaint.

Alternatively, he seeks Summary Adjudication of each cause of action:

1. Breach of Implied Warranty of Habitability

2. Nuisance

3. Breach of Lease

4. Negligence

5. Fraud/Concealment

6. Negligent Misrepresentation

7. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (“IIED”)

8. Unfair Business Practices

William Byron is not charged with the 3rd cause of action for breach of lease.

SUMMARY OF ALLEGATIONS

Plaintiff was a tenant of the property at 242 Glendora Ave. #2, Long Beach, California commencing June 24, 2013. (Paragraph 16 – the court infers from her deposition testimony that she is no longer a tenant there.)

Plaintiff’s lease was with Co-Defendant Action Management, but Plaintiff alleges they were managing the property on behalf of William Byron.

The nature of this motion is such that Plaintiff’s problems with the premises require no detail – she alleges substantial defects affecting the habitability of the premises, including toxic mold. The affirmative conduct of which Plaintiff complains (i.e. fraud, negligence) was by Action Management – William Byron’s liability is predicated on the allegation that Action Management was acting as his agent.

JUDICIAL NOTICE

Defendant request judicial notice of:

1. Deed of Trust recorded on 10/14/11. (Exhibit A)

2. Substitution of Trustee and Full Reconveyance recorded on 9/17/17. (Exhibit B)

The request is granted.

DISCUSSION

The motion contends that William Byron did not own the property at the time of Plaintiff’s tenancy. If that is proven, there can be no vicarious liability for Action Management’s conduct.

Exhibit A reflects that a deed of trust with assignment of rents was executed on October 14, 2011. The entity Glendora Warrant Trust became the beneficiary and Commonwealth Service Corporation was the trustee. It is signed by William Byron and notarized.

At her deposition (Exhibit C) Plaintiff testified that she had never heard of William Byron “before this matter.” She had no interactions with him. At the time she moved out, she had no knowledge of William Byron. All of her dealings were with Action Property Management.

At page 36 an unlawful detainer action is discussed (it appears there was a stipulated judgment). Plaintiff admits William Byron was not a party to that action. Jeremy Laws was the Plaintiff in that action. Plaintiff did not know if Jeremy Laws hired Action Property Management. Plaintiff could not recall William Byron making any false representations to her in the six years prior to the deposition.

Exhibit D establishes that Plaintiff’s lease was with Action Property Management. This proof was hardly necessary since Plaintiff admitted this fact in her complaint. Plaintiff admitted in her responses to Requests for Admission (“RFAs”) that William Byron was not a party to the lease, and she had no agreement with him. Plaintiff denied she lacked facts supporting her contentions William Byron was the property owner during her tenancy. She did not admit Jeremy Laws was the owner due to insufficient information. She denied Action Property Management was not William Byron’s agent.

Exhibit F is Defendant William Byron’s deposition. When he owned the premises, it was managed by the firm of Pabst Kinney. There is mention of other managers, but not Action Property Management. In 2011 he sold the property to Jeremy Laws. The “All Inclusive Agreement of Sale and Purchase” is Exhibit G. William Byron had to initiate foreclosure proceedings against Jeremy Law, but Laws paid off the mortgage in 2017.

William Byron did not know who Plaintiff was. He denies ever renting property to her. He had never seen Plaintiff’s lease agreement.

William Byron has satisfied his initial burden of showing he did not own the property or lease it to Plaintiff in 2013 or any other time. He never hired Action Property Management and has negated the allegation that they were his agent.

He did not maintain a nuisance on the premises during Plaintiff’s tenancy. He did not personally make any representations to Plaintiff.

The court overrules the objections to the request for judicial notice. Although notice cannot normally be taken of the truth of contents, the dates of the recording of documents and the legal effect is noticeable.

The opposition raises an important issue which does not go to the merits. Plaintiff asserts William Byron died prior to the filing of this motion. She is correct that a deceased party cannot bring a motion – the estate must be substituted. In the reply, there appears to be a concession that Mr. William Byron has died.

The court rules on Defendant’s evidentiary objections to the evidence in opposition:

1. Overruled. Stating AM signed the lease is not hearsay. As Plaintiff is a party to the lease, there is adequate foundation. 200 Cal. App. 2d 741, 751 is inapposite. Plaintiff’s declaration is based on personal knowledge – without “factual conclusions” no party could meet their burden. The case cited was an instance where the affiant’s personal knowledge was not apparent and there was inadequate foundation.

2. Sustained on grounds of hearsay and relevancy.

The reply addresses the merits first and leaves this critical procedural point for last. Defendant replies that Plaintiff served a Doe Amendment naming the Estate of William Byron. This is immaterial. The motion is not brought by the Estate, and Defendant has not made a motion to substitute the estate. A deceased individual may not bring a motion – there can be no judgment rendered in the deceased party’s favor. William Byron, deceased, is no longer the real party in interest. This is not a matter of form over substance, but fundamental law. It would have been a simple matter to substitute the Estate and then file the motion. The merits cannot be reached.

The court reiterates that the moving burden was met and intends no indication as to the merits, or lack of merits, of the opposition. The motion is denied without prejudice to the Estate or Successor of William Byron refiling this motion.

Case Number: NC061566    Hearing Date: December 12, 2019    Dept: S27

INTRODUCTION

Defendant William Byron moves to compel Plaintiff Katayoun Taghizadeh to provide further responses to requests for admission (“RFAs”). He requests $2,460 in monetary sanctions against plaintiff and her attorneys, jointly and severally.

The caption of the motion is slightly inaccurate because Defendant also seeks to compel responses to form interrogatory #17.1 which asks for facts supporting denials of RFAs.

TIMELINESS

Ordinarily, a motion for further responses to RFAs must be brought within 45 days of service of the responses (CCP §2033.290(c)).

In the present case, this court ordered further responses on July 25, 2019. Plaintiff served unverified responses (“Second Supplemental Responses”) on August 7, 2019.

“Unsworn responses are tantamount to no responses at all.” (Appleton v. Superior Court (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 632, 636.)

The court deems the motion timely.

No responses were served to form interrogatory 17.1 and there is no time limit to seeking initial responses.

DISCUSSION

At issue are RFAs 1, 2, 3, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, and 35.

Some of these are outright denials while others state that after a reasonable inquiry and based on available information she could not admit or deny the RFA.

The fact that there was no verification and no responses to form interrogatory 17.1 is sufficient in itself to grant this motion.

But Plaintiff wants more than verifications to the RFAs. Defendant argues available evidence should result in admissions. Defendant presents portions of this available evidence including documents and depositions.

The court cannot compel an admission, only responses. This is not an inquisition to extract the responses defendant wants. But he is not without a remedy. CCP §2033.420:

“(a) If a party fails to admit the genuineness of any document or the truth of any matter when requested to do so under this chapter, and if the party requesting that admission thereafter proves the genuineness of that document or the truth of that matter, the party requesting the admission may move the court for an order requiring the party to whom the request was directed to pay the reasonable expenses incurred in making that proof, including reasonable attorney’s fees.

(b) The court shall make this order unless it finds any of the following:

(1) An objection to the request was sustained or a response to it was waived under Section 2033.290.

(2) The admission sought was of no substantial importance.

(3) The party failing to make the admission had reasonable ground to believe that that party would prevail on the matter.

(4) There was other good reason for the failure to admit.”

If Defendant can prove the truth of his RFAs with the evidence at hand, he can recover the costs of such proof after trial.

The court orders Plaintiff to provide verified responses to RFAs within 10 days. Plaintiff may reconsider her denials and make admissions if she wishes to or she may stand on her responses once verified.

Verified responses to form interrogatory 17.1 are ordered within 10 days as to any response which is not an unqualified admission.

The request for monetary sanctions is granted. $2,460 in monetary sanctions are ordered against plaintiff and her attorneys, jointly and severally, payable within 30 days.

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where COMMONWEALTH SERVICE CORPORATION is a litigant

Latest cases where ACTION PROPERTY MANAGEMENT INC. is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer Rettenmaier, Robert

Latest cases represented by Lawyer STRONGIN ERIC B. ESQ.