Search

Attributes

This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 08/16/2018 at 05:31:38 (UTC).

SKY PROPERTIES INC VS VALOR LLP ET AL

Case Summary

On 07/06/2017 SKY PROPERTIES INC filed an Other - Declaratory Judgment lawsuit against VALOR LLP. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is DAVID SOTELO. The case status is Disposed - Dismissed.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****7584

  • Filing Date:

    07/06/2017

  • Case Status:

    Disposed - Dismissed

  • Case Type:

    Other - Declaratory Judgment

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

DAVID SOTELO

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner

SKY PROPERTIES INC

Defendants, Respondents and Others

VALOR LLP

KERMANI-NEJAD RAMIN

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorney

GENTINO ROBERT ESQ.

Defendant and Respondent Attorney

MARCELO E. DI MAURO

 

Court Documents

DECLARATION

4/10/2018: DECLARATION

NOTICE OF ASSOCIATION OF COUNSEL

4/10/2018: NOTICE OF ASSOCIATION OF COUNSEL

Minute Order

4/12/2018: Minute Order

NOTICE OF RULING RE: STATUS CONFERENCE (RE: ARBITRATION)

4/12/2018: NOTICE OF RULING RE: STATUS CONFERENCE (RE: ARBITRATION)

Minute Order

5/16/2018: Minute Order

Minute Order

10/12/2017: Minute Order

ORDER

10/12/2017: ORDER

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF

7/6/2017: COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF

REJECTION OF AWARD AND REQUEST FOR TRIAL AFTER ATTORNEY-CLIENT FEE ARBITRATION

7/6/2017: REJECTION OF AWARD AND REQUEST FOR TRIAL AFTER ATTORNEY-CLIENT FEE ARBITRATION

Unknown

7/17/2017: Unknown

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

8/11/2017: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

8/11/2017: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

DECLARATION OF DEMURRING PARTY IN SUPPORT OF AUTOMATIC EXTENSION

9/5/2017: DECLARATION OF DEMURRING PARTY IN SUPPORT OF AUTOMATIC EXTENSION

NOTICE OF MOTION & MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, TO STAY ACTION PENDING COMPLETION OF RELATED ARBITRATION; ETC.

9/15/2017: NOTICE OF MOTION & MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, TO STAY ACTION PENDING COMPLETION OF RELATED ARBITRATION; ETC.

Unknown

9/19/2017: Unknown

Minute Order

9/27/2017: Minute Order

STIPULATION RE: BINDING ARBITRATION; ORDER

9/27/2017: STIPULATION RE: BINDING ARBITRATION; ORDER

14 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 08/09/2018
  • at 08:30 am in Department 40, David Sotelo, Presiding; Motion (TO DISMISS(MTN RESERVED BUT NOT FILED YET)CANCELED PER M/P ON 8/8/18 ON CRS) - Off Calendar

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/27/2018
  • at 08:30 am in Department 40, David Sotelo, Presiding; Motion (TO DISMISScont per mp in crs to 8/9/18) - Advanced to a Previous Date

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/16/2018
  • at 08:30 am in Department 40, David Sotelo, Presiding; OSC RE Dismissal (FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE) - OSC Discharged

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/12/2018
  • at 08:30 am in Department 40, David Sotelo, Presiding; Status Conference (RE: ARBITRATION) - Completed

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/12/2018
  • Notice of Ruling (RE: STATUS CONFERENCE RE: ARBITRATION ); Filed by Attorney for Defendant/Respondent

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/10/2018
  • Declaration (OF MARCELO DI MAURO RE: OSC ); Filed by Attorney for Defendant/Respondent

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/10/2018
  • Notice of Association of Attorneys; Filed by Attorney for Defendant/Respondent

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/20/2018
  • Notice of Entry of Judgment; Filed by Attorney for Defendant/Respondent

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/12/2017
  • at 08:45 am in Department 40, David Sotelo, Presiding; Motion to Compel (ARBITRATION/STAY ACTIONANDCASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE) - Granted

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/12/2017
  • Order; Filed by Defendant

    Read MoreRead Less
4 More Docket Entries
  • 09/18/2017
  • Request to Enter Default (REJECT FOR VALOR LLP, A LLP NAME AND TITLE OF PERSON SERVED ARE NOT IDENTIFIED, AUTHORIZED AGENT ON AKCNOWLEDGMENT OF RECEIPT. NEED NEW PROOF OF SERVICE. AND NEW REQUEST DEFAULT); Filed by Attorney for Pltf/Petnr

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/15/2017
  • Motion to Compel (ARBITRATION OR TO STAY ACTION PENDING COMPLETION OF RELATED ARBITRATION; ); Filed by Attorney for Defendant/Respondent

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/15/2017
  • Receipt (FIRST PAPER FEES ); Filed by Attorney for Defendant/Respondent

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/13/2017
  • Default Entered (RAMIN KERMANI-NEJAD ); Filed by Attorney for Pltf/Petnr

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/06/2017
  • at 08:30 am in Department 40, David Sotelo, Presiding; Order to Show Cause (RE: PROOF OF SERVICE;) - OSC Discharged

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/05/2017
  • Declaration (OF DEMURRING PARTY IN SUPPORT OF AUTOMATIC EXTENSION ); Filed by Attorney for Defendant/Respondent

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/11/2017
  • Proof of Service (SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT ); Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/17/2017
  • Notice-Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/17/2017
  • OSC-Failure to File Proof of Serv; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/06/2017
  • Complaint

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC667584    Hearing Date: September 03, 2020    Dept: 40

MOVING PARTY: Defendants Valor LLP and

Ramin Kermani-Nejad

OPPOSITION: Plaintiff Sky Properties, Inc.

This matter arises from a fee dispute between Defendants Valor LLP and Ramin Kermani-Nejad (collectively, “Defendants”) and Plaintiff Sky Properties, Inc. (“Plaintiff”). Defendants represented Plaintiff in an unlawful detainer action and there was a dispute about the fees owed for Defendants’ services. On May 12, 2017, a Los Angeles County Bar Association (“LACBA”) arbitrator awarded Defendants $27,994.73 in fees and costs, plus annual interest of ten percent.

On July 6, 2017, Plaintiff filed a declaratory relief action opposing the arbitration award. On October 12, 2017, the parties stipulated to arbitration.

On August 9, 2018, the Court own its own motion dismissed the case, reserving jurisdiction to enter judgment on an arbitration award.

Defendants filed the instant motion requesting that judgment be entered in their favor for the sum of $27,994.73, plus the annual interest of ten percent on the awarded amount commencing July 7, 2017.

A petition to confirm a binding arbitration shall name as respondents all parties to the arbitration and may name any other parties to be bound by the award. (CCP § 1285.) The petition shall (1) set forth the substance of or have attached a copy of the agreement to arbitrate unless petitioner denies the existence of such an agreement; (2) set forth the name(s) of the arbitrator(s); and (3) set forth or have attached a copy of the award and written opinion of the arbitrator. (CCP § 1285.4(a)-(c).)

The petition to confirm must be served and filed no later than four years after the date of service of a signed copy of the award on the petitioner (CCP § 1288.) but may not be served and filed until at least 10 days after service of the signed copy of the award upon the petitioner. (CCP § 1288.4.)

Defendants argue that Plaintiff has failed to prosecute or arbitrate the matter. Defendants state that they served multiple demands on Plaintiff to commence arbitration, which Plaintiff ignored.

Plaintiff states that Defendants did not inform them of the order compelling arbitration till March 2018. Plaintiff states that arbitration commenced on May 16, 2018. On that day, Plaintiff served a demand for arbitration before ADR services. (Opp’n., Ex. A.) A subsequent email from Defendants indicates that they received the demand and were discussing their preferred arbitrators. (Opp’n., Ex. B.)

It appears that arbitration has not taken place and that nothing has happened in the last two years. Based on the delay, the Court is inclined to grant the motion and confirm LACBA’s award.

The motion has been filed within four years after the date of service of a signed copy of the award. A copy of the arbitration agreement is provided. (Mtn., Ex. A.) A copy of the arbitration award is attached to the motion which contains the name of the arbitrator. (Mtn., Ex. B.)

Conclusion: Defendants’ Motion to Confirm the Arbitration Award is GRANTED.

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where SKY PROPERTIES INC. is a litigant