Search

Attributes

This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 06/04/2019 at 00:15:57 (UTC).

MEHRAN JAVAHERIAN VS FARID MORADI

Case Summary

On 12/01/2017 MEHRAN JAVAHERIAN filed a Contract - Other Contract lawsuit against FARID MORADI. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is NANCY L. NEWMAN. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****8455

  • Filing Date:

    12/01/2017

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Contract - Other Contract

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

NANCY L. NEWMAN

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

JAVAHERIAN MEHRAN

Defendants

MORADI FARID

MORADI LEEORA B.

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

KRISHEL DANIEL L.

Defendant Attorney

BEROKIM KOUSHA

 

Court Documents

Civil Case Cover Sheet

12/1/2017: Civil Case Cover Sheet

Complaint

12/1/2017: Complaint

Summons

12/1/2017: Summons

Unknown

1/31/2018: Unknown

Unknown

1/31/2018: Unknown

Unknown

3/26/2018: Unknown

Case Management Statement

3/27/2018: Case Management Statement

Unknown

3/27/2018: Unknown

Minute Order

4/2/2018: Minute Order

Unknown

5/17/2018: Unknown

Minute Order

5/30/2018: Minute Order

Unknown

6/18/2018: Unknown

Notice of Ruling

6/18/2018: Notice of Ruling

Minute Order

6/29/2018: Minute Order

Unknown

7/13/2018: Unknown

Answer

7/20/2018: Answer

Minute Order

8/28/2018: Minute Order

Notice

1/24/2019: Notice

7 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 01/24/2019
  • Notice (Notice of Case Reassignment Ruling); Filed by MEHRAN JAVAHERIAN (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/16/2018
  • Notice of Case Reassignment and Order for Plaintiff to Give Notice; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/28/2018
  • at 08:30 AM in Department P; Case Management Conference (Conference-Case Management; Trial Set) -

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/28/2018
  • at 08:30 am in Department WEP, Nancy L. Newman, Presiding; Conference-Case Management (COURTCALL OK) - Trial Set

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/28/2018
  • Minute order entered: 2018-08-28 00:00:00; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/20/2018
  • Answer to First Amended Complaint; Filed by Attorney for Defendant

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/20/2018
  • Answer to First Amended Complaint; Filed by FARID MORADI (Defendant); LEEORA B. MORADI (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/20/2018
  • Answer

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/13/2018
  • Notice; Filed by MEHRAN JAVAHERIAN (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/13/2018
  • Notice (OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE ); Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
19 More Docket Entries
  • 03/26/2018
  • Notice of Hearing on Demurrer (TO COMPLAINT ); Filed by Attorney for Defendant

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/26/2018
  • Notice of Hearing on Demurrer; Filed by FARID MORADI (Defendant); LEEORA B. MORADI (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/31/2018
  • Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by MEHRAN JAVAHERIAN (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/31/2018
  • Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by MEHRAN JAVAHERIAN (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/31/2018
  • Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/01/2017
  • Civil Case Cover Sheet

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/01/2017
  • Summons Filed; Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/01/2017
  • Complaint; Filed by MEHRAN JAVAHERIAN (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/01/2017
  • Summons; Filed by Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/01/2017
  • Complaint Filed

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: SC128455    Hearing Date: January 14, 2020    Dept: P

 

Mehran Javaherian v. Farid Moradi et al., Case No. SC128455

Defendants’ Motion for New Trial

Hearing Date: January 14, 2020

On October 16, 2019, this court granted summary judgment in favor of plaintiff as to the second cause of action for breach of contract, finding repayment of the LP investment exchange was not contingent upon plaintiff later providing the capital call funding. Defendants move for a new trial, arguing the court relied on arguments not raised in the moving papers and ignored material facts.

Courts do not ordinarily consider issues raised for the first time in the reply brief. American Indian Model Schools v. Oakland Unified School Dist. (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 258, 275.

Defendants argue “the only issues presented by Plaintiff in the MSJ for adjudication were whether Moradi’s capital call request was justified and whether his requests to the LPs’ members was necessary.” Defendants argue this court should not have granted summary judgment based on a finding that the capital call funding was not a condition precedent for payment of the LP investment, as this argument was raised for the first time in plaintiff’s reply.

Though defendants had an opportunity to respond to this issue during oral argument, they did not have an opportunity to brief it. The court notes that at the hearing, defendants did not request leave to brief this issue, though the court’s tentative ruling (published the day prior to oral argument) put defendants on notice of the court’s intended ruling. However, in the interest of justice, the court will exercise its discretion to allow defendants to brief this issue only.

Defendants also argue summary judgment was improper because evidence creates material issues as to excuse, enforceability of the agreement, damages, accord and satisfaction, laches and unclean hands. However, defendants failed to present any such evidence in opposition to the summary judgment motion, nor do defendants argue this evidence was newly discovered. The court did not abuse its discretion by granting summary judgment on those grounds.

Motion GRANTED as to the capital call payment issue only. Defendants may file a supplemental brief (max. ten pages) on the issue of whether the capital call funding was a condition precedent to defendants’ obligations under the guaranty agreement. Plaintiff may file a responsive brief (max. eight pages).