This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 03/14/2021 at 08:15:25 (UTC).

YAAKOV R AHULA VS ITZICK POURAVRAHIM, ET AL.

Case Summary

On 11/25/2020 YAAKOV R AHULA filed a Property - Other Property Fraud lawsuit against ITZICK POURAVRAHIM. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are DANIEL S. MURPHY and KEVIN C. BRAZILE. The case status is Disposed - Dismissed.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *******5297

  • Filing Date:

    11/25/2020

  • Case Status:

    Disposed - Dismissed

  • Case Type:

    Property - Other Property Fraud

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

DANIEL S. MURPHY

KEVIN C. BRAZILE

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

AHULA YAAKOV R

Defendants

POURAVRAHIM ITZICK

POURAVRAHIM ALIN

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Defendant Attorney

FERNALD BRANDON CLAUS

 

Court Documents

Notice of Limited Scope Representation

3/3/2021: Notice of Limited Scope Representation

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE; HEARING ON DEMURRER - WITHOUT MOT...)

3/5/2021: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE; HEARING ON DEMURRER - WITHOUT MOT...)

Reply - REPLY IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS' ITZICK POURAVRAHIM AND ALIN POURAVRAHIM'S DEMURRERS TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT

2/26/2021: Reply - REPLY IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS' ITZICK POURAVRAHIM AND ALIN POURAVRAHIM'S DEMURRERS TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT

Case Management Statement

2/26/2021: Case Management Statement

Opposition - OPPOSITION TO DEMUR OF DEFENDANTS

2/18/2021: Opposition - OPPOSITION TO DEMUR OF DEFENDANTS

Request for Judicial Notice

2/18/2021: Request for Judicial Notice

Notice of Change of Address or Other Contact Information

1/6/2021: Notice of Change of Address or Other Contact Information

Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

1/6/2021: Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

Notice of Related Case

1/6/2021: Notice of Related Case

Declaration - DECLARATION OF BRANDON C. FERNALD PURSUANT TO CODE CIV. PROC. SECTION 430.41 RE INABILITY TO COMPLETE TELEPHONIC MEET AND CONFER

1/7/2021: Declaration - DECLARATION OF BRANDON C. FERNALD PURSUANT TO CODE CIV. PROC. SECTION 430.41 RE INABILITY TO COMPLETE TELEPHONIC MEET AND CONFER

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER)

1/19/2021: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER)

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER) OF 01/19/2021

1/19/2021: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER) OF 01/19/2021

Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (COURT ORDER) OF 01/19/2021

1/19/2021: Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (COURT ORDER) OF 01/19/2021

Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (COURT ORDER) OF 01/19/2021

1/19/2021: Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (COURT ORDER) OF 01/19/2021

Request for Judicial Notice

2/5/2021: Request for Judicial Notice

Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

2/5/2021: Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

Demurrer - without Motion to Strike

2/5/2021: Demurrer - without Motion to Strike

Proof of Personal Service

12/17/2020: Proof of Personal Service

13 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 03/05/2021
  • Docketat 09:30 AM in Department 32, Daniel S. Murphy, Presiding; Hearing on Demurrer - without Motion to Strike - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/05/2021
  • Docketat 09:30 AM in Department 32, Daniel S. Murphy, Presiding; Hearing on Demurrer - without Motion to Strike - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/05/2021
  • Docketat 09:30 AM in Department 32, Daniel S. Murphy, Presiding; Case Management Conference - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/05/2021
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 20, Kevin C. Brazile, Presiding; Hearing on Demurrer - without Motion to Strike - Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/05/2021
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 20, Kevin C. Brazile, Presiding; Hearing on Demurrer - without Motion to Strike - Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/05/2021
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 20, Kevin C. Brazile, Presiding; Case Management Conference - Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/05/2021
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Case Management Conference; Hearing on Demurrer - without Mot...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/03/2021
  • DocketNotice of Limited Scope Representation; Filed by Yaakov R Ahula (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/26/2021
  • DocketCase Management Statement; Filed by Yaakov R Ahula (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/26/2021
  • DocketReply (in Support of Defendants' Itzick Pouravrahim and Alin Pouravrahim's Demurrers to Plaintiff's Complaint); Filed by Itzick Pouravrahim (Defendant); Alin Pouravrahim (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
14 More Docket Entries
  • 01/06/2021
  • DocketNotice of Change of Address or Other Contact Information; Filed by Itzick Pouravrahim (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/22/2020
  • DocketNotice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/22/2020
  • DocketNotice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/22/2020
  • DocketNotice of Case Reassignment and Order for Plaintiff to Give Notice; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/17/2020
  • DocketProof of Personal Service; Filed by Yaakov R Ahula (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/17/2020
  • DocketProof of Personal Service; Filed by Yaakov R Ahula (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/25/2020
  • DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Unlimited Civil Case; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/25/2020
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Yaakov R Ahula (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/25/2020
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by Yaakov R Ahula (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/25/2020
  • DocketSummons (on Complaint); Filed by Yaakov R Ahula (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: 20STCV45297    Hearing Date: April 14, 2021    Dept: 32

Yaakov r. ahula,

Plaintiff,

v.

itzick pouravrahim, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 20STCV45297

Hearing Date: April 14, 2021

[TENTATIVE] order RE:

Motion to vacate dismissal

BACKGROUND

This matter arises out disputes relating to the purchase of a home.

On November 25, 2020, Plaintiff Yaakov R. Ahula (“Plaintiff”) filed the Complaint alleging causes of action for (1) fraud, (2) cancellation of deed, (3) conspiracy to commit fraud against defendants Itzick Pouravrahim Alin Pouravrahim (collectively “Defendants”).

On March 3, 2021 the Court issued a tentative ruling sustaining Defendants’ Demurrer to Plaintiff’s Complaint. (Fernald Decl., ¶ 5-6, Exh. A.) On March 5, 2021, after hearing Plaintiff’s arguments, the Court stated that it had not heard anything that would cause the Court to change its March 3, 2021 tentative ruling. (Fernald Decl., ¶ 13.) Following the Court’s statement, and before the Court issued a ruling on Defendant’s Demurrer, Plaintiff moved the Court to dismiss the lawsuit, without prejudice. (Fernald Decl., ¶ 13.) The Court granted Plaintiff’s request over Defendant’s objection and dismissed this lawsuit (the “Dismissal”). (Fernald Decl., ¶ 14.)

LEGAL STANDARD

Generally, a plaintiff has the right to voluntarily dismiss and action and this deprives the Court of subject matter and personal jurisdiction over the parties.  (Harris v. Billings (1993) 16 Cal. App. 4th 1396, 1405.) 

However, the right of a plaintiff to voluntarily dismiss an action before the commencement of trial is not absolute.  (Cravens v. State Board of Equalization (1997) 52 Cal. App. 4th 253, 256.)  Limitations arise when the action has proceeded to a determinative adjudication, or to a decision that is tantamount to an adjudication.  (Id.)  Thus, a plaintiff cannot defeat a defendant's right to obtain a determination on the merits by simply filing a voluntary dismissal when statutory authority entitles the defense to a final judgment.  (Id.)

A tentative ruling to sustain a demurrer is not a bar to voluntary dismissal.  (Datner v. Mann Theatres Corp. (1983) 145 Cal.App.3d 768, 771.)

DISCUSSION

Defendant contends that the Dismissal should be vacated because Plaintiff’s Dismissal of this lawsuit undermines the purpose of the tentative ruling procedure, which results in the courts being taxed with unnecessary litigation.

Here, on March 5, 2021 Plaintiff moved the Court to dismiss this lawsuit, without prejudice, prior to the Court issuing any ruling on Defendant’s Demurrer. While the Court had issued a tentative ruling sustaining Defendant’s Demurrer, the tentative ruling does not bar Plaintiff from voluntary dismissing this lawsuit prior to the Court making a ruling on the Demurrer. (See Datner, supra, 145 Cal.App.3d at 771.)

Thus, Defendant’s Motion is DENIED.

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

CONCLUSION

Defendant’s Motion is DENIED.

Case Number: 20STCV45297    Hearing Date: March 05, 2021    Dept: 32

yaakov r. ahula,

Plaintiff,

v.

itzick pouravrahim, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 20STCV45297

Hearing Date: March 5, 2021

[TENTATIVE] order RE:

(1) DEMURRER TO COMPLAINT BY DEFENDANT ITZICK POURAVRAHIM

(2) DEMURRER TO COMPLAINT BY DEFENDANT ALIN POURAVRAHIM

BACKGROUND

This is a fraud action with a lengthy history. This section will detail Plaintiff’s allegations in the instant action and Plaintiff’s previous actions. The matters laid forth in this section will serve as a backdrop for the Court’s analysis regarding the instant demurrer.

A. Plaintiffs’ Instant Allegations

Plaintiff Yaakov R. Ahula (“Plaintiff”) commenced this action against Defendants Itzick Pouravrahim (“Itzick”) and Alin Pouravrahim (“Alin”)[1] (collectively, “Defendants”) on November 25, 2020. The Complaint asserts causes of action for (1) fraud, (2) cancellation of deed, and (3) conspiracy to commit fraud. The Complaint alleges in pertinent part as follows.

In July 2016, Plaintiff and his wife, Valerie Abitan (“Abitan”), owned the real property located at 1661 S. Bedford Street, Los Angeles, California 90035 (“Property”). That same month, the couple was approached by a purported real estate agent, Dan Tepper, for the sale of the Property to Defendants.

In August 2016, the parties agreed to the sale and purchase of the Property for $1,300,000. Pursuant to the Purchase and Sales Agreement (“Agreement”), the parties agreed to certain conditions. None of those conditions took place, escrow did not close when it was supposed to, and Defendants engaged in fraudulent conduct in an attempt to close escrow.

Ultimately, Defendants caused a grant deed to the Property to be fraudulently signed and fraudulent notices of satisfaction of judgment against the Property to be filed. In July 2018, Defendants obtained title and possession of the Property.

B. Plaintiffs’ Prior Actions[2]

1. Itzick Pouravrahim, et al. v. Yaakov R. Ahula, et al. (Case No. BC637652)

In October 2016, Defendants filed an action against Plaintiff, Abitan, and others for

specific performance of the Agreement (“Original Case”). The Agreement contained an arbitration clause, and in December 2016, Defendants’ claims were tried in arbitration. (Defendants’ RJN Ex. 3.)

In November 2017, an arbitration award was entered in favor of Defendants and against Plaintiff and Abitan. In May 2018, the award was confirmed, and Plaintiff and Abitan’s petition to correct or vacate the award was denied. (Defendants’ RJN Ex. 1.) In December 2019, judgment was entered in favor of Defendants with Plaintiff and Abitan liable for the judgment. (Defendants’ RJN Ex. 2.)

2. Yaakov. R Ahula v. Itzick Pouravrahim, et al. (Case No. BC685104)

In November 2017, Plaintiff and Abitan filed an action against Defendants for fraud,

injunction, cancellation of deed, declaratory relief, conspiracy to commit fraud, and negligent

misrepresentation (“Second Case”). In February 2018, the Second Case was deemed related to

the Original Case.

Plaintiff and Abitan filed a request for dismissal without prejudice. The claims were dismissed when Plaintiff failed to appear at trial.

3. Itzick Pouravrahim, et al. v. Valerie Abitan (Case No. 18SMUD01450)

In June 2018, Defendants filed an unlawful detainer action for possession of the Property. Summary judgment was granted in favor of Defendants and judgment of possession was entered in their favor in August 2018.

4. Valerie Abitan v. Itzick Pouravrahim, et al. (Case No. 18STCV02803)

In October 2018, Abitan filed an action against Defendants for breach of contract, fraud, cancellation of deed, and declaratory relief (“Third Case”).

In February 2019, the Court sustained Defendants’ demurrer without leave to amend on the basis of res judicata. (Defendants’ RJN, Ex. 4.) The Court found that Abitan could have litigated the causes of action in the Original Case in which there was a final ruling on the merits in binding arbitration. The Third Case was deemed related to the instant action.

DEMURRER

Itzick and Alin each demur to each cause of action in the Complaint. Specifically, Defendants demur on grounds that res judicata bars the instant action, and the causes of action fails to allege facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against Defendants. Plaintiff opposes.

A. Waiver of Related Cause of Action

The issue is whether Plaintiff was required to file a cross-complaint against Defendants in the Original Case for the causes of action now asserted in the instant action.

CCP §426.30(a) provides, “if a party against whom a complaint has been filed and served

fails to allege in a cross-complaint any related cause of action which (at the time of serving his answer to the complaint) he has against the plaintiff, such party may not thereafter in any other action assert against the plaintiff the related cause of action not pleaded.” The public policy served by the enactment of section 426.30 is the law's abhorrence of a multiplicity of lawsuits.

(Hulsey v. Koehler (1990) 218 Cal.App.3d 1150, 1157.)

Defendants brought the Original Case for specific performance of the Agreement; that is, for the sale of the Property to Defendants. Plaintiff filed an answer to the Original Case but no cross-complaint. (Defendants’ RJN, Ex. 3; CCP §426.30(b)(2).)

In the instant action, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants fraudulently obtained title and possession of the Property by knowingly making false promises in the Agreement and forging Plaintiff’s signature on the Grant Deed. (Compl., ¶¶ 26-41.) As relief, Plaintiff seeks the cancellation of the Grant Deed. (Compl., ¶ 35.) In effect, Plaintiff seeks to determine whether Defendants properly obtained the Property. (Opp., 2:1-5.)

The Original Case and the instant action arise from the same transaction. The actions are logically related in that they arose out of the Agreement between the parties, which was for the sale of the Property. (Align Technology, Inc. v. Tran

Additionally, contrary to Plaintiffs’ argument, the causes of action that Plaintiff brings forth in the instant action existed in the Original Case. For example, when attempting to correct or vacate the arbitration award, Plaintiff argued that “the portion of the Arbitration Award requiring the grant deed that was presented to the arbitrator during the arbitration be recorded with escrow must be corrected because the signature on the grant deed is a forgery.” (Defendants’ RJN, Ex. 1, Ex. A, p. 6.) Plaintiff questioned the validity in which Defendants obtained the Property even in the Original Case.

Plaintiff has waived the causes of action in the instant action.

B. Res Judicata

Res judicata prevents relitigation of the same cause of action in a second suit between the same parties or parties in privity with them. (Needelman v. DeWolf Realty Co., Inc. (2015) 239 Cal.App.4th 750, 757.) The claim preclusion aspect of res judicata applies if (1) the decision in the prior proceeding is final and on the merits, (2) the present proceeding is on the same cause of action as the prior proceeding, and (3) the parties in the present proceeding (or parties in privity with them) were parties to the prior proceeding. (Federation of Hillside and Canyon Associations v. City of Los Angeles (2004) 126 Cal.App.4th 1180, 1205.)

In the Third Case, the Court sustained Defendants’ demurrer without leave to amend. Of relevance, the Court stated, “Plaintiffs could have litigated the causes of action in the instant case in the [Original Case]. There was a final ruling on the merits through binding arbitration which held that there was a valid purchase agreement. The Defendants in the present proceeding were identical or in privity with the Plaintiffs in the first underlying action by way of being the Pouravrahim's legal representation.” (Defendants’ RJN, Ex. 4, 4:14-18.)

That analysis applies equally here. Plaintiffs’ claims in the instant action are barred.

C. The Parties’ Remaining Arguments

Defendants also demur on grounds that Plaintiff’s claims for fraud and conspiracy to commit fraud lack sufficient facts to state a claim, and that his claim for cancellation of deed is without merit. Plaintiff opposes these arguments.

In light of the Court’s ruling above, the Court does not analyze these arguments.

CONCLUSION

The Court sustains the demurrers on the basis of res judicata without leave to amend.


[1] The Court uses Defendants’ first names for clarity and means no disrespect.

[2] Defendants’ and Plaintiff’s requests for judicial notice are granted in full. (Evid. Code § 452(d).)

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases represented by Lawyer FERNALD BRANDON CLAUS