This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 06/10/2019 at 07:33:51 (UTC).

KAYVAN SETAREH VS CLEANSTREET INC ET AL

Case Summary

On 03/13/2017 KAYVAN SETAREH filed a Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury lawsuit against CLEANSTREET INC. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.
Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****3930

  • Filing Date:

    03/13/2017

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

SETAREH KAYVAN

Defendants and Respondents

CALIFORNIA STREET MAINTENANCE

HOLLYWOOD PROPERTY OWNERS ALLIANCE

CLEANSTREET INC DBA CALIFORNIA STEET MAINTENANCE

CITY OF LOS ANGELES

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

SICILIANO NICHOLAS ARTHUR

Defendant Attorneys

BRIGGS JEFFREY CHARLES

ALDERMAN DANIEL SETH

 

Court Documents

Minute Order

2/9/2018: Minute Order

NOTICE OF TAKING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OFF CALENDAR

2/20/2018: NOTICE OF TAKING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OFF CALENDAR

Unknown

2/20/2018: Unknown

DEFENDANT CLEANSTREET, INC.'S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT/ADJUDICATION ON PLAINTIFF'S SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

3/8/2018: DEFENDANT CLEANSTREET, INC.'S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT/ADJUDICATION ON PLAINTIFF'S SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

DEFENDANT CLEANSTREET, INC.'S APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT/ADJUDICATION ON PLAINTIFF'S SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

3/8/2018: DEFENDANT CLEANSTREET, INC.'S APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT/ADJUDICATION ON PLAINTIFF'S SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

DEFENDANT'S REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT/ADJUDICATION ON PLAINTIFF'S SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

3/8/2018: DEFENDANT'S REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT/ADJUDICATION ON PLAINTIFF'S SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

DEFENDANT CLEAN STREET, INC.'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION ON PLAINTIFF'S SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT; ETC

3/8/2018: DEFENDANT CLEAN STREET, INC.'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION ON PLAINTIFF'S SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT; ETC

JOINT POST-MEDIATION STATUS CONFERENCE REPORT

4/26/2018: JOINT POST-MEDIATION STATUS CONFERENCE REPORT

Minute Order

5/1/2018: Minute Order

DEFENDANT CLEANSTREET, INC.'S AMENDED NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION ON PLAINTIFF'S SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AU

7/3/2018: DEFENDANT CLEANSTREET, INC.'S AMENDED NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION ON PLAINTIFF'S SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AU

DEFENDANT'S REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S AMENDED MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT/ ADJUDICATION ON PLAINTIFF'S SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

7/3/2018: DEFENDANT'S REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S AMENDED MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT/ ADJUDICATION ON PLAINTIFF'S SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

DEFENDANT CLEANSTREET, INC.'S AMENDED APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT/ ADJUDICATION ON PLAINTIFF'S SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

7/3/2018: DEFENDANT CLEANSTREET, INC.'S AMENDED APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT/ ADJUDICATION ON PLAINTIFF'S SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

DEFENDANT CLEANSTREET, INC.'S AMENDED SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT/ ADJUDICATION ON PLAINTIFF'S SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

7/3/2018: DEFENDANT CLEANSTREET, INC.'S AMENDED SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT/ ADJUDICATION ON PLAINTIFF'S SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

J0114T STATUS CONFERENCE REPORT

7/19/2018: J0114T STATUS CONFERENCE REPORT

Minute Order

7/26/2018: Minute Order

NOTICE RE CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE, TRIAL DATE, FINAL STATUS CONFERENCE

7/27/2018: NOTICE RE CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE, TRIAL DATE, FINAL STATUS CONFERENCE

Notice

11/1/2018: Notice

Notice

11/1/2018: Notice

54 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 05/20/2019
  • Docketat 09:00 AM in Department 58; Jury Trial - Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by Court

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 05/14/2019
  • Docketat 09:00 AM in Department 58; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by Court

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 04/05/2019
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 58; Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal (as to Doe Defendants) - Held

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 04/05/2019
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 58; Conference (Re MSJ Hearing Setting) - Held

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 04/05/2019
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 58; Status Conference - Held - Continued

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 04/05/2019
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 58; Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment - Held - Continued

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 04/05/2019
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment; Status Conference; Co...)); Filed by Clerk

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 04/02/2019
  • Docketat 09:00 AM in Department 58; Jury Trial - Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by Court

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 03/26/2019
  • Docketat 09:00 AM in Department 58; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by Court

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 03/12/2019
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 58; Status Conference - Held

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
117 More Docket Entries
  • 03/27/2017
  • DocketNotice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 03/27/2017
  • DocketOSC-Failure to File Proof of Serv; Filed by Clerk

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 03/20/2017
  • Docketat 2:45 PM in Department 93; Court Order (Court Order; Court makes order) -

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 03/20/2017
  • DocketStipulation and Order; Filed by Kayvan Setareh (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 03/20/2017
  • DocketMinute order entered: 2017-03-20 00:00:00; Filed by Clerk

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 03/20/2017
  • DocketSTIPULATION

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 03/20/2017
  • DocketMinute Order

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 03/13/2017
  • DocketSUMMONS

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 03/13/2017
  • DocketCOMPLAINT FOR: 1) BREACH OF CONTRACT; ETC.

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 03/13/2017
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Kayvan Setareh (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: ****3930    Hearing Date: November 12, 2019    Dept: 58

Judge John P. Doyle

Department 58


Hearing Date: November 6, 2019 (Continued to 11/12/2019)

Case Name: Setareh v. Cleanstreet, Inc., et al.

Case No.: ****3930

Motion: Motion for Leave to Amend

Moving Party: Plaintiff Kayvan Setareh

Responding Party: Defendant Cleanstreet, Inc.

Tentative Ruling: The Motion for Leave to Amend is granted in part.

Plaintiff alleges that he entered into a contract with Defendant Cleanstreet, Inc. allowing Defendant to park vehicles in his building’s parking garage. The agreement required that Defendant not cause any damage to Plaintiff’s property and that Plaintiff be named as an additional insured under Defendant’s insurance policies. However, a fire broke out in the parking garage, and Defendant allegedly failed to add Plaintiff as an additional insured. Plaintiff filed the operative Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) on January 17, 2018, alleging causes of action for (1) breach of contract, (2) negligence, (3) breach of contract, and (4) negligent misrepresentation. Plaintiff subsequently dismissed the fourth cause of action.

On August 15, 2019, the Court tentatively granted Defendant’s motion for summary adjudication as to the third cause of action for breach of contract, finding that neither consideration nor promissory estoppel had been pled or demonstrated via evidence. The Court was not inclined to allow leave to amend. After supplemental briefing, the Court again tentatively ruled that the third cause of action was deficient and that an amendment should not be permitted. However, the Court ultimately allowed Plaintiff to file the instant Motion.

Plaintiff now seeks to amend his third cause of action to properly allege consideration or promissory estoppel. Plaintiff also seeks to add a fourth cause of action for negligent misrepresentation.

The Court may, in the furtherance of justice, and upon any terms as may be proper, allow a party to amend any pleading. (Code Civ. Proc. ;; 473, 576.) In general, California courts liberally exercise discretion to permit amendment of pleadings in light of a strong policy favoring resolution of all disputes between parties in the same action. (Nestle v. Santa Monica (1972) 6 Cal.3d 920, 939; Morgan v. Superior Court (1959) 172 Cal.App.2d 527, 530.) “[T]here is a strong policy in favor of liberal allowance of amendments.” (Mesler v. Bragg Management Co. (1985) 39 Cal.3d 290, 296.) Pursuant to this policy, requests for leave to amend generally will be granted unless the party seeking to amend has been dilatory in bringing the proposed amendment before the Court, and the delay in seeking leave to amend will cause prejudice to the opposing party if leave to amend is granted. (Hirsa v. Superior Court (1981) 118 Cal.App.3d 486, 490; Higgins v. Del Faro (1981) 123 Cal.App.3d 558, 564-565.) The decision on a motion for leave is directed to the sound discretion of the trial court. (See generally Weil & Brown, Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2014) ¶¶ 6:637 et seq.)

The Court will allow the amendments as to the third cause of action because, at the very least, promissory estoppel is pled to the extent it is alleged that Defendant agreed to repair the subject property and Plaintiff detrimentally relied on such promise by failing to evict Defendant and seek rent from another tenant.

Defendant argues that the evidence presented in connection with its motion for summary judgment/adjudication demonstrated that Plaintiff admitted that there was never any clear promise as to repairs. However, by omitting pages from Plaintiff’s deposition transcript, it is unclear Plaintiff responded that in all contexts there was never a clear promise to make repairs.

It is not apparent that the December 2, 2019, trial date was ever vacated, but the Court—in order to neutralize prejudice to Defendant—will discuss a continued trial date such that Defendant may pursue further discovery.

On the other hand, the Motion is denied as futile as to the proposed fourth cause of action for negligent misrepresentation. This is because the proposed fourth cause of action pleads a negligent false promise which is not an actionable form of deceit. (Tarmann v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (1991) 2 Cal.App.4th 153, 159.)

In sum, the Motion is granted in part as set forth herein.



Case Number: ****3930    Hearing Date: November 06, 2019    Dept: 58

Judge John P. Doyle

Department 58


Hearing Date: November 6, 2019

Case Name: Setareh v. Cleanstreet, Inc., et al.

Case No.: ****3930

Motion: Motion for Leave to Amend

Moving Party: Plaintiff Kayvan Setareh

Responding Party: Defendant Cleanstreet, Inc.

Tentative Ruling: The Motion for Leave to Amend is granted in part.

Plaintiff alleges that he entered into a contract with Defendant Cleanstreet, Inc. allowing Defendant to park vehicles in his building’s parking garage. The agreement required that Defendant not cause any damage to Plaintiff’s property and that Plaintiff be named as an additional insured under Defendant’s insurance policies. However, a fire broke out in the parking garage, and Defendant allegedly failed to add Plaintiff as an additional insured. Plaintiff filed the operative Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) on January 17, 2018, alleging causes of action for (1) breach of contract, (2) negligence, (3) breach of contract, and (4) negligent misrepresentation. Plaintiff subsequently dismissed the fourth cause of action.

On August 15, 2019, the Court tentatively granted Defendant’s motion for summary adjudication as to the third cause of action for breach of contract, finding that neither consideration nor promissory estoppel had been pled or demonstrated via evidence. The Court was not inclined to allow leave to amend. After supplemental briefing, the Court again tentatively ruled that the third cause of action was deficient and that an amendment should not be permitted. However, the Court ultimately allowed Plaintiff to file the instant Motion.

Plaintiff now seeks to amend his third cause of action to properly allege consideration or promissory estoppel. Plaintiff also seeks to add a fourth cause of action for negligent misrepresentation.

The Court may, in the furtherance of justice, and upon any terms as may be proper, allow a party to amend any pleading. (Code Civ. Proc. ;; 473, 576.) In general, California courts liberally exercise discretion to permit amendment of pleadings in light of a strong policy favoring resolution of all disputes between parties in the same action. (Nestle v. Santa Monica (1972) 6 Cal.3d 920, 939; Morgan v. Superior Court (1959) 172 Cal.App.2d 527, 530.) “[T]here is a strong policy in favor of liberal allowance of amendments.” (Mesler v. Bragg Management Co. (1985) 39 Cal.3d 290, 296.) Pursuant to this policy, requests for leave to amend generally will be granted unless the party seeking to amend has been dilatory in bringing the proposed amendment before the Court, and the delay in seeking leave to amend will cause prejudice to the opposing party if leave to amend is granted. (Hirsa v. Superior Court (1981) 118 Cal.App.3d 486, 490; Higgins v. Del Faro (1981) 123 Cal.App.3d 558, 564-565.) The decision on a motion for leave is directed to the sound discretion of the trial court. (See generally Weil & Brown, Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2014) ¶¶ 6:637 et seq.)

The Court will allow the amendments as to the third cause of action because, at the very least, promissory estoppel is pled to the extent it is alleged that Defendant agreed to repair the subject property and Plaintiff detrimentally relied on such promise by failing to evict Defendant and seek rent from another tenant.

Defendant argues that the evidence presented in connection with its motion for summary judgment/adjudication demonstrated that Plaintiff admitted that there was never any clear promise as to repairs. However, by omitting pages from Plaintiff’s deposition transcript, it is unclear Plaintiff responded that in all contexts there was never a clear promise to make repairs.

It is not apparent that the December 2, 2019, trial date was ever vacated, but the Court—in order to neutralize prejudice to Defendant—will discuss a continued trial date such that Defendant may pursue further discovery.

On the other hand, the Motion is denied as futile as to the proposed fourth cause of action for negligent misrepresentation. This is because the proposed fourth cause of action pleads a negligent false promise which is not an actionable form of deceit. (Tarmann v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (1991) 2 Cal.App.4th 153, 159.)

In sum, the Motion is granted in part as set forth herein.



related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where CLEANSTREET INC is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer SICILIANO NICHOLAS ARTHUR