Search

Attributes

This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 02/16/2021 at 13:51:22 (UTC).

MAHTAB NATANZADEH VS SHELDON SOURAY, ET AL.

Case Summary

On 11/08/2018 MAHTAB NATANZADEH filed a Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury lawsuit against SHELDON SOURAY. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Spring Street Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is THOMAS D. LONG. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *******4319

  • Filing Date:

    11/08/2018

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Spring Street Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

THOMAS D. LONG

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

NATANZADEH MAHTAB

Defendants and Cross Defendants

SOURAY SHELDON

C.C. PALM - OAKHURST

VYLOX INC.

PARAGON PROPERTY MANAGEMENT GROUP LLC.

FLEUR DE LIS AT PALM HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION INC.

BRIDGES ANGELICA

Defendants, Cross Plaintiffs and Cross Defendants

VYLOX INC.

PARAGON PROPERTY MANAGEMENT GROUP LLC.

FLEUR DE LIS AT PALM HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION INC.

Not Classified By Court

TORBATIAN ELHAM

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

FARZAM JOSEPH S

Defendant, Cross Defendant and Cross Plaintiff Attorneys

DANESHRAD JOSEPH

WELDEN ALLYSON M.

ARNALL ALAN C.

Other Attorneys

CHICHPORTICH STEPHAN J.

 

Court Documents

Request for Dismissal

10/15/2020: Request for Dismissal

Request for Entry of Default / Judgment

9/16/2020: Request for Entry of Default / Judgment

Request for Entry of Default / Judgment

8/27/2020: Request for Entry of Default / Judgment

Answer

8/28/2020: Answer

Answer

7/16/2020: Answer

Proof of Personal Service

5/12/2020: Proof of Personal Service

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER RE CONTINUANCE OF MOTION PURSUANT TO EMERGENCY OR...)

4/28/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER RE CONTINUANCE OF MOTION PURSUANT TO EMERGENCY OR...)

Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (COURT ORDER RE CONTINUANCE OF MOTION PURSUANT TO EMERGENCY OR...) OF 04/28/2020

4/28/2020: Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (COURT ORDER RE CONTINUANCE OF MOTION PURSUANT TO EMERGENCY OR...) OF 04/28/2020

[Proposed Order] and Stipulation to Continue Trial, FSC (and Related Motion/Discovery Dates) Person - [PROPOSED ORDER] AND STIPULATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL, FSC (AND RELATED MOTION/DISCOVERY DATES) PERSO

3/26/2020: [Proposed Order] and Stipulation to Continue Trial, FSC (and Related Motion/Discovery Dates) Person - [PROPOSED ORDER] AND STIPULATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL, FSC (AND RELATED MOTION/DISCOVERY DATES) PERSO

Proof of Service by Substituted Service

2/7/2020: Proof of Service by Substituted Service

Amendment to Cross-Complaint (Fictitious/Incorrect Name)

1/30/2020: Amendment to Cross-Complaint (Fictitious/Incorrect Name)

Notice of Rejection - Ex Parte Application Without Hearing - NOTICE OF REJECTION - EX PARTE APPLICATION WITHOUT HEARING FOR PUBLICATION RE: SHELDON

12/16/2019: Notice of Rejection - Ex Parte Application Without Hearing - NOTICE OF REJECTION - EX PARTE APPLICATION WITHOUT HEARING FOR PUBLICATION RE: SHELDON

Stipulation and Order - STIPULATION AND ORDER STIPULATION AND ORDER TO FILE A 2ND AMENDED COMPLAINT

8/27/2019: Stipulation and Order - STIPULATION AND ORDER STIPULATION AND ORDER TO FILE A 2ND AMENDED COMPLAINT

Answer - ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

5/20/2019: Answer - ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

Amendment to Complaint (Fictitious/Incorrect Name)

4/11/2019: Amendment to Complaint (Fictitious/Incorrect Name)

Notice of Case Assignment - Unlimited Civil Case

11/8/2018: Notice of Case Assignment - Unlimited Civil Case

Complaint

11/8/2018: Complaint

Civil Case Cover Sheet

11/8/2018: Civil Case Cover Sheet

35 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 11/04/2021
  • Hearing11/04/2021 at 08:30 AM in Department 31 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/20/2021
  • Hearing05/20/2021 at 08:30 AM in Department 31 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Order to Show Cause Re: Re Failure to File Default/Default Judgment

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/20/2021
  • Hearing05/20/2021 at 08:30 AM in Department 31 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Trial Setting Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/15/2020
  • DocketRequest for Dismissal; Filed by Mahtab Natanzadeh (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/30/2020
  • DocketAnswer; Filed by Sheldon Souray (Cross-Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/28/2020
  • DocketAnswer; Filed by Paragon Property Management Group, LLC. (Cross-Defendant); Fleur De Lis at Palm Homeowners Association, Inc. (Cross-Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/28/2020
  • DocketNotice of Non-Entry of Default; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/16/2020
  • DocketRequest for Entry of Default / Judgment; Filed by Mahtab Natanzadeh (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/10/2020
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 31, Thomas D. Long, Presiding; Jury Trial - Not Held - Advanced and Vacated

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/08/2020
  • DocketNotice of Rejection Default/Clerk's Judgment; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
42 More Docket Entries
  • 04/11/2019
  • DocketAmendment to Complaint (Fictitious/Incorrect Name); Filed by Mahtab Natanzadeh (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/12/2019
  • DocketProof of Personal Service; Filed by Mahtab Natanzadeh (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/08/2019
  • DocketAmendment to Complaint (Fictitious/Incorrect Name); Filed by Mahtab Natanzadeh (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/21/2019
  • DocketSummons (on Amended Complaint (1st)); Filed by Mahtab Natanzadeh (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/14/2019
  • DocketApplication And Order For Appointment of Guardian Ad Litem (for Mahtab); Filed by Mahtab Natanzadeh (Plaintiff); Mahtab Natanzadeh (Plaintiff); Elham Torbatian (Non-Party)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/08/2018
  • DocketComplaint ((1st)); Filed by Mahtab Natanzadeh (Plaintiff); Mahtab Natanzadeh (Plaintiff); Elham Torbatian (Non-Party)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/08/2018
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by Mahtab Natanzadeh (Plaintiff); Mahtab Natanzadeh (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/08/2018
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Mahtab Natanzadeh (Plaintiff); Mahtab Natanzadeh (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/08/2018
  • DocketComplaint (2nd); Filed by Mahtab Natanzadeh (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/08/2018
  • DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Unlimited Civil Case; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: 18STCV04319    Hearing Date: August 27, 2020    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

MAHTAB NATANZADEH,

Plaintiff(s),

vs.

SHELDON SOURAY, ET AL.,

Defendant(s).

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CASE NO: 18STCV04319

[TENTATIVE] ORDER OVERRULING DEMURRER TO SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

Dept. 31

3:30 p.m.

August 27, 2020

 

Plaintiff, Mahtab Natanzadeh filed this action against Defendants, Sheldon Souray, et al. for damages arising from a dog bite incident. On 3/8/19, Plaintiff filed an Amendment to Complaint naming Defendant Vylox, Inc. as Doe 1.

Defendant, Vylox, Inc. (“Vylox”) filed this demurrer on 1/15/20, setting it for hearing on 6/10/20. The demurrer is directed at Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint, which Plaintiff filed on 7/29/19. Based on current conditions, including, but not limited to, the spread of Covid-19, the court set this matter to be heard on 8/27/20. (Min. Order 4/28/20.)

On 8/14/20, Plaintiff filed a Third Amended Complaint (“TAC”). However, there is no showing in the court’s record that the court ever granted Plaintiff leave to file the TAC, or that the parties otherwise stipulated to allow Plaintiff to file a TAC. Therefore, Plaintiff’s operative pleading in this matter is the Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”). (Hedwall v. PCMV, LLC (2018) 22 Cal.App.5th 564, 574-75.)

The SAC alleges a cause of action for negligence and premises liability against all Defendants.

A demurrer is a pleading used to test the legal sufficiency of other pleadings. It raises issues of law, not fact, regarding the form or content of the opposing party's pleading (complaint, answer or cross-complaint). (CCP §§ 422.10, 589; see Donabedian v. Mercury Ins. Co. (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 968, 994.) It is not the function of the demurrer to challenge the truthfulness of the complaint; and for purposes of the ruling on the demurrer, all facts pleaded in the complaint are assumed to be true. (Donabedian, 116 Cal.App.4th at 994.)

A demurrer can be used only to challenge defects that appear on the face of the pleading under attack; or from matters outside the pleading that are judicially noticeable. (Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318; Donabedian, supra, 116 Cal.App.4th at 994.) No other extrinsic evidence can be considered. (Ion Equip. Corp. v. Nelson (1980) 110 Cal.App.3d 868, 881 [error for court to consider facts asserted in memorandum supporting demurrer]; see also Afuso v. United States Fid. & Guar. Co. (1985) 169 Cal.App.3d 859, 862 [disapproved on other grounds in Moradi-Shalal v. Fireman’s Fund Ins. Cos. (1988) 46 Cal.3d 287] [error to consider contents of release not part of court record].)

A demurrer can be utilized where the “face of the complaint” itself is incomplete or discloses some defense that would bar recovery. (Guardian North Bay, Inc. v. Superior Court (2001) 94 Cal.App.4th 963, 971-72.) The “face of the complaint” includes material contained in attached exhibits that are incorporated by reference into the complaint; or in a superseded complaint in the same action. (Frantz v. Blackwell (1987) 189 Cal.App.3d 91, 94; see also Barnett v. Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co. (2001) 90 Cal.App.4th 500, 505 [“[W]e rely on and accept as true the contents of the exhibits and treat as surplusage the pleader’s allegations as to the legal effect of the exhibits.”]). A demurrer can only be sustained when it disposes of an entire cause of action. (Poizner v. Fremont General Corp. (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 97,119; Kong v. City of Hawaiian Gardens Redev. Agency (2003) 108 Cal.App.4th 1028, 1046.)

Here, Vylox demurs to the SAC on the ground that it fails to state facts sufficient to establish Vylox had a duty of care to Plaintiff. Vylox argues the allegations in the SAC make it clear Vylox did not own or control the dog and had no obligation or responsibility in controlling the dog. Further, Vylox contends its tenant, Angelica Bridges, did not own the dog, and the incident did not occur at Vylox’s premises. Vylox asserts the dog was owned by Defendant Souray, the dog bite occurred in the common hallway of the apartment complex near the entrance to Unit #101, and Defendant Souray was not a tenant of Vylox. Finally, Vylox argues there is no allegation that Vylox was aware of the dog, and thus, Vylox had no legal duty to Plaintiff with regard to the behavior of the dog.

Under current California law, a landlord owes no duty of care to protect a tenant or others from a tenant's dangerous dog unless the landlord has actual knowledge of the dog's dangerous propensities and the right to remove the dog. (Uccello v. Laudenslayer (1975) 44 Cal.App.3d 504, 507; Chee v. Amanda Goldt Property Management (2006) 143 Cal.App.4th 1360, 1369 (“It is well established that a landlord does not owe a duty of care to protect a third party from his or her tenant's dog unless the landlord has actual knowledge of the dog’s dangerous propensities, and the ability to control or prevent the harm.”).)

Whether a landlord has a duty to prevent or control dangerous conditions on a property related to injuries suffered from an animal, depends on the landlord’s knowledge of an animal’s vicious nature. (Donchin v. Guerrero (1995) 34 Cal.App.4th 1832, 1838-39.) “It should be emphasized that a duty of care may not be imposed on a landlord without proof that he knew of the dog and its dangerous propensities.” (Uccello, 44 Cal.App.3d at 514.) Further, because the harboring of pets is such an important part of our way of life and because the exclusive possession of a premises normally is vested in the tenant, actual knowledge and not mere constructive knowledge is required. (Id.)

In this case, the SAC alleges in relevant part,

Plaintiff was bitten by Defendant Souray's dog in the common hallway of the apartment complex located at 120 South Palm Drive, Beverly Hills, CA 90212, near the entrance to Unit #101, Defendant Souray's unit.

Defendant Vylox, Inc. is the owner of the private apartment complex unit #101 located at 120 South Palm Drive, Beverly Hills, CA, 90212, and knew or should have known of Defendant Souray's dog's unpredictable and violent/dangerous propensities and could and should have had the dog removed from the premises but failed to do so thereby proximately causing Plaintiffs economic and noneconomic damages.

Angelica Bridges is the tenant of apartment complex unit # 101 located at 120 South Palm Drive, Beverly Hills, CA, 90212, where Defendant Souray's dog was kept. Defendant Bridges breached her duty to protect reasonably foreseeable individuals from the dog's violent/dangerous propensities. As a result, Defendant Bridges proximately caused Plaintiffs aforementioned injuries.

(SAC at p. 5 [emphasis added].)

The SAC thus alleges that Vylox owned the subject unit where the subject dog was being kept in, and that Vylox knew of the dog’s violent propensities, and that it could have had the dog removed. (Uccello, 44 Cal.App.3d at 507; Chee, 143 Cal.App.4th at 1369.) The SAC’s allegations are sufficient to put Vylox on notice of the claims and basis for liability against it. (Mahan v. Charles W. Chan Ins. Agency, Inc. (2017) 14 Cal.App.5th 841, 848 n. 3 [“’[T]o withstand a demurrer, a complaint must allege ultimate facts, not evidentiary facts or conclusions of law.’”].)

The demurrer to the SAC is overruled.

Moving Defendant is ordered to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at sscdept31@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 the parties do not submit on the tentative, they should arrange to appear remotely.

 

Dated this 27th day of August, 2020

Hon. Thomas D. Long

Judge of the Superior Court

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where PARAGON PROPERTY MANAGEMENT GROUP LLC. is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer CHICHPORTICH STEPHAN J.