Search

Attributes

This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 04/09/2020 at 16:55:02 (UTC).

MIGUEL BARRON VS DIANA FARAJOLLAHZADEH LLC ET AL

Case Summary

On 09/29/2017 MIGUEL BARRON filed a Contract - Other Contract lawsuit against DIANA FARAJOLLAHZADEH LLC. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is MICHELLE WILLIAMS COURT. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****8088

  • Filing Date:

    09/29/2017

  • 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

MICHELLE WILLIAMS COURT

 

Party Details

Plaintiff, Petitioner and Cross Defendant

BARRON MIGUEL

Defendants, Respondents and Cross Plaintiffs

DIANA FARAJOLLAHZADEH LLC

DOES 1 THROUGH 200

SHADPOUR REBEKA

PENTAGON 7 LLC

NASAB SHOKOH MOUSAVI

SHADPOUR REBEKA DBA WEALTH ROAD REALTY

WEALTH ROAD INC. DBA WEALTH ROAD INC.

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

GOODKIN & LYNCH LLP

GOODKIN DANIEL LOUIS

Defendant and Respondent Attorneys

GAUMER CHRISTIE ESQ.

GAUMER CHRISTIE LEE ESQ.

Defendant and Cross Plaintiff Attorney

GAUMER CHRISTIE LEE ESQ.

 

Court Documents

DEFENDANTS' ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

12/8/2017: DEFENDANTS' ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

Trial Brief

3/9/2020: Trial Brief

Statement of the Case

1/3/2020: Statement of the Case

Exhibit List

1/31/2020: Exhibit List

Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

1/31/2020: Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

Minute Order -

2/1/2018: Minute Order -

AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT -

5/23/2018: AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT -

Minute Order -

9/25/2018: Minute Order -

Memorandum of Points & Authorities - MEMORANDUM OF POINTS & AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S DEMURRER

10/4/2018: Memorandum of Points & Authorities - MEMORANDUM OF POINTS & AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S DEMURRER

Minute Order - Minute Order (Legacy Event Type : Order to Show Cause Re Sanctions; Post-Me...)

10/23/2018: Minute Order - Minute Order (Legacy Event Type : Order to Show Cause Re Sanctions; Post-Me...)

Proof of Service by Mail

11/20/2018: Proof of Service by Mail

Declaration - Declaration of Miguel Barron and Exhibits A-O Vol. 2 of 2

11/20/2018: Declaration - Declaration of Miguel Barron and Exhibits A-O Vol. 2 of 2

Declaration - Declaration re Status and Reinstatement to Active Status of Doe Defendant Wealth road, INC. re Demurrer by Wealth Road, INC

11/26/2018: Declaration - Declaration re Status and Reinstatement to Active Status of Doe Defendant Wealth road, INC. re Demurrer by Wealth Road, INC

CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT -

1/25/2018: CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT -

REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT -

12/8/2017: REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT -

REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT -

12/5/2017: REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT -

NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

11/2/2017: NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

SUMMONS -

9/29/2017: SUMMONS -

83 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 05/11/2020
  • Hearing05/11/2020 at 08:30 AM in Department 74 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Non-Appearance Case Review

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/13/2020
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 74; Non-Jury Trial - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/13/2020
  • Docketat 2:44 PM in Department 74; Nunc Pro Tunc Order

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/13/2020
  • DocketOrder Appointing Court Approved Reporter as Official Reporter Pro Tempore; Filed by Miguel Barron (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/13/2020
  • DocketStipulation, Receipt and Order re: Release of Civil Exhibits; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/13/2020
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Nunc Pro Tunc Order)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/13/2020
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Non-Jury Trial)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/12/2020
  • Docketat 10:00 AM in Department 74; Non-Jury Trial - Held - Continued

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/12/2020
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Non-Jury Trial)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/11/2020
  • Docketat 10:00 AM in Department 74; Non-Jury Trial - Held - Continued

    Read MoreRead Less
151 More Docket Entries
  • 11/02/2017
  • DocketProof-Service/Summons; Filed by Miguel Barron (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/02/2017
  • DocketPROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/02/2017
  • DocketNOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/24/2017
  • DocketORDER TO SHOW CAUSE HEARING

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/24/2017
  • DocketNOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/24/2017
  • DocketOSC-Failure to File Proof of Serv; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/24/2017
  • DocketNotice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/29/2017
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Miguel Barron (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/29/2017
  • DocketSUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/29/2017
  • DocketCOMPLAINT FOR: 1. BREACH OF CONTRACT; ETC

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC678088    Hearing Date: February 26, 2021    Dept: 74

BC678088 MIGUEL BARRON VS DIANA FARAJOLLAHZADEH LLC

Plaintiff’s Motion for Prejudgment Interest

TENTATIVE RULING: The motion is GRANTED and the court awards plaintiff prejudgment interest in the amount of $4,278.97.

Civ. Code, § 3287(a) allows for an individual entitled to recover ascertainable damages, which right is vested in such person on a particular day, to recover interest thereon. Such interest is allowable unless the debtor is prevented from doing such by law or by act of the creditor. (Id.) Moreover, the interest allowable by Civ. Code, § 3287(a) “is applicable to recovery of damages and interest from any debtor, including the state or any county, city, city and county, municipal corporation, public district, public agency, or any political subdivision of the state.”

The Court found defendants breached the implied warranty of habitability owed to Plaintiff and awarded damages to Plaintiff in the amount of $141,865.10 (the “Damages”). (Motion, p.2:11-12.) Plaintiff notes that the amount awarded was ascertainable as the rent and security deposit totaled $129,000, the broker’s fee totaled $7,700, the JLM mold report totaled $900, the Titus inspection report totaled $675, the Green Home Solutions report totaled $1,205.10, the Home Radon Inspection totaled $350 and the JLM asbestos, lead and radon inspection totaled $1,750.

Defendants argue plaintiff is not entitled to prejudgment interest because the amount of damages were based upon judicial determination that considered conflicting evidence. (Opp., p.3:3-7.) Defendants specifically argue “Subdivision (a) of section 3287 does not authorize prejudgment interest as a matter of law where the amount of damage, as opposed to only the determination of liability, depends upon a judicial determination based upon conflicting evidence and is not ascertainable from truthful data supplied by the claimant to his debtor.” (Esgro Central, Inc. v. General Ins. Co. (1971) 20 Cal.App.3d 1054, 1062.) But here, damages were ascertainable through evidence supplied by plaintiff. Furthermore, the circumstances of this case do not meet both prongs set forth in Esgro Central, Inc. as the damages were ascertainable.

“The court in Cassinos also said: ‘The test for recovery of prejudgment interest under [Civil Code] section 3287, subdivision (a) is whether defendant actually know[s] the amount owed or from reasonably available information could the defendant have computed that amount.’ Cassinos v. Union Oil Co., supra, 14 Cal.App.4th at p. 1789, 18 Cal.Rptr.2d 574… Thus, where the amount of damages cannot be resolved except by verdict or judgment, prejudgment interest is not appropriate. (Stein v. Southern Cal. Edison Co., supra, at p. 573, 8 Cal.Rptr.2d 907.)” (Wisper Corp. v. California Commerce Bank (1996) 49 Cal.App.4th 948, 960.) Here, Defendants clearly could ascertain the amount owed.

Accordingly, prejudgment interest is awarded to plaintiff. All other points raised by the parties related to Civ. Code, § 3287(b) is moot as Civ. Code, § 3287(a) resolves the issues raied by this motion.

Interest Calculations

Prejudgment interest is allowable unless the debtor is prevented from doing such by law or by act of the creditor. (Civ. Code, § 3287(a).) In this case, defendants attempted to refund plaintiff’s money with reasonable interest. (Gaumer Decl., Exhibit, 14-4.) As such, plaintiff is precluded from any prejudgment interest related to the amount of rent and security deposit sum owed. Therefore, the amount available to recover prejudgment interest is $12,865.10, which is the damages less the rent and security deposit sum.

In addition, prejudgment interest accrues at a rate of 10%. (Pacific-Southern Mortgage Trust Co. v. Insurance Co. of North America (985) 166 Cal.App.3d 703, 716; Deocampo v. Ahn (2002) 101 Cal.App.4th 758, 775.) At an interest rate of 10% per annum for a total of 1214 days on the sum of $12,865.10, the prejudgment interest amount is $4,278.97. (12,865.10 x .10 = 1,286.5/365 = 3.52 x 1214 = 4,278.97.)

Accordingly, the court awards plaintiff prejudgment interest in the amount of $4,278.97.

Case Number: BC678088    Hearing Date: January 28, 2021    Dept: 74

BC678088 MIGUEL BARRON VS DIANA FARAJOLLAHZADEH LLC

Defendants’ Motion for New Trial

TENTATIVE RULING: The motion is DENIED.

A court has the power to vacate a verdict in whole or in part and grant a new trial if the court determines any of the following: (i) “irregularity in the proceedings of the court…or any order of the court or abuse of discretion by which either party was prevented from having a fair trial” (ii) excessive damages, (iii) error in law and (iv) deficient evidence to support the verdict. (CCP §657.) When a verdict is rendered by the court and without a jury, the court has discretion to “add to the statement of decision, modify the judgment, in whole or in part, vacate the judgment, in whole or in part, and grant a new trial on all or part of the issues, or, in lieu of granting a new trial, may vacate and set aside the statement of decision and judgment and reopen the case for further proceedings and the introduction of additional evidence with the same effect as if the case had been reopened after the submission thereof and before a decision had been filed or judgment rendered.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 662.)

When the court grants a new trial CCP §657, it must state the ground(s) for granting the new trial and its reasons for granting the new trial upon each ground stated. (Estes v. Eaton Corporation (2020) 51 Cal.App.5th 636, 642.) “‘[S]trict compliance’ with section 657 is required. (Oakland Raiders v. National Football League (2007) 41 Cal.4th 624, 634, 61 Cal.Rptr.3d 634, 161 P.3d 151 (Oakland Raiders).) The court’s statement of reasons ‘should be specific enough to facilitate appellate review and avoid any need for the appellate court to rely on inference or speculation.’ (Ibid.)” (Id.)

Furthermore, the trial judge must specify the portions of the record which convinces the judge that the court or jury unequivocally should have reached a different decision. (Id.)

Irregularity in the Proceedings

In this case, Defendants argue an imbalance of time led to prejudicial treatment of Defendants. Defendants specifically cite the following to support their argument: the rumors of COVID forced the Court to truncate the trial, which made Defendants unable to properly present evidence in support of their position; Rebeka Shadpour did not have the opportunity to explain the emails, which would have illustrated the landlord’s attempt to cure the mold issue; and the few minutes of direct testimony related to the cross-complaint of damages prejudiced Defendants. (Motion, p.10:23-11:22.)

Plaintiff argues the timing of the trial was not irregular and did not prejudice Defendants. The parties’ counsel agreed to an acceleration of the trial, which led to a stipulation. (Opp., p. 3:3-19.) Plaintiff further argues that Defendants’ counsel could have requested more time if it needed such. (Opp., p.4:1-2; p.4:22-28.) Moreover, the Court noted “Defendants’ counsel] spent a lot of time on things that have nothing to do with what [the Court] [has] to decide.” (Opp. p.4:3-20.) Further, the Court noted that…“we will make sure that you have time to finish the case.” (Opp.6:12-23.) As such, Defendants’ claims that COVID shortened the case and Defendants’ main witness was not afforded sufficient time for a proper examination is not persuasive. Furthermore, the facts set forth by Defendants do not establish an irregularity or lack of fair trial. While the Court considered the time constraints of its own calendar, that did not lead to an unfair trial for Defendants or create an irregular trial as the Court offered solutions to any timing constraints on more than one occasion.

Tort Findings

Defendants argue the Court determined in its Statement of Decision that Defendants were liable to Plaintiff for the fraud and breach of warranty of habitability, while the Court rendered judgment as to the entire FAC. (Motion, p. 11:24-26.) Defendants argue the judgment should correspond to the Statement of Decision in addition to arguing there is no legal support for a finding of liability based on fraud and breach of implied warranty of habitability as it against the evidence presented at trial and Defendants possessed no duty to disclose the issues related to mold at the Property. (Motion, p.12:1-23.) Plaintiff argues the evidence at trial supports a finding mold existed at the Property prior to Plaintiff leasing the Property, which put Defendants on notice that mold was present at the property. As such, Defendants reliance on Health & Saf. Code, § 26147 is immaterial as Defendant knew or had reasonable cause to believe that the Property contained mold whether hidden, visible or invisible.

Defendants further argue that the requisite intent is lacking for each of Plaintiff’s tort claims as Defendants attempted on several occasions to cure the mold issues. (Motion, p.13:6-25.) Plaintiff argues there is sufficient evidence in support of each tort finding as the facts presented at trial establish that the mold predated Plaintiff’s tenancy at the Property. (Opp., p.13: 16-26.) Plaintiff further argues that Defendant Shadpour’s own testimony and Defendants lack of urgency and failure to provide forthcoming information related to the individual remediating the issue establishes that Defendants are liable. (Opp., 14:2-22.) Finally, Plaintiff argues Defendant Shadpour’s insistence that mold was not present at the Property and refusal to cure despite the overwhelming evidence established a breach of the warranty of habitability. (Opp., 14:23-15:5.) The Court agrees.

Despite this, Defendants argue the Mold Disclosure Form bars Plaintiff’s claims as it is immaterial that landlord did not check the prior treatment box. (Reply, p.4:5-9.) Defendants further argue that Plaintiff released any claims related to holding Defendants liable for any damages and/or harm related to mold and Plaintiff’s inspection of the Property, bars each tort claim. (Reply, p.5:10-7:1.) These arguments fail as Defendants cannot assert arguments for the first time in its reply papers, as such is solely permitted in exceptional cases. (Jay v. Mahaffey (2013) 218 Cal.App.4th 1522, 1537.)

Excessive Damages

Defendants argue the Court awarded excessive damages as it includes all amounts paid on the lease despite Plaintiff’s partial possession of the Property. (Motion, p.14:10-14.) Contrarily, Plaintiff argues the Court’s judgment reflects the exact damages claimed by Plaintiff due to the losses that occurred by leasing the Property. Defendants failed to submit admissible evidence to support their claims that the damages awarded are excessive.

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where DIANA FARAJOLLAHZADEH LLC is a litigant