Judge Craig Griffin, Case Jahangiri v. Vahidramezani 2023-08-21 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Craig Griffin, Case: Jahangiri v. Vahidramezani, Date: 2023-08-21 Tentative Ruling

Before the Court at present are competing Motions for Preliminary Injunction, filed by: (1) Kourosh Jahangiri (“Jahangiri”) on 7/12/23 (“Motion 1” below); and (2) Kashayar Vahidramezani (“Vahidramezani”) on 7/18/23 (“Motion 2” below).

Both Motions are DENIED, without prejudice to future requests for relief which address the defects noted below.

In determining whether to issue a preliminary injunction, the trial court considers two interrelated factors: (1) the likelihood that the plaintiff will prevail on the merits at trial and (2) the interim harm that the plaintiff is likely to sustain if the injunction is denied as compared to the harm that the defendant is likely to suffer if the court grants a preliminary injunction. The latter factor involves consideration of such things as the inadequacy of other remedies, the degree of irreparable harm, and the necessity of preserving the status quo. (Abrams v. St. John's Hospital & Health Center (1994) 25 Cal.App.4th 628, 635–36.) The court’s determination is guided by a mix of the potential-merit and interim-harm factors; the greater the plaintiff’s showing on one, the less must be shown on the other. (Butt v. State of California (1992) 4 Cal.4^th 668, 678.)

Here, on Motion 1, Jahangiri has shown potentially irreparable harm based on Vahidramezani’s communications with third parties. (ROA 28, ¶¶ 26-30, and Ex. C.) But prior restraints are not permitted to stop the publication of a defamatory statement. (Gilbert v. National Enquirer, Inc. (1996) 43 Cal.App.4th 1135, 1144.) Although a limited exception is stated in Parisi v. Mazzaferro (2016) 5 Cal.App.5th 1219, 1229, the factual predicate there differs substantially from that shown here. With regard to the alleged trespasses, Jahangiri has failed to adequately show here why that conduct threatens irreparable harm. Instead, it appears that monetary damages could adequately compensate Jahangiri for that conduct. Motion 1 is therefore DENIED.

On Motion 2, as a preliminary matter, Vahidramezani has listed 23 elements to his request for Preliminary Injunction. But what is requested goes well beyond the scope of available relief on such a motion. The general purpose of a preliminary injunction is to preserve the status quo pending a determination on the merits of the action. (Jamison v. Department of Transportation (2016) 4 Cal.App.5th 356, 361.) Vahidramezani here has presented a list of requests which go vastly beyond that scope.

Nor has Vahidramezani demonstrated that relief is warranted here in any event. Probability of prevailing has not been adequately demonstrated, as the Motion has not adequately addressed whether dissolution was elected in June 2023 pursuant to Corp. Code, § 1900(a) based on Jahangiri’s conduct, and/or by the filings of these actions, and if so, the extent to which that affects Vahidramezani’s claims here. Jahangiri has also presented sufficient evidence to raise doubts as to the merits of the stated claims. For example, although Vahidramezani claims that Jahangiri is diverting funds and draining the accounts of KWS, Jahangiri has responded with claims that funds were moved to cover a KWS deficit, that he has not taken any funds for personal use, and that he can account for all of the funds at issue. (See e.g. ROA 75 at ¶¶ 38-44, ROA 71, at ¶¶ 40-41, and ROA 100 at ¶¶ 2, 3, 11-13.) The evidence presented by Vahidramezani does not suffice to show probability of prevailing on that claim. Nor is it apparent that irreparable harm is threatened based on the alleged usurpation of any existing KWS projects, as the alleged monetary losses for any KWS work completed by KTS would appear to be compensable in monetary damages. Motion 2 is therefore also DENIED.

The Evidentiary Objections filed by Jahangiri and Cross-Defendant Key Telecom Solutions, LLC (“KTS”) are OVERRULED. Although several Vahidramezani submissions substantially exceed the page limits under CRC 3.1113(d), the Court has elected to consider them here. However, future violations of CRC 3.1113(d) will not be similarly tolerated. The objections as to the Assanti Decl. as a whole fail to adequately identify the specific material to which Jahangiri objects.

The Request for Judicial Notice filed as ROA 22 is GRANTED as to the existence of the records presented, for Exs. 2 and 3 under Ev. Code §452(d), and for Exs. 1 and 4 under Ev. Code §452(c).

The Request for Judicial Notice filed as ROA 44 is GRANTED as to the existence of the records presented, for Exs. 4-6 under Ev. Code §452(d), and for Exs. 1-3 under Ev. Code §452(c).

Counsel for Jahangiri is to give notice of these rulings.