This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 05/02/2022 at 07:15:41 (UTC).

THE LAW OFFICES OF BOB KHAKSHOOY VS JORGE ALVAREZ, ET AL.

Case Summary

On 12/23/2019 THE LAW OFFICES OF BOB KHAKSHOOY filed an Other - Declaratory Judgment lawsuit against JORGE ALVAREZ,. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is ROBERT B. BROADBELT. The case status is Disposed - Dismissed.
Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *******6041

  • Filing Date:

    12/23/2019

  • Case Status:

    Disposed - Dismissed

  • Case Type:

    Other - Declaratory Judgment

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

ROBERT B. BROADBELT

 

Party Details

Cross Defendant and Plaintiff

THE LAW OFFICES OF BOB KHAKSHOOY

Defendants and Cross Plaintiffs

PRIME PHYSICAL THERAPY

NATIONWIDE LIEN PHARMACY SERVICE

ABF

ALVAREZ JORGE

UNIVERSITY IMAGING CENTER-BRANDON MARTIN

KERN MEDICAL CENTER

SKYE ANESTHESIA

VALLEY SURGICAL CENTER

ADVANCED MEDICAL SOLUTIONS

ROCKPOINT LEGAL FUNDING

KHAN M.D. MAHER

TOWER ORTHOPEDICS

FCA LEGAL FUNDING

HALL AMBULANCE

UNIVERSITY IMAGING CENTER-PRO HEALTH

BEVERLY RADIOLOGY-RADNET

MOBIN NEURO-SURGERY

RAMIN M.D. DAVID

BAY CITY SURGERY

Cross Plaintiffs and Defendants

ABF

FCA LEGAL FUNDING

Cross Defendants and Defendants

ALVAREZ JORGE

THE LAW OFFICES OF BOB KHAKSHOOY

12 More Parties Available

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Defendant Attorneys

NADER RANA ESQ.

STOLL RICHARD M. ESQ.

Cross Defendant Attorney

GERRY KEVIN ESQ.

 

Court Documents

Declaration - DECLARATION OF RICHARD M. STOLL RE RESOLUTION OF REMAINING ISSUES

1/18/2022: Declaration - DECLARATION OF RICHARD M. STOLL RE RESOLUTION OF REMAINING ISSUES

Case Management Statement

2/8/2022: Case Management Statement

Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (COURT ORDER) OF 02/14/2022

2/14/2022: Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (COURT ORDER) OF 02/14/2022

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER)

2/14/2022: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER)

Notice of Continuance

3/2/2022: Notice of Continuance

Case Management Statement

4/5/2022: Case Management Statement

Order - ORDER RE MSJ

4/20/2022: Order - ORDER RE MSJ

Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE; HEARING ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUD...) OF 04/20/2022

4/20/2022: Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE; HEARING ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUD...) OF 04/20/2022

Order - Dismissal

4/20/2022: Order - Dismissal

Order - Dismissal

4/20/2022: Order - Dismissal

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE; HEARING ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUD...)

4/20/2022: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE; HEARING ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUD...)

Notice of Ruling

4/25/2022: Notice of Ruling

Request for Dismissal - REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE; COMPLAINT;

12/9/2021: Request for Dismissal - REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE; COMPLAINT;

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: WHY THE COURT SHOULD NOT STRIKE THE ...)

12/17/2021: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: WHY THE COURT SHOULD NOT STRIKE THE ...)

Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: WHY THE COURT SHOULD NOT STRIKE THE ...) OF 12/17/2021

12/17/2021: Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: WHY THE COURT SHOULD NOT STRIKE THE ...) OF 12/17/2021

Case Management Statement

11/29/2021: Case Management Statement

Notice of Continuance

10/27/2021: Notice of Continuance

Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order

10/21/2021: Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order

106 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 04/25/2022
  • DocketNotice of Ruling; Filed by The Law Offices of Bob Khakshooy (Cross-Defendant)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 04/20/2022
  • Docketat 10:00 AM in Department 53, Robert B. Broadbelt, Presiding; Order to Show Cause Re: (Why the Court should not strike the Cross-Complaint filed by Cross-Complainant FCA Legal Funding on 8/2/21 because it is not represented by an attorney) - Held

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 04/20/2022
  • Docketat 10:00 AM in Department 53, Robert B. Broadbelt, Presiding; Case Management Conference - Held

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 04/20/2022
  • Docketat 10:00 AM in Department 53, Robert B. Broadbelt, Presiding; Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment (and Attorney Fees and Costs filed by Defendant/Cross-Complainant, ABF Freight Systems, Inc. on 08-10-2021;) - Held - Motion Denied

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 04/20/2022
  • DocketOrder - Dismissal; Filed by Clerk

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 04/20/2022
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Case Management Conference; Hearing on Motion for Summary Jud...)); Filed by Clerk

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 04/20/2022
  • DocketCertificate of Mailing for ((Case Management Conference; Hearing on Motion for Summary Jud...) of 04/20/2022); Filed by Clerk

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 04/20/2022
  • DocketOrder (re MSJ); Filed by Clerk

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 04/20/2022
  • DocketOrder - Dismissal; Filed by Clerk

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 04/05/2022
  • DocketCase Management Statement; Filed by ABF Freight System, Inc. Erroneously Sued As ABF (Cross-Complainant)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
126 More Docket Entries
  • 02/19/2020
  • DocketProof of Personal Service; Filed by The Law Offices of Bob Khakshooy (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 01/28/2020
  • DocketProof of Service by Substituted Service; Filed by The Law Offices of Bob Khakshooy (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 01/28/2020
  • DocketProof of Service by Substituted Service; Filed by The Law Offices of Bob Khakshooy (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 01/28/2020
  • DocketProof of Service by Substituted Service; Filed by The Law Offices of Bob Khakshooy (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 01/08/2020
  • DocketAmendment to Complaint (Fictitious/Incorrect Name); Filed by The Law Offices of Bob Khakshooy (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 12/27/2019
  • DocketSummons (on Complaint); Filed by The Law Offices of Bob Khakshooy (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 12/24/2019
  • DocketNotice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 12/23/2019
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by The Law Offices of Bob Khakshooy (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 12/23/2019
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by The Law Offices of Bob Khakshooy (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 12/23/2019
  • DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Unlimited Civil Case; Filed by Clerk

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: *******6041 Hearing Date: April 20, 2022 Dept: 53

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles – Central District

Department 53

the law offices of bob khakshooy ;

Plaintiff,

vs.

jorge alvarez , et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.:

*******6041

Hearing Date:

April 20, 2022

Time:

10:00 a.m.

[Tentative] Order RE:

motion for summary judgment

MOVING PARTY: Defendant/Cross-Complainant ABF Freight System, Inc.

RESPONDING PARTIES: Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant Law Offices of Bob Khakshooy and Cross-Defendant Bob Khakshooy

Motion for Summary Judgment

The court considered the moving, opposition, and reply papers filed in connection with this motion.

EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS

The court overrules Cross-Defendants’ evidentiary objections, filed October 8, 2021.

REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE

The court grants ABF Freight System, Inc.’s request for judicial notice.

LEGAL STANDARD

The purpose of a motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication “is to provide courts with a mechanism to cut through the parties’ pleadings in order to determine whether, despite their allegations, trial is in fact necessary to resolve their dispute.” (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 843.) “Code of Civil Procedure section 437c, subdivision (c), requires the trial judge to grant summary judgment if all the evidence submitted, and ‘all inferences reasonably deducible from the evidence’ and uncontradicted by other inferences or evidence, show that there is no triable issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” (Adler v. Manor Healthcare Corp. (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1110, 1119.)

“On a motion for summary judgment, the initial burden is always on the moving party to make a prima facie showing that there are no triable issues of material fact.” (Scalf v. D.B. Log Homes, Inc. (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 1510, 1519.) For the purposes of motion for summary judgment and summary adjudication, “[a] plaintiff or cross-complainant has met his or her burden of showing that there is no defense to a cause of action if that party has proved each element of the cause of action entitling the party to judgment on the cause of action.” (Code Civ. Proc., 437c, subd. (p)(1).) “Once the plaintiff or cross-complainant has met that burden, the burden shifts to the defendant or cross-defendant to show that a triable issue of one or more material facts exists as to the cause of action or a defense thereto.” (Code Civ. Proc., 437c, subd. (p)(1).) “When deciding whether to grant summary judgment, the court must consider all of the evidence set forth in the papers (except evidence to which the court has sustained an objection), as well as all reasonable inferences that may be drawn from that evidence, in the light most favorable to the party opposing summary judgment.” (Avivi v. Centro Medico Urgente Medical Center (2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 463, 467; Code Civ. Proc., 437c, subd. (c).)

DISCUSSION

Defendant/Cross-Complainant ABF Freight System, Inc. (“ABF”) filed the pending motion for summary judgment on August 10, 2021. Although not expressly stated by ABF, ABF appears to move for summary judgment not on the Complaint[1] filed by plaintiff The Law Offices of Bob Khakshooy, but on ABF’s Cross-Complaint filed on August 27, 2020, against cross-defendants Law Office of Bob B. Khakshooy, P.C., Bob Khakshooy, and Jorge Leonel Alvarez (“Alvarez”) (collectively, “Cross-Defendants”). ABF moves for summary judgment on the ground that “Cross-Defendants do not object to or oppose the relief requested in the Cross-Complaint,” and specifically, ABF’s entitlement to recover $75,000 pursuant to the General Release. (Notice, 2:11-15.)

ABF’s Cross-Complaint alleges a single cause of action (first cause of action) for breach of contract. (Cross-Complaint, p. 4:1-15.) That cause of action is based on the following allegations. “On or about July 25, 2018, a General Release was entered into by the parties hereto . . . .” (Cross-Complaint, 9.) Pursuant to the terms of the General Release, Alvarez was to receive $1,650,000 payable to the order of Alvarez and The Law Offices of Bob Khakshooy, his attorney of record, to be held in trust by Bob Khakshooy, within 30 days of execution of the General Release. (Cross-Complaint, 9.) ABF was to be paid $75,000 from the $1,650,000 settlement funds to resolve its subrogation claim. (Cross-Complaint, 9.) Cross-Defendants have breached the General Release by failing to pay the sums owing to ABF. (Cross-Complaint, 13.) As a result of the breach by Cross-Defendants, ABF “has been damaged in that it has been denied its share of the settlement amounting to $75,000 pursuant to the terms of the General Release.” (Cross-Complaint, 14.)

“A cause of action for damages for breach of contract is comprised of the following elements: (1) the contract, (2) plaintiff’s performance or excuse for nonperformance, (3) defendant’s breach, and (4) the resulting damages to plaintiff.” (Daniels v. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 1150, 1173.)

ABF bases its motion for summary judgment on the following. In a prior action, a settlement was reached between Alvarez and ABF on one hand, and FedEx Ground Package System, Inc., and Brandon Blackstock on the other, whereby the latter would pay Alvarez and Plaintiff $1,650,000, from which ABF was to be paid $75,000. (Undisputed Material Fact No. 6.) ABF asserts that ABF had not received the settlement funds as of the date of filing the motion for summary judgment. (ABF Material Fact No.14.)

The court does not need to address whether ABF has met its burden of showing that there is no defense to the cause of action for breach of contract by proving each element of the cause of action because, even if the court were to assume for the sake of argument that ABF has met its burden, the court finds that Cross-Defendants have met their burden to show that triable issues of material fact exist as to the elements of (1) Cross-Defendants’ breach of the General Release and (2) the resulting damages to ABF. In opposition to the motion, Cross-Defendants have presented evidence that ABF has now been paid its $75,000 pursuant to the General Release. (Gerry Decl., 3, Ex. B.) In its reply, ABF acknowledges that it has received the $75,000 payment. (Stoll Decl., 3, Ex. 17.)

The court therefore denies ABF’s motion for summary judgment.

In his declaration filed with the reply, ABF’s counsel states that he advised Alvarez that the motion for summary judgment “would remain on calendar on the issue of attorney fees and costs pursuant to the terms of the General Release ….” (Stoll Decl., 4.) Although ABF has requested attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to Civil Code section 1717 and the terms of the General Release, based on the court’s ruling denying ABF’s motion for summary judgment, ABF has not established that it is the party prevailing on the contract. The court therefore denies ABF’s request for attorney’s fees, without prejudice to filing a motion for attorney’s fees at the appropriate time pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1702.

ORDER

The court denies ABF Freight System, Inc.’s motion for summary judgment.

The court orders plaintiff/cross-defendant The Law Office of Bob Khakshooy, P.C. to give notice of this ruling.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: April 20, 2022

Robert B. Broadbelt III

Judge of the Superior Court


[1] The court notes that the Complaint was dismissed, with prejudice, on December 9, 2021, after ABF filed its Motion for Summary Judgment.



related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where ROCKPOINT LEGAL FUNDING is a litigant

Latest cases where UNIVERSITY IMAGING CENTER-PRO HEALTH is a litigant