This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 07/10/2019 at 01:06:45 (UTC).

MOHAMMED SADEGHI VS. MICHAEL LAUGHNAN

Case Summary

On 01/31/2018 MOHAMMED SADEGHI filed a Contract - Other Contract lawsuit against MICHAEL LAUGHNAN. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Burbank Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is WILLIAM D. STEWART. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****7720

  • Filing Date:

    01/31/2018

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Contract - Other Contract

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

WILLIAM D. STEWART

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

SADEGHI MOHAMMED

Defendants

LAUGHNAN MICHAEL

DAUGHERTY RICHARD DOE 1

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorneys

PAULSON RANDALL J.

PAULSON RANDALL JONATHAN

 

Court Documents

Complaint

1/31/2018: Complaint

Notice of Case Management Conference

1/31/2018: Notice of Case Management Conference

Legacy Document

1/31/2018: Legacy Document

Order on Court Fee Waiver (Superior Court)

1/31/2018: Order on Court Fee Waiver (Superior Court)

Civil Case Cover Sheet

1/31/2018: Civil Case Cover Sheet

Notice of Case Management Conference

2/14/2018: Notice of Case Management Conference

Legacy Document

3/1/2018: Legacy Document

Minute Order

4/17/2018: Minute Order

Legacy Document

6/11/2018: Legacy Document

Minute Order

6/22/2018: Minute Order

Amendment to Complaint (Fictitious/Incorrect Name)

9/4/2018: Amendment to Complaint (Fictitious/Incorrect Name)

Minute Order

9/11/2018: Minute Order

Application

10/29/2018: Application

Minute Order

11/9/2018: Minute Order

Minute Order

1/31/2019: Minute Order

Application for Publication

3/6/2019: Application for Publication

Application for Publication

3/6/2019: Application for Publication

Minute Order

3/7/2019: Minute Order

12 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 06/20/2019
  • Request for Entry of Default / Judgment; Filed by Mohammed Sadeghi (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/13/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department A, William D. Stewart, Presiding; CRASH Settlement Conference (and Order to Show Cause re Trial Court Delay Reduction Act including service by Publication) - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/13/2019
  • Minute Order ( (CRASH Settlement Conference and Order to Show Cause re Trial ...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/03/2019
  • Proof of Publication; Filed by Mohammed Sadeghi (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/17/2019
  • Proof of Publication; Filed by Mohammed Sadeghi (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/10/2019
  • Order for Publication; Filed by Randall Jonathan Paulson (Attorney)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/02/2019
  • Order for Publication; Filed by Mohammed Sadeghi (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/07/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department A, William D. Stewart, Presiding; Case Management Conference - Held - Continued

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/07/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department A, William D. Stewart, Presiding; Order to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service - Held - Continued

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/07/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Order to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service; Cas...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
15 More Docket Entries
  • 06/11/2018
  • Motion to Vacate; Filed by Mohammed Sadeghi (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/17/2018
  • at 08:30 AM in Department A; Order to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service (OSC-Failure to File Proof of Serv; Order of Dismissal) -

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/17/2018
  • Minute order entered: 2018-04-17 00:00:00; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/01/2018
  • Summons Issued; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/14/2018
  • Notice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/31/2018
  • Order on Court Fee Waiver (Superior Court); Filed by Mohammed Sadeghi (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/31/2018
  • Complaint; Filed by Mohammed Sadeghi (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/31/2018
  • Civil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by Mohammed Sadeghi (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/31/2018
  • Notice of Case Management Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/31/2018
  • OSC-Failure to File Proof of Serv; Filed by Court

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

b'

Case Number: EC067720 Hearing Date: December 3, 2021 Dept: A

Demurrer;

\r\n\r\n

Motion to Strike

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n
\r\n

Calendar:

\r\n
\r\n

09

\r\n
\r\n

\r\n
\r\n

\r\n
\r\n

Case No.:

\r\n
\r\n

EC067720

\r\n
\r\n

\r\n
\r\n

\r\n
\r\n

Hearing Date:

\r\n
\r\n

December 03, 2021

\r\n
\r\n

\r\n
\r\n

\r\n
\r\n

Action Filed:

\r\n
\r\n

January 31, 2018

\r\n
\r\n

\r\n
\r\n

\r\n
\r\n

Trial Date:

\r\n
\r\n

Not Set

\r\n
\r\n

\r\n
\r\n

\r\n
\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n
\r\n

MP:

\r\n
\r\n

Defendant Richard Daugherty

\r\n
\r\n

RP:

\r\n
\r\n

Plaintiff Mohammed Sadeghi (no opposition)

\r\n
\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

ALLEGATIONS:

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

The instant action arises from the alleged\r\nfailure of Defendants Michael Laughnan (“Laughnan”) and Richard Daugherty\r\n(originally sued as Doe 1, herein “Daugherty”) to properly effectuate service\r\nof process on behalf of Plaintiff Mohammed Sadeghi (“Plaintiff”) in a 2016\r\nunlawful detainer action.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Plaintiff filed his Complaint on January 31,\r\n2018, and the First Amended Complaint ("FAC") on July 15, 2021,\r\nalleging two causes of action sounding in (1) Breach of Contract, and (2)\r\nNegligence.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

PRESENTATION:

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

The Court received a demurrer and motion to\r\nstrike filed by Daugherty on August 30, 2021. No opposition or reply has been\r\nreceived as to either matter.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

RELIEF REQUESTED:

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Daugherty demurs to the Complaint in its\r\nentirety.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Daugherty moves to strike the following\r\nallegations and prayers:

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

1. \r\nPage 4, paragraph 24, lines 11-13

\r\n\r\n

2. \r\nPage 4, prayer 2, line 19

\r\n\r\n

3. \r\nPage 4, prayer 3, line 20

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

ANALYSIS:

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Pending\r\nDismissal – Plaintiff filed a\r\nPartial Request for Dismissal on August 31, 2021 seeking to dismiss the action\r\nas to Daugherty. As the instant demurrer and motion to strike are filed solely\r\nby Daugherty, the Court will take the matters off calendar as moot.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

---

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

RULING:

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

In the event the parties submit on this\r\ntentative ruling, or a party requests a signed order or the court in its\r\ndiscretion elects to sign a formal order, the following form will be either\r\nelectronically signed or signed in hard copy and entered into the court’s\r\nrecords.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

ORDER

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Defendant\r\nRichard Daugherty’s Demurrer and Motion to Strike came on regularly for hearing\r\non December 03, 2021, with appearances/submissions as noted in the minute order\r\nfor said hearing, and the court, being fully advised in the premises, did then\r\nand there rule as follows:

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

THE DEMURRER IS TAKEN OFF-CALENDAR AS MOOT.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

THE MOTION TO STRIKE IS TAKEN OFF-CALENDAR AS\r\nMOOT.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

DATE: \r\n_______________ \r\n_______________________________

\r\n\r\n

\r\nJUDGE

'

Case Number: EC067720    Hearing Date: May 21, 2021    Dept: A

Demurrer;

Motion to Strike

Calendar:

09

Case No.:

EC067720

Hearing Date:

May 21, 2021

Action Filed:

January 31, 2018

Trial Date:

Not Set

MP:

Defendant Richard Daugherty

RP:

Plaintiff Mohammed Sadeghi (no opposition)

ALLEGATIONS:

The instant action arises from the alleged failure of Defendants Michael Laughnan (“Laughnan”) and Richard Daugherty (originally sued as Doe 1, herein “Daugherty”) to properly effectuate service of process on behalf of Plaintiff Mohammed Sadeghi (“Plaintiff”) in a 2016 unlawful detainer action.

Plaintiff filed his Complaint on January 31, 2018, alleging two causes of action sounding in (1) Breach of Contract, and (2) Negligence.

PRESENTATION:

The Court received a demurrer and motion to strike filed by Daughterty on February 08, 2021. No opposition or reply has been received as to either matter.

RELIEF REQUESTED:

Daugherty demurs to the Complaint in its entirety.

Daugherty moves to strike the following allegations and prayers:

1. Page 4, paragraph 24, lines 11-13

2. Page 4, prayer 2, line 19

3. Page 4, prayer 3, line 20

DISCUSSION:

 

Proof of Service – Demurrer – The proof of service attached to the demurrer is incomplete in that it does not mark which form of service was effectuated or the date on which the documents were served. Further, Plaintiff did not file an opposition..

 

Meet and Confer – Demurrer – CCP § 430.41(a) requires that the demurring party meet and confer with the party who filed the pleading that is subject to the demurrer at least 5 days before the date the responsive pleading is due, by telephone or in person, for the purpose of determining if the parties can resolve the objections to be raised in the demurrer. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.41.) The demurring party must file and serve a declaration detailing their meet and confer efforts. Failure to meet and confer is not grounds to overrule or sustain a demurrer, or grant or deny a motion to strike. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 430.41, subd. (a)(4); 435.5 subd. (a)(4).)

Daugherty does not provide evidence that meet and confer requirements were satisfied, or even mention such requirements in the moving papers.

---

Meet and Confer – Motion to Strike – CCP § 435.5 provides that before filing a motion to strike, the moving party shall meet and confer with the party who filed the pleading that is subject to the motion to strike for the purpose of determining if an agreement can be reached that resolves the objections to be raised in the motion to strike.

Daugherty again does not provide evidence that meet and confer requirements were satisfied.

---

RULING:

In the event the parties submit on this tentative ruling, or a party requests a signed order or the court in its discretion elects to sign a formal order, the following form will be either electronically signed or signed in hard copy and entered into the court’s records.

ORDER

Defendant Richard Daugherty’s Demurrer and Motion to Strike came on regularly for hearing on May 21, 2021, with appearances/submissions as noted in the minute order for said hearing, and the court, being fully advised in the premises, did then and there rule as follows:

THE DEMURRER IS TAKEN OFF CALENDAR.

THE MOTION TO STRIKE TAKEN OFF CALENDAR.

DATE: _______________ _______________________________

JUDGE

Case Number: EC067720    Hearing Date: November 01, 2019    Dept: A

Sadeghi v Laughnan

Motion to Set Aside; Motion to Quash Summons

Calendar:

11

Case No.:

EC067720

Hearing Date:

November 01, 2019

Action Filed:

January 31, 2018

Trial Date:

Not Set

MP:

Defendant Richard Daugherty

RP:

N/A

ALLEGATIONS:

The instant action arises from the alleged failure of Defendants Michael Laughnan (“Laughnan”) and Richard Daugherty (originally sued as Doe 1, herein “Daugherty”) to properly effectuate service of process on behalf of Plaintiff Mohammed Sadeghi (“Plaintiff”) in a 2016 unlawful detainer action.

Plaintiff filed his Complaint on January 31, 2018, alleging two causes of action sounding in (1) Breach of Contract, and (2) Negligence.

PRESENTATION:

Daugherty was added to the Complaint through a Doe amendment on September 04, 2018. Thereafter, on March 06, 2019, Plaintiff filed an application to serve Daugherty by means of publication. The Court denied the application for publication, but Plaintiff filed proof of service by publication on June 03, 2019, in The Weekly Valley Vantage and Calabasas Enterprise, dated March 01, 2019. Entry of Default was filed on June 20, 2019, but Default Judgement was rejected by the clerk on September 30, 2019, based, in part, on the designation of 6211 Van Nuys Blvd., Suite 210, Van Nuys, CA 91401 as the address for service of the Default application to Defendants.

Daugherty filed the instant motion to set aside entry of default and motion to quash service of summons on October 02, 2019. No opposition to either motion has been received by the Court.

RELIEF REQUESTED:

Defendant moves to set aside default and to quash service.

DISCUSSION:

Standard of Review – Quash Service of SummonsWithout valid service of a summons, the court never acquires jurisdiction over a defendant. Hence, the statutory ground for the motion to quash is that the court lacks jurisdiction over the defendant. Code of Civ. Proc. §418.10(a)(1). Code of Civ. Proc. §418.10 authorizes a motion to quash service of summons within the time allowed for filing a response to the complaint. If the motion is timely made, “no act” by the party making such motion, “including filing an answer, demurrer or motion to strike,” shall be deemed a general appearance. Code of Civ. Proc. §418.10(e)(1).

The Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s application for service by publication, and Request for Entry of Default which was rejected by the Court, and approved by the clerk, respectively. As noted above, the Court never obtains jurisdiction over a defendant absent valid service, and no service never occurred here, the Court will grant the motion to quash, and, as the Entry of Default was entered without valid service, the Court will vacate the entry of default on its own motion.

---

RULING: GRANT MOTION TO QUASH; VACATE AND SET ASIDE ENTRY OF DEFAULT ON THE COURT’S OWN MOTION.

In the event the parties submit on this tentative ruling, or a party requests a signed order or the court in its discretion elects to sign a formal order, the following form will be either electronically signed or signed in hard copy and entered into the court’s records.

ORDER

Defendant Richard Daugherty’s Motion to Set Aside Default and Motion to Quash Service of Summons came on regularly for hearing on November 01, 2019, with appearances/submissions as noted in the minute order for said hearing, and the court, being fully advised in the premises, did then and there rule as follows:

THE MOTION TO QUASH IS GRANTED; AND

ENTRY OF DEFAULT IS VACATED ON THE COURT’S OWN MOTION.

DATE: _______________ _______________________________

JUDGE

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases represented by Lawyer PAULSON RANDALL