Superior Court of California 

County of Los Angeles – West District  

Beverly Hills Courthouse / Department 205 

 

 

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiffs Azar Mouzari and Hassan Nafchi, Trustees of Savannah Kiam Group Associates, Partners and Family Revocable Trust 

 

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant Margaret Yining Jiang 

 

BACKGROUND 

This action arises from a landlord-tenant dispute.  Plaintiffs Azar Mouzari and Hassan Nafchi as Trustees of Savannah Kiam Group Associates, Partners and Family Revocable Trust (“Landlord”) own real property located at 960 N. Tigertail Road, Los Angeles, California (the “Property”).  Landlord leased a 1-bedroom guesthouse located at the Property to Defendant Margaret Yining Jiang (“Tenant”), pursuant to a written lease (the “Lease”).   

Landlord alleges Tenant caused substantial damage to the Property by installing an unpermitted gas line.  Tenant then allegedly refused access to the unit to fix the gas line, or for a city inspector to inspect the unit.  Tenant has also failed to pay rent as of February 2023 and utility fees from at least October 2022.  Tenant further refused to vacate the Property when Landlord elected to terminate the Lease.   

The operative complaint alleges claims for (1) breach of contract, (2) breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, (3) private nuisance and (4) waste.   

This hearing is on Landlord’s motion for an order determining that Tenant is not entitled to a fee waiver.  Landlord contends that Tenant perjured herself when claiming in the fee waiver application that she is unemployed and disabled.  Her verified discovery responses and other documents show she is in fact employed and has income in excess of $6,000.  Landlord asks the Court to order Tenant to repay all previously waived fees and to sanction her.      

LEGAL STANDARD 

Government Code sections 68631 and 68636 allows a Court to reconsider the issuance of a fee waiver.¿ “Under circumstances set forth in Section 68636, the court may reconsider the initial fee waiver and order the fee waiver withdrawn for future fees and costs or deny the fee waiver retroactively.” (Gov. Code, § 68631.)  

Government Code section 68636, subdivision (b) provides, “If, before or at the time of final disposition of the case, the court obtains information, including information derived from the court file, suggesting that a person whose fees and costs were initially waived is not entitled to a fee waiver . . .¿ the court may require the person to appear at a court hearing by giving the applicant [1] no less than 10 days’ written notice of the hearing and [2] the specific reasons why the initial fee waiver might be reconsidered.” (Gov. Code, § 68636(b).)¿  

Subdivision (b) further provides “[t]he court may require the person to provide reasonably available evidence, including financial information, to support his or her eligibility for the fee waiver, but shall not require submission of information that is not related to the criteria for eligibility and application requirements set forth in Sections 68632 and 68633.” (Gov. Code, § 68636(b).)¿  

“If the court obtains information suggesting that a litigant whose fees and costs were initially waived is obtaining court services in bad faith, or for an improper purpose such as to harass or cause unnecessary delay, or to needlessly increase the costs of litigation, the court may give notice that the litigant is required to appear at a court hearing to consider whether limitations should be placed on court services for which fees were initially waived.” (Gov. Code, § 68636(f).)¿ 

“In conducting a hearing under subdivision (b) . . .¿ if the court determines that the person was not entitled to the initial fee waiver at the time it was granted, the court may order the waiver withdrawn retroactively. The court may order the person to pay to the court immediately, or over a period of time, all or part of the fees that were initially waived. The court shall give the person a minimum of 10 court days to begin paying the full or partial fees.” (Gov. Code, § 68636(d).)¿ 

DISCUSSION 

The Court concludes there are sufficient facts to support the need for a hearing on Tenant’s fee waiver.  On February 10, 2023, Tenant applied for a fee waiver representing she was unemployed and disabled.  However, Tenant has admitted by way of verified discovery responses and correspondence with Landlord that she (1) is employed on a part-time basis at a café, (2) has numerous successful tutoring businesses, and (3) has a monthly income of over $6,000.  (Exs. 1-4 to Mouzari Decl.)   

CONCLUSION 

Based on the foregoing, the Court orders Tenant to appear before the Court on May 15, 2023 at 9:00 a.m.  At the hearing, Tenant is ordered to provide financial information to support her application for a fee waiver, including her latest tax return, pay-stubs from any current employment, and evidence that she is receiving Medi-Cal and county relief/government assistance benefits. 

 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 

DATED: May 9, 2023          ___________________________ 

Edward B. Moreton, Jr. 

Judge of the Superior Court