This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 08/15/2019 at 09:20:09 (UTC).

NOUSHIN LAALY VS DAF CONSTRUCTION, INC. ET AL.,

Case Summary

On 01/09/2017 NOUSHIN LAALY filed a Contract - Professional Negligence lawsuit against DAF CONSTRUCTION, 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 LISA HART COLE, NANCY L. NEWMAN and BOBBI TILLMON. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.
Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****6905

  • Filing Date:

    01/09/2017

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Contract - Professional Negligence

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

LISA HART COLE

NANCY L. NEWMAN

BOBBI TILLMON

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs

LAALY KOUROSH

LAALY NOUSHIN

Defendants

FARKHONDEH HAMID

DAF CONSTRUCTION INC.

DADYAN MARY

RAZ COOL AIR CONDITIONING INC.

ZADOORIAN RAZMIK

WEN-CHUNG MINN

HAMID FARKHONDEH

MARY DADYAN

Other

BELTRAN SMITH & MACKENZIE

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorneys

BELTRAN SMITH & MACKENZIE

RAFIEI STELLA

LAALY NOUSHIN

MACKENZIE JOSEPH DORWOOD

Defendant Attorneys

HASSANPOUR M. MICHAEL

HASSANPOUR M MICHAEL

HASSANPOUR M ICHAEL

FASEN & ASSOCIATES

SCHULLER JEFFREY SIMON

LAW OFFICES OF SCHULLER & SCHULLER

PERTEL JOSEPH ANDREW

 

Court Documents

Jury Instructions

7/8/2019: Jury Instructions

Notice

7/8/2019: Notice

Notice

7/8/2019: Notice

Request for Judicial Notice

7/8/2019: Request for Judicial Notice

Notice of Lodging

7/12/2019: Notice of Lodging

Exhibit List

7/12/2019: Exhibit List

Trial Brief

7/12/2019: Trial Brief

Declaration

7/12/2019: Declaration

Witness List

7/12/2019: Witness List

Minute Order

7/19/2019: Minute Order

Trial Brief

7/19/2019: Trial Brief

Minute Order

7/22/2019: Minute Order

Order Appointing Court Approved Reporter as Official Reporter Pro Tempore

7/22/2019: Order Appointing Court Approved Reporter as Official Reporter Pro Tempore

Minute Order

7/23/2019: Minute Order

Request for Dismissal

7/24/2019: Request for Dismissal

Minute Order

7/24/2019: Minute Order

Summons

1/9/2017: Summons

Complaint

1/9/2017: Complaint

159 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 08/26/2019
  • Hearingat 09:30 AM in Department O at 1725 Main Street, Santa Monica, CA 90401; Non-Jury Trial

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 07/24/2019
  • Docketat 1:30 PM in Department O; Non-Jury Trial - Held - Continued

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 07/24/2019
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Non-Jury Trial)); Filed by Clerk

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 07/24/2019
  • DocketRequest for Dismissal; Filed by Kourosh Laaly (Plaintiff); Noushin Laaly (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 07/24/2019
  • DocketRequest for Dismissal; Filed by Kourosh Laaly (Plaintiff); Noushin Laaly (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 07/23/2019
  • Docketat 10:00 AM in Department O; Non-Jury Trial - Held - Continued

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 07/23/2019
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Non-Jury Trial)); Filed by Clerk

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 07/22/2019
  • Docketat 10:00 AM in Department O; Non-Jury Trial - Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by Court

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 07/22/2019
  • Docketat 1:30 PM in Department O; Non-Jury Trial - Held - Continued

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 07/22/2019
  • Docketat 1:30 PM in Department O; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Clerical Error

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
343 More Docket Entries
  • 02/03/2017
  • DocketProof-Service/Summons; Filed by Kourosh Laaly (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 02/03/2017
  • DocketProof-Service/Summons; Filed by Kourosh Laaly (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 02/03/2017
  • DocketProof-Service/Summons; Filed by Plaintiff & Plaintiff In Pro Per

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 02/03/2017
  • DocketProof-Service/Summons; Filed by Kourosh Laaly (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 02/03/2017
  • DocketProof-Service/Summons; Filed by Kourosh Laaly (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 01/09/2017
  • DocketSummons; Filed by Plaintiff

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 01/09/2017
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Kourosh Laaly (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 01/09/2017
  • DocketComplaint Filed

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 01/09/2017
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by Kourosh Laaly (Plaintiff); Noushin Laaly (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 01/09/2017
  • DocketSummons Filed; Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: ****6905    Hearing Date: May 27, 2021    Dept: O

Case Name: Laaly, et al. v. DAF Construction, Inc., et al.

Case No.: ****6905

Hearing: 5-27-21

Calendar #: 6

Notice: OK

Complaint Filed: 1/9/17

Motion C/O: N/A

Discovery C/O: N/A

Trial Date: 7-22-19

______________________________________________________________________________

SUBJECT: MOTION FOR ORDER TO CHARGE MEMBERS’ INEREST IN DELANO SARA, LLC

MOVING PARTY: Judgment Creditors Noushin Laaly and Kourosh Laaly

RESP. PARTY: Dismissed Defendant Mansoureh Mary Dadyan

JOINED BY: Judgment Debtor Hamid Farkhondeh

TENTATIVE RULING

Judgment Creditors Noushin Laaly and Kourosh Laaly’s Motion for Order to Charge Members’ Interest in Delano Sara, LLC is DENIED. Judgment Creditors Noushin Laaly and Kourosh Laaly’s belated request to continue the hearing on this motion again is DENIED.

I. Applicable Law

According to CCP ;708.310, “If a money judgment is rendered against a partner or member but not against the partnership or limited liability company, the judgment debtor’s interest in the partnership or limited liability company may be applied toward the satisfaction of the judgment by an order charging the judgment debtor’s interest pursuant to Section 15673, 16504 and 17302 of the Corporations Code.”

Corporations Code ;17302(a) provides “[o]n application by a judgment creditor of a member or of a member's assignee, a court having jurisdiction may charge the assignable membership interest of the judgment debtor to satisfy the judgment. The court may appoint a receiver of the share of the distributions due or to become due to the judgment debtor in respect to the limited liability company and may make all other orders, directions, accounts, and inquiries that the judgment debtor might have made or that the circumstances of the case may require.”

The court may order foreclosure on a debtor's LLC interest at any time. The purchaser at a foreclosure sale has the rights of an assignee. See Corp. C. ;17302(b).

II. Judgment Creditors cannot seek a charging order as to Narman 1334, Inc.

Narman 1334, Inc. is a corporation, not an LLC, as indicated by “Inc.” In addition, Judgment Creditors assert that Narman 1334, Inc. is a corporation based on Dadyan’s testimony at a November 2, 2018 Bankruptcy Court hearing. See Motion, Dec. of S. Rafiei, ¶6. A charging order is intended to reach the membership or partnership interest of a judgment debtor in an LLC or partnership. Corp. C. ;17302(a). It cannot be used to reach shares in a corporation. The procedure to levy corporate securities is set forth in CCP ;700.130.

III. Judgment creditors fail to establish the existence of Narman 1334, LLC or Narman 1334, Partnership

Judgment creditors admit they could not locate any record of Narman 1334, LLC. See Dec. of S. Rafiei, ¶5. There is no evidence presented as to Narman 1334, Partnership.

IV. Judgment creditor fails to establish that Judgment Creditor or Dadyan hold any direct membership interest in Delano Sarah, LLC

Judgment creditors rely on the hearing transcript of the 11-2-18 Bankruptcy Court hearing to establish Dadyan’s interest in Delano Sarah, LLC. See Dec. of S. Rafiei, ¶6; Judgment Creditor’s RJN, Ex. 3. However, Dadyan’s testimony is unclear. Dadyan testified that she invested in the Delano Property for a 12% interest, but it was unclear whether she had a direct membership interest in Delano Sarah, LLC. According to counsel Rafiei, Dadyan testified that she invested in Delano Sara, LLC through Narman 1334. See Dec. of S. Rafiei, ¶6. Rafiei’s testimony does not establish that Dadyan or Judgment Debtor hold membership interests in Delano Sarah, LLC.

In addition, Delano Sara, LLC’s Articles of Organization and Statement of Information do not indicate that Dadyan or Judgment Creditor are among its members. However, the Statement of Information indicates that Narman 1334, Inc. is a member. At best, Judgment Creditors establish that Dadyan held shares in Narman 1334, Inc., which in turn held a membership interest in Delano Sarah, LLC.

Dadyan’s declaration confirms Rafiei’s testimony. Dadyan testifies that she purchased shares in Narman 1334, Inc., a Delaware corporation, that held a 40% membership interest in Delano Sarah, LLC. See Dec. of M. Dadyan, ¶2.

As such, Judgment Creditors fail to establish that either Dadyan or Judgment Creditor hold membership interests in Delano Sarah, LLC. There is therefore no basis for a charging order. The motion is DENIED.



Case Number: ****6905    Hearing Date: October 29, 2020    Dept: O

Case Name:    Laaly, et al. v. DAF Construction, Inc., et al.

Case No.: ****6905

Hearing: 10-27-20

Calendar #:    3

Notice: OK

Complaint Filed: 1/9/17

Motion C/O: N/A

Discovery C/O: N/A

Trial Date: 7-22-19

______________________________________________________________________________

SUBJECT: MOTION FOR AN ORDER INSTRUCTING JUDGMENT DEBTOR, ATTORNEY MAJEED MICHAEL HASSANPOUR, TO ASSIGN HIS RIGHT TO PAYMENTS DUE OR BECOMING DUE, INCLUDING ALL WAGES, COMMISSIONS, ROYALTIES, BONUSES AND TIPS, AND FOR ORDER RESTRAINING JUDGMENT DEBTOR, PER CCP ;;708.510 AND 708.520  

MOVING PARTY:  Plaintiffs Noushin Laaly and Kourosh Laaly

RESP. PARTY: None as of 10-28-20 (Notice of non-opposition filed on 10-22-20)

TENTATIVE RULING

 Plaintiff’s Motion for an Order Instructing Judgment Debtor, Attorney Majeed Michael Hassanpour, to Assign His Right to Payments Due or Becoming Due, including All Wages, Commissions, Royalties, Bonuses and Tips, and for Order Restraining Judgment debtor, per CCP ;;708.510 and 708.520 is GRANTED.  Plaintiff is to submit the proposed order in compliance with CRC Rule 3.1312.

Plaintiff’s RJN is GRANTED. 

Plaintiff seeks an assignment order in connection with the discovery sanctions imposed against Counsel Hassanpour on February 7, 2018 and February 16, 2018.  Plaintiff now holds a judgment against Hassanpour in the principal amount of $7,010, plus interest of $1,556.76. 

Plaintiff submits evidence that Hassenpour is due payments from Coldwell Banker in connection with multiple real estate sales.  See Motion, Dec. of S. Rafiei, ¶¶8-9.  Plaintiff also submits evidence that Hassanpour’s business partner in his real estate dealings through Coldwell Banker is his wife, Mitra Sisatar.  Id. at ¶10.  Plaintiff submits evidence that Hassenpour has an interest in Ashcon Enterprises, Inc., a suspended corporation.  Id. at ¶11. 

Based on Plaintiff’s evidence, Plaintiff is entitled to an assignment order as to any payments due Hassenpour from Coldwell Banker and Ashcon Enterprises, Inc.  However, CCP ;;708.510 and 708.520 does not entitle Plaintiff to an order transferring Hassanpour’s interest in Ashcon Enterprises, Inc., only any payments due from Ashcone Enterprises, Inc. to Hassanpour.

Plaintiff also asks that the Court order Hassanpour’s wife and business partner, Mitra Sisatar, assign all wages, commission, royalties and bonuses due to her from Coldwell Banker.  Per Family Code ;910(a), Sistra’s income and property acquired during marriage qualifies as community property liable for community debts.  There was no opposition from Sistra challenging Plaintiff’s characterization of payments from Coldwell Banker as community property. 

Plaintiff asks for a restraining order, barring and restraining Hassanpour and Sistra and any of their agents from assigning, disposing or spending those commissions, wages, tips, royalties and bonuses earned as a real estate broker.  Plaintiff establishes such an order is necessary given the number of outstanding judgments against Hassanpour and his failure to pay the sanctions.  See Motion, Dec. of S. Rafiei, ¶¶5, 8-9, 11.

Neither Sisatar or Hassanpour filed an opposition. 



related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases represented by Lawyer MACKENZIE JOSEPH D.