Judge Ashfaq G. Chowdhury, Case Number: BC550144, Date: 2024-12-11 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Ashfaq G. Chowdhury, Case: BC550144, Date: 2024-12-11 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: BC550144 Hearing Date: December 11, 2024 Dept: E

Hearing Date: 12/11/2024 – 8:30am
Case No. BC550144
Trial Date: UNSET
Case Name: ARMAN YEGIYANTS v. HAGOP BADAKJIAN et al.

TENTATIVE RULING – MOTION TO STAY DISCOVERY

Procedural
Moving Party: Defendants – (1) 703 E. Angeleno, LLC, a Wyoming limited liability company; (2) 707 E. Angeleno, LLC, a Wyoming limited liability company; (3) Commercial Funding, LLC, a Wyoming limited liability company [collectively Defendants 1-3, “Dawood Related Entities”]; (4) Jamal Dawood (Defendants 1-4 will be referred to by the Court in this motion hearing as Movants)

Responding Party 1: Cross-Defendant, Fares Abbasi

Responding Party 2: Plaintiffs/Cross-Defendants, Arman Yegiyants, an individual; and 10415 Commerce, LLC, a California limited liability company

Moving Papers: Notice/Motion; Request for Judicial Notice

Opposition Papers: Fares Abassi Partial Opposition; Plaintiffs’ Limited Opposition; Plaintiffs’ Objections to Mitchell B. Ludwig Declaration; Plaintiffs’ Proof of Service;

Reply Papers: Reply

RELIEF REQUESTED¿
“Defendants 703 E. Angeleno, LLC, a Wyoming limited liability company; 707 E. Angeleno, LLC, a Wyoming limited liability company; and Commercial Funding, LLC, a Wyoming limited liability company (collectively, the “Dawood Related Entities”); and Defendant Jamal Dawood will move the Court for:

(1) An order temporarily staying this action and/or discovery as to Mr. Dawood pursuant to Pacers, Inc. v. Superior Court (1984) 162 Cal.App.3d 686 (“Pacers”) until the conclusion of criminal proceedings brought against Mr. Dawood in Federal District Court whether by dismissal or when criminal jeopardy sets in; and

(2) For a protective order restricting or limiting any inquiry into the facts relating to matters previously dismissed by the Court pursuant to Cal. Code Civ. Proc. §§ 430.10 (demurrer),436 (motion to strike), and 583.010 (Five-Year Motion), because those events are (a) no longer relevant to this case, (b) concern matters which are not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence (Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 2025.420; Cal. Evid. Code § 350); and (c) the probative value of such matters is substantially outweighed by the probability that its admission will (i) necessitate undue consumption of time or (ii) create substantial danger of undue prejudice, of confusing the issues, or of misleading the jury. (Cal. Evid. Code §352.)

Specifically, moving party requests a Protective Order prohibiting Plaintiffs from conducting discovery in this case relating to, inter alia, the following:

(1) The facts and circumstances related to or arising out of the dismissed fraudulent transfer claims which arose out of the loans made by Hagop Bardakjian to Hratchia Bardakjian and secured by the two properties at issue in this case, 703 E. Angeleno, LLC and 707 E. Angeleno, LLC, including whether the loans and security were fake, fraudulent or otherwise part of a conspiracy to steal the properties from Plaintiffs;

(2) Any of the allegations struck by the Court pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure § 436, which include

a. Whether the two loans made by Hagop Bardakjian to his brother, Hratchia Bardakjian and secured by deeds of trust recorded against the two Burbank, California properties, to wit: 703 E. Angeleno and 707 E. Angeleno (the “Subject Properties”) and later sold to the two Wyoming entities was wrongful, fraudulent or otherwise fake,

b. Whether the 2019 foreclosure sales of the Subject Properties were wrongful, and

c. Any claim that Mr. Dawood or any of his related Wyoming entities conspired with either Hratchia Bardakjian or Hagop Bardakjian to deprive anyone of their assets (real or personal property) – whether a party to this case or not, or specifically to deprive Plaintiffs of any right, title or interest in the Subject Properties, including the recording of the Commercial Funding, LLC’s deeds of trust.

This motion is based on this notice, the attached memorandum of points and authorities, the attached declaration of Mitchell Ludwig, the records, pleadings and files herein, the Request for Judicial Notice filed concurrently and on such oral or documentary evidence as may be presented at the time of the hearing on this matter.”

(Mot. p. 4-6.)

TENTATIVE RULING
The Court will hear argument.

As per usual in this matter, counsel for all parties present their arguments in a somewhat unclear manner by:

(1) failing to contextualize their arguments;

(2) failing to explain what complaints/cross-complaints their arguments are relevant to;

(3) failing to explain to which causes of action in what complaint/cross-complaints their arguments are relevant;

(4) regularly citing to and requesting judicial notice of documents the relevance of which the Court is unclear, and

(5) not being consistent with their own language and identification of complaints/cross-complaints/matters.

By way of background, the matter before the Court today has case number BC550144.

It appears, based on the eCourt, that there are two related cases – (1) 22GDCV00535 and (2) 23BBCV01829.

Movants’ notice/motion notes that BC550144 is consolidated with 23BBCV01829, but makes no mention if BC550144 is consolidated with 22GDCV00535. Moving and opposing parties should be prepared to address if all three cases have been consolidated or if just BC550144 and 23BBCV01829 have been consolidated.

Moving and opposing parties should also be prepared to address which complaints/cross-complaints are the operative pleadings in all three cases (BC550144, 23BBCV01829, and 22GDCV00535). The parties should also be prepared to address, with respect to all operative complaints/cross-complaints in each of the three cases, who are the Plaintiffs and Defendants for each operative complaint/cross-complaint. The parties should also be prepared to address which dates those pleadings were filed and in which case number.

Further by way of background, the Court notes that on 2/18/2022, Plaintiffs, Arman Yegiyants and 10415 Commerce LLC, filed a verified fourth amended complaint (FoAC).

The caption of the FoAC listed the Defendants as:

(1) HAGOP BARDAKJIAN, an individual;

(2) HRATCHIA BARDAKJIAN, an individual;

(3) JOHN M. DAVID, an individual;

(4) JAMAL N. DAWOOD aka JIM DAWOOD, an individual;

(5) 703 E. ANGELENO, LLC, a Wyoming limited liability company;

(6) 707 E. ANGELENO, LLC, a Wyoming limited liability company;

(7) COMMERCIAL FUNDING, LLC, a Wyoming limited liability company;

(8) ALL PERSONS UNKNOWN, CLAIMING ANY LEGAL OR EQUITABLE RIGHT, TITLE, ESTATE LIEN, OR INTEREST IN THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN THE COMPLAINT ADVERSE TO PLAINTIFFS' TITLE, OR ANY CLOUD ON PLAINTIFF'S TITLE THERETO; and

(9) DOES 1 through 25, inclusive.

The causes of action in the FoAC were titled as follows in the caption of the FoAC:

(1) To Quiet Title as To 707 E. Angeleno

(2) To Set Aside and Rescind Trustee’s Sales

(3) To Quiet Title

(4) For Accounting of Foreclosure Proceeds; and

(5) For Slander of Title

(FoAC filed 2/18/2022)

On 4/7/2023, this Court heard Defendant, Hratchia Bardakjian’s, motion for summary judgment directed at Plaintiffs’ FoAC.

The Court noted the following in the 4/7/2023 Minute Order:

According to Defendant’s Introduction, Plaintiffs’ (Arman Yegiyants and 10415 Commerce LLC) only two remaining claims against Defendant are for quiet title to 703 and 707 E. Angeleno Ave., Burbank, CA 91501. Defendant does not state which two causes of action these are labeled/numbered as in the FoAC. Further, in the Opposition, Plaintiffs don’t state which two causes of action this MSJ pertains to. Therefore, the Court will presume this applies to the first and third causes of action in the FoAC because those are the only two causes of action in the FoAC that explicitly mention quiet title.

(Min. Order, 4/7/2023, p. 3.)

On 4/7/2023, this Court denied Hratchia Bardakjian’s MSJ.

On 11/17/2023, this Court heard Plaintiffs’, Arman Yegiyants and 10415 Commerce LLC’s, MSA/MSJ directed at the first and third causes of action in the FoAC as to Defendant Hratchia Bardakjian.

The 11/17/2023 Minute Order noted that Plaintiffs conceded the only two remaining causes of action in the FoAC against Hratchia were the first and third causes of action. (See Min. Order 11/17/2023, p. 4.)

On 11/17/2023, this Court granted Plaintiffs’ MSA/MSJ directed at Plaintiffs’ first and third causes of action in the FoAC as to Defendant Hratchia Bardakjian.

On 12/22/2023, this Court granted Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend.

On 12/26/2023, Plaintiffs, Arman Yegiyants and 10415 Commerce LLC, filed a “verified first supplemental complaint.”

The first supplemental complaint’s caption listed the Defendants as:

(1) HAGOP BARDAKJIAN, an individual;

(2) HRATCHIA BARDAKJIAN, an individual;

(3) JOHN M. DAVID, an individual;

(4) JAMAL N. DAWOOD aka JIM DAWOOD, an individual;

(5) 703 E. ANGELENO, LLC, a Wyoming limited liability company;

(6) 707 E. ANGELENO, LLC, a Wyoming limited liability company;

(7) COMMERCIAL FUNDING, LLC, a Wyoming limited liability company;

(9) DOES 1 through 25, inclusive.

The causes of action in the first supplemental complaint were labeled in the caption as:

(A) Declaratory Relief; (B) Intentional Interference with Prospective Economic Relations; (C) Fraud; (D) Breach of Contract; (E) Fraud in the Inducement; and (F) Unjust Enrichment/Restitution (Two Counts).

The declaratory relief claim is directed at all Defendants by both Plaintiffs.

The intentional interference with prospective economic relations claim is directed at Hagop by both Plaintiffs.

Claim “(C)-Fraud” is directed at Hagop by both Plaintiffs.

Claim (D)-Breach of Contract is directed against Defendant David by Plaintiff Commerce LLC.

Claim (E)-Fraud in the Inducement is directed against Defendant David by Plaintiff Commerce LLC.

Claim (F)-Unjust Enrichment is directed against David by Commerce LLC.

Plaintiffs then list another Unjust Enrichment claim in the body of the supplemental complaint directed against “Angeleno LLCs” by both Plaintiffs.

The Court notes that a vast majority of the supplemental complaint is confusing and regularly cites to the Fourth Amended Complaint as if Plaintiffs can incorporate allegations in the Fourth Amended Complaint instead of having those allegations in the supplemental complaint.

At the hearing, Plaintiffs should be prepared to address why their “verified supplemental complaint” was not properly titled as the fifth amended complaint.

On 3/22/2024, this Court heard Defendant Hagop’s demurrer to the supplemental complaint.

On 3/22/2024, this Court denied Hagop’s demurrer to the supplemental complaint.

On 5/8/2024, Defendant, Jamal Dawood filed a first amended Cross-Complaint against Fares Abassi for: (1) Breach of Contract, (2) Conspiracy to Commit Conversion, (3) Conspiracy to Commit Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage, (4) Slander of Title, and (5) Aiding and Abetting the Tort of Another.

On 9/6/2024, this Court heard Fares Abassi’s demurrer with motion to strike to Jamal Dawood’s first amended Cross-Complaint. The Court overruled the demurrer as to the first, second, and fourth causes of action. The Court sustained with leave to amend as to the third and fifth causes of action.

The Court notes that a second amended Cross-Complaint was never filed by Jamal Dawood.

On 11/1/2024, this Court denied Plaintiffs’, Arman Yegiyants and 10415 Commerce, LLC’s motion to compel Hagop Bardakjian to sit for a continued deposition.

The Court noted in the 10/30/2024 Minute Order on page 3 how the Plaintiffs’ and opposing parties’ papers were less than a model of clarity.

Here, the Court notes that all parties’ papers continue to be somewhat incomprehensible.

As seen above in the “Relief Requested” section of this tentative, the Court notes it isn’t entirely clear what specific relief the instant Movants are seeking.

Generally speaking, Movants seem to be seeking “ An order temporarily staying this action and/or discovery as to Mr. Dawood pursuant to Pacers, Inc. v. Superior Court (1984) 162 Cal.App.3d 686 (“Pacers”) until the conclusion of criminal proceedings brought against Mr. Dawood in Federal District Court whether by dismissal or when criminal jeopardy sets in.”

However, Movants also seek protective orders related to things that Movants themselves aren’t clear about.

Movants will refer to things like “when the Court struck all factual allegations from the operative Fourth Amended Complaint relating to such matters, it determined these matters to be ‘irrelevant, false and improper.”’ (Cal. Evid. Code § 350; Cal. Code Civ. Proc. §§ 436 and 2025.420.).” (Mot. p. 7.)

The Court has no idea what Movants are specifically referring to.

Also, the Court is not entirely clear as to why the parties cite to the Fourth Amended Complaint when, to the Court’s understanding, the purpose of the supplemental complaint was to make the supplemental complaint the operative complaint.

There appears to be a general confusion about this case. For example, on page 9 of Movants’ motion, Movants’ counsel states, “In 2014, Plaintiffs filed the initial complaint in this matter alleging a single conspiracy cause of action. (Id. at 5, RJN Ex. 2) He alleged that by no later than 2012, the Bardakjian Brothers engaged in fraudulent transfers of the equity in the Subject Properties by encumbering each property with deeds of trust securing fake loans. (Id.).” (Mot. p. 9.)

The Court notes how RJN exhibit 2 is the first amended complaint in an Orange County Superior Court case.

The Movants cited to this Orange County case in a section in their motion titled “Present Civil Matter.”

This Court is unclear how an Orange County case with completely different parties than the ones here is “The Present Civil Matter,” as indicated on page 9 of Movants’ motion.

The example above is just one example of possibly hundreds that this Court regularly runs into when it reads papers by any of the parties in this matter.

This case was initially filed on 6/27/2014, and when the parties in this matter come before the Court, they all talk at each other without providing any context as to what the extant issues are in this matter. Not only do the parties fail to explain what the extant issues are in this case, they regularly fail to contextualize their arguments with respect to their motions. Therefore, when the parties submit papers, their arguments make little sense because it often appears as if the parties themselves are unclear as to what is going on in these cases.

At times, it is unclear if the parties are aware what the operative pleadings are in each case, and it is unclear what pleadings their arguments relate to because at times the parties refer to events that occurred over ten years ago. Further, the parties don’t demonstrate any consistency in the manner in which they cite things. And, unfortunately, when the Court goes back and tries to read the parties’ pleadings, to try and decipher the parties’ current motions/oppositions, those pleadings are equally as confusing.

The Court will hear argument from the parties because all parties’ submitted papers are, ultimately, incomprehensible.