Judge: Frank M. Tavelman, Case: 19BBCV00147, Date: 2023-02-07 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19BBCV00147    Hearing Date: February 7, 2023    Dept: A

LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT

NORTH CENTRAL DISTRICT - BURBANK

DEPARTMENT A

MOTION FOR SANCTIONS

MP:     JSP Medical Management, Inc. (“Plaintiff”)

RP:      22456 Ventura Blvd, LLC and 11601 Ventura Blvd, LLC (“LLC Defendants”)

HISTORY:

JSP Medical Management Inc. (“Plaintiff”) filed its Fourth Amended Complaint in which it named as defendants 11601 Ventura Blvd., LLC (“11601 Ventura”) and 22456 Ventura Blvd., LLC (“22456 Ventura”) (collectively, “Special Defendants”). Also named as a defendant is Pierre Moeini (“Moeini”). Plaintiff alleges that Special Defendants are the alter ego of Moeini, as Moeini is the sole member of the companies. Plaintiff alleges causes of action against Moeini and Special Defendants for: (1) Fraud; (2) Negligent Misrepresentation; and (3) Fraudulent Transfer.

Plaintiff initially filed suit as against Moeini, Trans-Atlantic Motors, LTD and Does 1-10 on February 19, 2019. Relevant to both parties’ arguments is that, in a previous action, a debtor’s examination of Pierre Moeini took place on November 1, 2019. Plaintiff filed its Third Amended Complaint on April 16, 2020, alleging for the first time Fraudulent Transfer.

Special Defendants have filed a Motion to Quash Service of Summons for failure to comply with C.C.P. §474. The Court on January 13, 2023 denied the request.

Brief Summary of Argument at Motion to Quash

During the hearing on this motion, Special Defendants argued that the Court must determine if Plaintiff knew or should have reasonably known facts establishing its cause of action. The Court agrees with Special Defendants’ argument but finds that the language of the applicable law also requires knowledge of the Doe Defendant. The test is if plaintiff is aware of facts establishing their cause of action against the party to be substituted. Plaintiff alleges that misrepresentation of Pierre Moieni kept them from being aware of facts as to the existence of Special Defendants.

RELIEF REQUESTED:

This motion for sanctions is made pursuant to CCP § 128.7 on the grounds that defendant’s motion to quash was without legal merit. Plaintiff requests sanctions in the amount of $6,300 against the LLC defendant and its attorneys.

LAW AND ANALYSIS:

CCP § 128.7(b) requires an attorney to sign filings attesting that it is not being presented for an improper purpose, such as to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation. CCP 128.7(b)(1).  If the court determines that subdivision be has been violated, the court may impose appropriate sanctions upon the attorney or the parties.  CCP § 128.7(c).  A sanction imposed under this section shall be limited to what is sufficient to deter repetition of the inappropriate conduct.  CCP § CCP 128.7(d).

The LLC Defendants argue that Plaintiff has not complied with CCP §128.7, and cites Malovec v. Hamrell (1999) 70 Cal. App. 4^th 434, 440. Specifically, the Plaintiff did not serve the motion on the LLC Defendants, but rather served a meet and confer letter.  While the Court agrees that the detailed letter certainly put the LLC Defendants on notice as to the basis of the request, nonetheless it was not the motion itself which often contains additional material and persuasive arguments that could not be completely evaluated by the LLC Defendants.   Regardless, the Court does find that sufficient notice was made by Plaintiff.   Interestingly, the statute simply requires that “notice of the motion” be served, despite Malovec stating that the motion itself must be served.

Plaintiff states the purpose of filing their sanctions motion is to deter repetition of such meritless filings.  (Motion 3:9-12).  Of particular note was the concern that the LLC Defendants will seek to delay the trial; however, at the last hearing they made no such request – a fact which was correctly pointed out in the Opposition.  During the oral argument related to the motion is question, the Court did not believe that the motion was without merit despite ultimately ruling in favor of the Plaintiff. 

Having heard the arguments for the motion to quash, the Court does not believe that the motion was brought for an improper purpose, nor as a delay tactic.   The Court believes there was a colorable argument concerning the service of the amended complaint; however, the issue the Court believes is better handled through the demurrer process.

CONCLUSION:

The request for sanctions to deter subsequent misconduct that may delay the trial is denied.   The Court does not find that the underlying motion was completely without merit, nor that the LLC Defendants were seeking to delay the trial.   The LLC Defendants have not sought a trial delay, and in fact opposed the amendment to the complaint as they were seeking the matter to move forward to trial.

RULING:

In the event the parties submit on this tentative ruling, or a party requests a signed order or the court in its discretion elects to sign a formal order, the following form will be either electronically signed or signed in hard copy and entered into the court’s records. 

ORDER 

Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions came on regularly for hearing on February 7, 2023, with appearances/submissions as noted in the minute order for said hearing, and the court, being fully advised in the premises, did then and there rule as follows: 

THE MOTION FOR SANCTIONS IS DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATE:  February 7, 2023                             _______________________________ 

                                                                        F.M. TAVELMAN, Judge 

Superior Court of California 

County of Los Angeles 

                                                                              LOS ANGELES
SUPERIOR COURT

NORTH CENTRAL
DISTRICT - BURBANK

DEPARTMENT A

MOTIONS IN LIMINE

The Court has reviewed each
Motion in Limine, each Opposition and each Reply and hereby makes the following
tentative rulings:

Motion in
Limine #1

Motion to exclude any testimony and exhibits regarding Plaintiff
allegedly owing Defendants monthly lease payments, or any other ostensible
amounts claimed in Pierre Moeni’s cross-complaint.

RULING:       GRANT on relevancy grounds, EC §352 and res judicata.

Motion in
Limine #2

Motion to exclude any and all
tax information, tax records, income information and any other irrelevant and
prejudicial information, which seems to be intended to be elicited from Sadajian’s
ex-husband Reza Partovi at trial.

RULING:  RESERVED – the relevance of these questions will
be determined during the trial.  “Highly
prejudicial testimony” is not a basis for a motion in lime under Evidence Code § 352.

Motion to remedy plaintiff’s
counsel to Reza Partovi or “no” responses when called for.

RULING:  RESERVED - This is a matter to be determined
during the trial based on the witness’ level of cooperation.   Any nonresponsive answers are subject to a
motion to strike.  An order demanding “yes”
or “no” answers when called for is vague.  
What an attorney believes calls for a “yes” or “no” answer, may not
agree with opposing counsel, the witness or the Court in providing an answer to
the question.

Motion to prevent defense
counsel from examining Reza Partovi under Evidence Code § 776.

RULING:  GRANTED – subject to defense showing that
Reza Partovi qualifies under Evidence Code § 776(d).

Motion in Limine
#3

Motion to exclude evidence,
reference to evidence or any testimony as to money spent on trips taken by
Pierre Moeini and Golriz Moeini pursuant to Evidence Code § 352.

RULING:   DENIED, such testimony is not substantially
more prejudicial than probative based on the allegations in the complaint.

Motion in
Limine #4

Motion to exclude the
testimony of Benafsche Sadjadian and Jan Sundberg, Esq. and any exhibits that
are contrary to the several judicial admissions made by Benafsche Sadjadian and
Jan Sundberg, Esq.

RULING:  DENIED, however, any such statements are
subject to Evidence Code §1235, must be relevant and appropriate foundation
laid.

---

The Court notes that trials are
an ever-evolving process, and rulings are based on the limited information
provided to the Court, some of which may change during trial.   All rulings are subject to reconsideration
at a sidebar prior to asking questions contrary to the rulings.  As there has not been a jury waiver by all
parties, the attorneys are ordered to comply with these rulings on motions in
limine, and to advise all witnesses accordingly.