Judge: Daniel S. Murphy, Case: 20STCV42954, Date: 2024-11-25 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV42954    Hearing Date: November 25, 2024    Dept: 32

BACKGROUND

            On June 22, 2021, Hamid Hariri, Nahid Hariri, and H and N Property Management, LLC (collectively “Plaintiffs”) filed the operative Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) against Cashbloom LLC and others (collectively “Defendants”) alleging breach of promissory note and eight other causes of action arising from loans Plaintiffs made to Cashbloom.  

            On July 16, 2024, Plaintiffs settled with Defendant Ramin Aminian in the amount of $185,000. (Hamid Hariri Decl., Ex. 1.) The settlement agreement called for a cashier’s check made to H and N Property Management, LLC. (Ibid.) However, Defendant’s former counsel (Shahin Motallebi) claims that Plaintiffs’ counsel (Henry David) emailed him alternate instructions to wire the funds to a bank. (Motallebi Decl. ¶ 5, Ex. C.) Subsequently, Messrs. David, Aminian, and Motallebi purportedly exchanged emails culminating in instructions to wire the money to Regions Bank. (Id., ¶¶ 6-8, Ex. D.) Pursuant to these instructions, Defendant Aminian wired the $185,000 to Regions Bank. (Id., ¶ 10.)

            Mr. David denies sending any instructions to wire the funds to Regions Bank and denies participating in the purported email exchange. (David Decl. ¶¶ 35, 46-48.) Plaintiff contends that Defendant Aminian and his counsel were “spoofed” and received emails from a scammer posing as Mr. David. Plaintiff has not received any of the settlement money. (Hamid Hariri Decl. ¶ 12.)

            The parties have filed three separate motions centered on the question of whether Defendant Aminian has satisfied the judgment through the $185,000 wire transfer to Regions Bank. First, Defendant Aminian moves to enforce the settlement. Second, Defendant Aminian moves to hold Mr. David in contempt for misrepresenting the amount owed and the status of payment. Third, Plaintiff moves to compel production under a subpoena on the grounds that Defendant Aminian has not satisfied the judgment.      

            The Court addresses the first motion herein. Defendant Aminian filed the motion to enforce settlement on October 31, 2024. Plaintiff filed its opposition on November 12, 2024. Defendant filed his reply on November 18, 2024.   

LEGAL STANDARD

“If parties to pending litigation stipulate, in a writing signed by the parties outside the presence of the court or orally before the court, for settlement of the case, or part thereof, the court, upon motion, may enter judgment pursuant to the terms of the settlement. If requested by the parties, the court may retain jurisdiction over the parties to enforce the settlement until performance in full of the terms of the settlement.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 664.6.) A settlement agreement is a contract, and the legal principles which apply to contracts generally apply to settlement contracts.¿(Weddington Productions, Inc. v. Flick (1998) 60 Cal. App. 4th 793, 815.)

When ruling on a section 664.6 motion, the trial court acts as a trier of fact to determine whether a settlement has occurred, which is also an implicit authorization for the trial court to interpret the terms and conditions to settlement. (Skulnick v. Roberts Express, Inc. (1992) 2 Cal. App. 4th 884, 889.) “Trial judges may consider oral testimony or may determine the motion upon declarations alone.” (Osumi v. Sutton (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 1355, 1360.)

DISCUSSION

            The terms of a settlement agreement may be modified by subsequent communications. (See Charnay v. Cobert (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 170, 186 [“parole evidence rule excludes only extrinsic evidence of prior or contemporaneous oral agreements, not subsequent oral agreements”].) Here, Mr. Aminian followed wiring instructions that he reasonably believed were from Mr. David after the settlement agreement was executed. The emails originated from the correct email address for Mr. David, occurred over a period of time, and were consistent. (See Motallebi Decl., Ex. C-E.) Mr. David also confirms that emails from his phone contain a notice at the end stating, “Sent via the Samsung Galaxy S23+ 5G, an AT&T 5G smartphone.” (David Decl. ¶ 52.) Multiple emails from “Henry David” in the email chain contain this footer, including the July 17, 2024 email that initiated the discussion on wiring the funds, and the July 24, 2024 email containing the wiring instructions. (Motallebi Decl., Ex. C-E.)

            Mr. David argues that he would not have directly communicated with a represented litigant, and points out that the emails contain grammatical errors and phrasing not normally used by him. Mr. David also contends that Messrs. Aminian or Motallebi should have called him instead of relying solely on the emails. However, Mr. David confirms that he has communicated directly with Mr. Aminian before. (David Decl. ¶ 49, fn. 5.) Additionally, Mr. Motallebi was copied on each of the subject emails. (Motallebi Decl., Ex. C-E.) Messrs. Aminian and Motallebi had no reason to know what phrases Mr. David uses or does not use and had no reason to assume fraud based on grammatical errors. The emails originated from the correct email address for Mr. David, the same email that Messrs. Aminian and Motallebi had communicated with before. Furthermore, Mr. Aminian did call the correct phone number for Mr. David to discuss the wiring instructions, and spoke with someone identifying himself as Mr. David. (Aminian Supp. Decl. ¶ 7.) Within minutes of that call, “Henry David” sent an email referencing the call. (Id., Ex. B.) Thus, Mr. Aminian reasonably relied on subsequent communications as a modification of the payment terms.   

            Ultimately, Mr. Aminian settled with Plaintiff for $185,000 and paid that amount according to instructions originating from the email for Plaintiff’s counsel. Thus, Mr. Aminian did as he was told and fulfilled his obligations under the settlement.  

CONCLUSION

            Defendant Ramin Aminian’s motion to enforce settlement is GRANTED.

BACKGROUND

            On June 22, 2021, Hamid Hariri, Nahid Hariri, and H and N Property Management, LLC (collectively “Plaintiffs”) filed the operative Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) against Cashbloom LLC and others (collectively “Defendants”) alleging breach of promissory note and eight other causes of action arising from loans Plaintiffs made to Cashbloom.  

            On July 16, 2024, Plaintiffs settled with Defendant Ramin Aminian in the amount of $185,000. (Hamid Hariri Decl., Ex. 1.) The settlement agreement called for a cashier’s check made to H and N Property Management, LLC. (Ibid.) However, Defendant’s former counsel (Shahin Motallebi) claims that Plaintiffs’ counsel (Henry David) emailed him alternate instructions to wire the funds to a bank. (Motallebi Decl. ¶ 5, Ex. C.) Subsequently, Messrs. David, Aminian, and Motallebi purportedly exchanged emails culminating in instructions to wire the money to Regions Bank. (Id., ¶¶ 6-8, Ex. D.) Pursuant to these instructions, Defendant Aminian wired the $185,000 to Regions Bank. (Id., ¶ 10.)

            Mr. David denies sending any instructions to wire the funds to Regions Bank and denies participating in the purported email exchange. (David Decl. ¶¶ 35, 46-48.) Plaintiff contends that Defendant Aminian and his counsel were “spoofed” and received emails from a scammer posing as Mr. David. Plaintiff has not received any of the settlement money. (Hamid Hariri Decl. ¶ 12.)

            The parties have filed three separate motions centered on the question of whether Defendant Aminian has satisfied the judgment through the $185,000 wire transfer to Regions Bank. First, Defendant Aminian moves to enforce the settlement. Second, Defendant Aminian moves to hold Mr. David in contempt for misrepresenting the amount owed and the status of payment. Third, Plaintiff moves to compel production under a subpoena on the grounds that Defendant Aminian has not satisfied the judgment.      

            The Court addresses the third motion herein. Plaintiff H and N Property Management, LLC filed the motion to compel production on October 28, 2024. Defendant Aminian filed his opposition on November 12, 2024. Plaintiff filed its reply on November 18, 2024.   

LEGAL STANDARD

“If a subpoena requires the attendance of a witness or the production of books, documents, electronically stored information, or other things …, the court, upon motion reasonably made by [a party] . . . may make an order quashing the subpoena entirely, modifying it, or directing compliance with it upon those terms or conditions as the court shall declare, including protective orders.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1987.1, subd. (a), (b).)    

DISCUSSION

            On September 16, 2024, Plaintiff issued a subpoena to Defendant Aminian for the production of documents at his judgment debtor examination. (David Decl. ¶ 3, Ex. 6.) Defendant objected to each request on the same grounds: that he has already satisfied the judgment through his wiring of $185,000 to Regions Bank.  

            As discussed in the Court’s concurrent ruling on Defendant’s motion to enforce settlement, Defendant satisfied the terms of the settlement by paying $185,000 according to instructions originating from Mr. David’s email. The subpoena seeks documents to be produced at Defendant’s judgment debtor examination to aid in enforcement, but Defendant has already satisfied the judgment. Thus, there is no basis to compel production.

CONCLUSION

            Plaintiff H and N Property Management, LLC’s motion to compel production is DENIED.

BACKGROUND

            On June 22, 2021, Hamid Hariri, Nahid Hariri, and H and N Property Management, LLC (collectively “Plaintiffs”) filed the operative Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) against Cashbloom LLC and others (collectively “Defendants”) alleging breach of promissory note and eight other causes of action arising from loans Plaintiffs made to Cashbloom.  

            On July 16, 2024, Plaintiffs settled with Defendant Ramin Aminian in the amount of $185,000. (Hamid Hariri Decl., Ex. 1.) The settlement agreement called for a cashier’s check made to H and N Property Management, LLC. (Ibid.) However, Defendant’s former counsel (Shahin Motallebi) claims that Plaintiffs’ counsel (Henry David) emailed him alternate instructions to wire the funds to a bank. (Motallebi Decl. ¶ 5, Ex. C.) Subsequently, Messrs. David, Aminian, and Motallebi purportedly exchanged emails culminating in instructions to wire the money to Regions Bank. (Id., ¶¶ 6-8, Ex. D.) Pursuant to these instructions, Defendant Aminian wired the $185,000 to Regions Bank. (Id., ¶ 10.)

            Mr. David denies sending any instructions to wire the funds to Regions Bank and denies participating in the purported email exchange. (David Decl. ¶¶ 35, 46-48.) Plaintiff contends that Defendant Aminian and his counsel were “spoofed” and received emails from a scammer posing as Mr. David. Plaintiff has not received any of the settlement money. (Hamid Hariri Decl. ¶ 12.)

            The parties have filed three separate motions centered on the question of whether Defendant Aminian has satisfied the judgment through the $185,000 wire transfer to Regions Bank. First, Defendant Aminian moves to enforce the settlement. Second, Defendant Aminian moves to hold Mr. David in contempt for misrepresenting the amount owed and the status of payment. Third, Plaintiff moves to compel production under a subpoena on the grounds that Defendant Aminian has not satisfied the judgment.      

            The Court addresses the second motion herein. Defendant Aminian filed the motion for an order to show cause re contempt on October 31, 2024. Plaintiff filed its opposition on November 12, 2024. Defendant filed his reply on November 18, 2024. 

LEGAL STANDARD

            “The following acts or omissions in respect to a court of justice, or proceedings therein, are contempts of the authority of the court: . . . (3) Misbehavior in office, or other willful neglect or violation of duty by an attorney, counsel, clerk, sheriff, coroner, or other person, appointed or elected to perform a judicial or ministerial service . . . (4) Abuse of the process or proceedings of the court, or falsely pretending to act under authority of an order or process of the court . . . (5) Disobedience of any lawful judgment, order, or process of the court . . . (9) Any other unlawful interference with the process or proceedings of a court.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1209(a).)

DISCUSSION

            Defendant Aminian argues that Mr. David committed contempt of court by making false representations in a September 11, 2024 declaration in support of a subpoena for records. In that declaration, Mr. David averred that “Judgment Debtor/Defendant Ramin Aminian owes Judgment Creditor H and N Property Management, LLC of nearly $300,000, but has paid nothing towards that sum.” Defendant argues that this is an intentional misrepresentation because Defendant satisfied the judgment by wiring $185,000 to Regions Bank.

            As discussed in the Court’s concurrent ruling on Defendant’s motion to enforce settlement, Defendant satisfied the terms of the settlement by paying $185,000 according to instructions originating from Mr. David’s email. However, there is no indication that this issue arose from intentional deception by Plaintiff or Mr. David.  

            The charging documents and accompanying declarations do not demonstrate contemptuous conduct by Mr. David. Plaintiff has consistently denied receipt of the settlement funds. There is no evidence that Plaintiff actually received the settlement payment. It is undisputed that the money was wired to Regions Bank, and Defendant has no evidence that Plaintiff maintains an account at Regions Bank or has access to the $185,000 that was wired there. The fact that the subject emails were consistent and occurred over a period of time, and Mr. David confirms receipt of some emails in the chain, is not evidence that Mr. David fabricated the wiring emails or concocted a scheme to make Defendant pay more than $185,000.

Thus, the record does not support the charge that Mr. David made a knowingly false declaration by averring that Mr. Aminian has not paid the settlement. Without payment being received by Plaintiff, Mr. David reasonably asserted that Defendant owed the full judgment amount because he breached the settlement agreement. The Court entered judgment against Defendant Aminian for $251,623.87, plus prejudgment interest. Thus, the “nearly $300,000” claim is not intentionally false.  

            In sum, the Court does not find sufficient cause for an OSC re contempt.

CONCLUSION

            Defendant Ramin Aminian’s motion for an order to show cause re contempt is DENIED.