This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 12/08/2019 at 16:23:20 (UTC).

SHAH KHAN VS MAHBUBUR RAHMAN; ET AL

Case Summary

On 04/25/2018 SHAH KHAN filed a Property - Other Property Fraud lawsuit against MAHBUBUR RAHMAN. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Torrance Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are STUART M. RICE and DEIRDRE HILL. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****2843

  • Filing Date:

    04/25/2018

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Property - Other Property Fraud

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Torrance Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

STUART M. RICE

DEIRDRE HILL

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs

KHAN SHAH AN INDIVIDUAL

KHAN SHAH

Defendants

RAHMAN MAHBUBUR AN INDIVIDUAL

DOES 1 TO 50 INCLUSIVE

ALL PERSONS UNKNOWN CLAIMING ANY LEGAL..

ALL PERSONS UNKNOWN CLAIMING ANY LEGAL OR EQUITABLE RIGHT TITLE ESTATE LIEN OR INTEREST IN THE PROPERTY ADVERSE TO PLAINTIFF'S TITLE OR ANY CLOUD ON PLAINTIFF'S TITLE TO THE PROPERTY

RAHMAN AN INDIVIDUAL MAHBUBUR

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorneys

MICHAEL L. SLOAN

SLOAN MICHAEL L.

Defendant Attorneys

LAW OFFICES OF JOHN DAVIES

KHANMOHAMED AZIM

PARK HO-EL

MCALPIN KAHLIL JEROME

 

Court Documents

Ex Parte Application - EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDER ADVANCING HEARING DATE ON MOTION TO REOPEN LIMITED DISCOVERY

12/5/2019: Ex Parte Application - EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDER ADVANCING HEARING DATE ON MOTION TO REOPEN LIMITED DISCOVERY

Ex Parte Application - EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDER ADVANCING HEARING DATE ON MOTION TO COMPEL ATTENDANCE AT DEPOSITION

12/5/2019: Ex Parte Application - EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDER ADVANCING HEARING DATE ON MOTION TO COMPEL ATTENDANCE AT DEPOSITION

Notice of Ruling

10/15/2019: Notice of Ruling

Opposition - OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS

9/13/2019: Opposition - OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS

Notice of Case Management Conference

4/25/2018: Notice of Case Management Conference

Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: PROOF-SERVICE/SUMMONS

5/4/2018: Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: PROOF-SERVICE/SUMMONS

Notice - NOTICE OF SPECIAL APPEARANCE

8/12/2019: Notice - NOTICE OF SPECIAL APPEARANCE

Objection - PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTION TO DEFENDANT'S OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

8/13/2019: Objection - PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTION TO DEFENDANT'S OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

Reply - REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT

8/14/2019: Reply - REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT

Notice of Motion - NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

6/28/2019: Notice of Motion - NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

Ex Parte Application - EX PARTE APPLICATION EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF MICHAEL L. SLOAN IN SUPPO

6/28/2019: Ex Parte Application - EX PARTE APPLICATION EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF MICHAEL L. SLOAN IN SUPPO

Substitution of Attorney

7/9/2019: Substitution of Attorney

Notice of Lis Pendens

5/24/2019: Notice of Lis Pendens

Substitution of Attorney

3/21/2019: Substitution of Attorney

Substitution of Attorney

5/1/2019: Substitution of Attorney

Notice of Change of Firm Name

1/8/2019: Notice of Change of Firm Name

Notice of Case Reassignment and Order for Plaintiff to Give Notice

12/27/2018: Notice of Case Reassignment and Order for Plaintiff to Give Notice

Case Management Statement -

10/10/2018: Case Management Statement -

33 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 01/22/2020
  • Hearing01/22/2020 at 08:30 AM in Department B at 825 Maple Ave., Torrance, CA 90503; Non-Jury Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/15/2020
  • Hearing01/15/2020 at 08:30 AM in Department B at 825 Maple Ave., Torrance, CA 90503; Final Status Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/03/2020
  • Hearing01/03/2020 at 08:30 AM in Department B at 825 Maple Ave., Torrance, CA 90503; Hearing on Motion for Order Reopening Limited Discovery

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/03/2020
  • Hearing01/03/2020 at 08:30 AM in Department B at 825 Maple Ave., Torrance, CA 90503; Hearing on Motion for Order Compelling Attendance and Testimony of Deponent Shouyebul Islam

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/06/2019
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department B; Hearing on Ex Parte Application ( for Order Advancing Hearing Date on Motion to Compel Attendance at Deposition) - Held - Motion Granted

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/06/2019
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department B; Hearing on Ex Parte Application ( for Order Advancing Hearing Date on Motion to Reopen Limited Discovery) - Held - Motion Granted

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/06/2019
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Hearing on Ex Parte Application for Order Advancing Hearing ...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/05/2019
  • DocketEx Parte Application ( for Order Advancing Hearing Date on Motion to Reopen Limited Discovery); Filed by SHAH KHAN (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/05/2019
  • DocketEx Parte Application ( for Order Advancing Hearing Date on Motion to Compel Attendance at Deposition); Filed by SHAH KHAN (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/20/2019
  • DocketNOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR ORDER COMPELLING ATTENDANCE AND TESTIMONY OF DEPONENT SHOUYEBUL ISLAM; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF IVIICHAEL SLOAN; Filed by SHAH KHAN (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
46 More Docket Entries
  • 09/10/2018
  • DocketProof of Service by Mail; Filed by SHAH KHAN (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/17/2018
  • DocketNotice of Case Reassignment and Order for Plaintiff to Give Notice; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/17/2018
  • DocketNotice of Case Reassignment and Order for Plaintiff to Give Notice; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/17/2018
  • DocketNotice of Case Reassignment and Order for Plaintiff to Give Notice

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/05/2018
  • DocketAnswer; Filed by Defendant

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/05/2018
  • DocketAnswer TO VERIFIED COMPLAINT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/04/2018
  • DocketProof-Service/Summons; Filed by SHAH KHAN (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/25/2018
  • DocketSummons; Filed by SHAH KHAN (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/25/2018
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by SHAH KHAN (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/25/2018
  • DocketNotice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: YC072843    Hearing Date: January 03, 2020    Dept: SWB

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Southwest District

Torrance Dept. B

SHAH KHAN,

Plaintiff,

Case No.:

YC072843

vs.

[Tentative] RULING

MAHBUBUR RAHMAN, et al.,

Defendant.

Hearing Date: January 3, 2020

Moving Parties: Plaintiff Shah Khan

Responding Party: None

Motion for Order Compelling Attendance and Testimony of Deponent Shouyebul Islam

The court considered the moving papers.

RULING

The motion is GRANTED. The court ORDERS that Shouyebul Islam appear for his deposition within the next 10 days, at 701 North Brand Boulevard, Suite 840, Glendale, CA 91203.

Deponent Shoulyebul Islam is ordered to pay $1,760 in monetary sanctions to plaintiff within 30 days.

BACKGROUND

On April 25, 2018, plaintiff Shah Khan filed a complaint against Mahbubur Rahman for (1) imposition of constructive trust (fraud and deceit), (2) imposition of resulting trust, and (3) quiet title.

Trial is set for January 22, 2020.

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff requests an order compelling the deposition of non-party witness Shouyebul Islam to attend and testify at his oral deposition.

CCP §1987.1(a) states, “[i]f a subpoena requires the attendance of a witness or the production of books, documents, or other things before a court, or at the trial of an issue therein, or at the taking of a deposition, the court, upon motion reasonably made by any person described in subdivision (b), or upon the court’s own motion after giving counsel notice and an opportunity to be heard, may make an order quashing the subpoena entirely, modifying it, or directing compliance with it upon those terms or conditions as the court shall declare, including protective orders. In addition, the court may make any other order as may be appropriate to protect the person from unreasonable or oppressive demands, including unreasonable violations of the right of privacy of the person.”

“[U]pon motion reasonably made by the party, judges may rule upon motions for quashing, modifying or compelling compliance with, subpoenas.” Lee v. Swansboro Country Property Owners Ass'n (2007) 151 Cal. App. 4th 575, 582-83. Either the nonparty witness who has been subpoenaed or any party to the action may challenge the deposition subpoena. Weil & Brown, Civ. Proc. Before Trial, ¶ 8:597.

Plaintiff served a deposition subpoena on deponent Islam on August 15, 2019 for a deposition on August 29, 2019. Plaintiff contends that deponent Islam sent an email to plaintiff’s counsel that he was scheduled for a medical procedure and offered September 10, 2019 as an available date. Plaintiff served an amended subpoena. Deponent Islam failed to appear. Plaintiff’s counsel attempted to contact him to discuss his failure to appear but could not reach him. Plaintiff served a deposition subpoena on September 12 for a deposition on September 25. He failed to appear and plaintiff’s counsel attempted to contact him to meet and confer on October 15 and 18.

The court finds that the motion is timely and that deponent Islam was properly served with subpoenas to appear for deposition and he failed to do so. The motion is therefore GRANTED.

Under CCP §2023.030(a), “[t]he court may impose a monetary sanction ordering that one engaging in the misuse of the discovery process, or any attorney advising that conduct, or both pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct. . . . If a monetary sanction is authorized by any provision of this title, the court shall impose that sanction unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” Under CCP § 2023.010, an example of the misuse of the discovery process is “(d) Failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery.”

Further, CCP §1987.2(a) provides, in relevant part, that, in making an order on a motion to order compliance with a deposition subpoena, “the court may in its discretion award the amount of the reasonable expenses incurred in making or opposing the motion, including reasonable attorney’s fees, if the court finds the motion was made or opposed in bad faith or without substantial justification . . . .”

Plaintiff requests $2,323.65 in monetary sanctions against deponent Islam. The court finds that $1,760 ($400/hr. x 2.5 hrs.; $700 court reporter fees, filing fee) is a reasonable amount to be imposed against deponent Islam.

Plaintiff is ordered to give notice.*********************************************

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Southwest District

Torrance Dept. B

SHAH KHAN,

Plaintiff,

Case No.:

YC072843

vs.

[Tentative] RULING

MAHBUBUR RAHMAN, et al.,

Defendants.

Hearing Date: January 3, 2020

Moving Parties: Plaintiff Shah Khan

Responding Party:      None

Motion for Order Reopening Limited Discovery

RULING

BACKGROUND

CCP §2024.050 states: “(a) On motion of any party, the court may grant leave to reopen discovery after a new trial date has been set.  This motion shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040.  

DISCUSSION