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 Judges overseeing this case are ROBERT B. BROADBELT and JOHN P. DOYLE. 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

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

ROBERT B. BROADBELT

JOHN P. DOYLE

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner

SETAREH KAYVAN

Defendants and Respondents

CALIFORNIA STREET MAINTENANCE

DOES 1-25

LOS ANGELES CITY OF

HOLLYWOOD PROPERTY OWNERS ALLIANCE

CLEANSTREET INC

CLEANSTREET INC DBA CALIFORNIA STEET MAINTENANCE

CITY OF LOS ANGELES

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

LAW OFFICES OF NICHOLAS A. SICILIANO

SICILIANO NICHOLAS ARTHUR

Defendant and Respondent Attorneys

BRIGGS JEFFREY C. ESQ.

ALDERMAN DANIEL S. ESQ.

BRIGGS JEFFREY CHARLES

ALDERMAN DANIEL SETH

 

Court Documents

NOTICE OF TAKING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OFF CALENDAR

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

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 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

Minute Order

3/12/2019: Minute Order

NOTICE RE: CONTINUANCE OF HEARING

11/16/2017: NOTICE RE: CONTINUANCE OF HEARING

PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

12/5/2017: PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

12/5/2017: PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

DEFENDANT CLEANSTREET, INC.'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF

12/11/2017: DEFENDANT CLEANSTREET, INC.'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF

NOTICE OF DEMURRER AND DEMURRER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT; ETC

11/8/2017: NOTICE OF DEMURRER AND DEMURRER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT; ETC

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR: 1) BREACH OF CONTRACT 2 NEGLIGENCE; ETC.

10/4/2017: FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR: 1) BREACH OF CONTRACT 2 NEGLIGENCE; ETC.

STIPULATION

3/20/2017: STIPULATION

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE HEARING

3/27/2017: ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE HEARING

Unknown

5/25/2017: Unknown

Unknown

6/1/2017: Unknown

NOTICE OF CONTINUANCE AND CHANGE OF DEPARTMENT FOR HEARING OF DEFENDANT CLEANSTEET, INC.'S MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT PERTAINING TO PUNITIVE DAMAGES

7/25/2017: NOTICE OF CONTINUANCE AND CHANGE OF DEPARTMENT FOR HEARING OF DEFENDANT CLEANSTEET, INC.'S MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT PERTAINING TO PUNITIVE DAMAGES

Unknown

8/15/2017: Unknown

Minute Order

8/16/2017: Minute Order

54 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

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

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/14/2019
  • at 09:00 AM in Department 58; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by Court

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

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/05/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 58; Conference (Re MSJ Hearing Setting) - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/05/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 58; Status Conference - Held - Continued

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/05/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 58; Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment - Held - Continued

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/05/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment; Status Conference; Co...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/02/2019
  • at 09:00 AM in Department 58; Jury Trial - Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/26/2019
  • at 09:00 AM in Department 58; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/12/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 58; Status Conference - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
117 More Docket Entries
  • 03/27/2017
  • Notice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/27/2017
  • OSC-Failure to File Proof of Serv; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/20/2017
  • at 2:45 PM in Department 93; Court Order (Court Order; Court makes order) -

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/20/2017
  • Stipulation and Order; Filed by Kayvan Setareh (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/20/2017
  • Minute order entered: 2017-03-20 00:00:00; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/20/2017
  • STIPULATION

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/20/2017
  • Minute Order

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/13/2017
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/13/2017
  • COMPLAINT FOR: 1) BREACH OF CONTRACT; ETC.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/13/2017
  • Complaint; Filed by Kayvan Setareh (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC653930    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.: BC653930

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: BC653930    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.: BC653930

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.