Judge: Gail Killefer, Case: 23STCV30148, Date: 2024-06-27 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23STCV30148 Hearing Date: June 27, 2024 Dept: 37
HEARING DATE: Thursday, June 27, 2024
CASE NUMBER: 23STCV30148
CASE NAME: Reza Pourfarzib, et al. v. Najila Kordrostam Brent, et al.
MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Zohreh Khabushani
OPPOSING PARTY: None
TRIAL DATE: Not Set
PROOF OF SERVICE: OK
PROCEEDING: Motion for a Preliminary
Injunction
OPPOSITION: None
REPLY: 20
June 2024
TENTATIVE: Plaintiff Khabushani’s Motion for a
Preliminary Injunction is denied. Plaintiff to give notice.
Background
This
action arises from the efforts of Najila Kordrostam Brent (“Brent”) and her law
firm, Law Offices of Najila K. Brent, a Professional Law Corporation (“Brent
Corporation”) (collectively, “Defendants”) to collect a 1996 Default Judgment
against Zoreh Khabushani (“Plaintiff”).
The Complaint alleges that the
1996 Default Judgment resulted in Plaintiff filing for Chapter 7 Bankruptcy in
2009, in the United States Bankruptcy Court, Central District, in In re
Zohreh Khabushani aka Zohreh Gowhari Khabushani, Debtor, Case No. 1:09-bk18679-MB.
Plaintiff ‘s efforts to discharge the 1996 Default Judgment was challenged in
the Bankruptcy Court in Ramin Zarrin Ehtram v. Zohreh Khabushani, Case
No. l:10-ap-01461-AA.
In 2012, the parties entered into
a settlement agreement (the “Settlement Agreement”) in which the 1996 Default
Judgment was reduced to $500.000. The Settlement Agreement provided that the judgment
creditor had until January 11, 2016, to enforce and collect on the judgment or
it would expire and not be renewable against Plaintiff. (Compl. ¶ 24, Ex. C,
D.)
When Defendant Brent
continued to try to collect on the 1996 Settlement Agreement, Plaintiff filed a
breach of contract action in Ventura County Superior Court in Case No. 56-2016-
00483639-CU-BC-VTA. Defendant Brent removed the action to the bankruptcy court
into Adversary Proceeding 1:16-ap-01105-MB, in the United States Bankruptcy
Court for the Central District of California and assigned to Judge Martin R.
Barash. (Compl., ¶ 27.) On January 13, 2017, the Bankruptcy Court remanded the
case back to the state court due to lack of jurisdiction. (Compl. ¶ 28, Ex. E,
F.)
On January 11, 2016,
Defendant Brent filed another action entitled Case No. LC103757, Ramin
Zarrin-Ehteram v. Zohreh Khabushani, et al. in Los Angeles County Superior
Court, Van Nuys Courthouse – East against Plaintiff, alleging fraudulent
transfers between Plaintiff and third parties. (Compl., ¶ 30.) In January 2023,
the Hon. Huey P. Cotton granted Defendants’ motion for terminating sanctions
and entered judgment in favor of the Defendants. (Compl. ¶ 53, Ex. S.)
On October 14, 2022,
Defendant Brent renewed the Stipulated Judgment by obtaining a Writ of Execution
for the United States Bankruptcy Court. Plaintiff now moves for a preliminary
injunction to quash the writ of execution. The motion is unopposed.
I. Legal Standard
“A preliminary injunction may be granted
at any time before judgment upon a verified complaint, or upon affidavits if
the complaint in the one case, or the affidavits in the other, show
satisfactorily that sufficient grounds exist therefore.” (CCP, § 527(a).) “A preliminary injunction is an interim
remedy designed to maintain the status quo pending a decision on the merits.” (MaJor v. Miraverde Homeowners Assn. (1992) 7
Cal.App.4th 618, 622.)
(a) An injunction may be granted in the
following cases:
(1) When it appears by the complaint that
the plaintiff is entitled to the relief demanded, and the relief, or any part
thereof, consists in restraining the commission or continuance of the act
complained of, either for a limited period or perpetually.
(2) When it appears by the complaint or
affidavits that the commission or continuance of some act during the litigation
would produce waste, or great or irreparable injury, to a party to the
action.
(3) When it appears, during the
litigation, that a party to the action is doing, or threatens, or is about to
do, or is procuring or suffering to be done, some act in violation of the
rights of another party to the action respecting the subject of the action, and
tending to render the judgment ineffectual.
(4) When pecuniary compensation would not
afford adequate relief.
(5) Where it would be extremely difficult
to ascertain the amount of compensation which would afford adequate
relief.
(6) Where the restraint is necessary to
prevent a multiplicity of judicial proceedings.
(7) Where the obligation arises from a
trust.
(CCP,
§ 526(a).)
“Before issuing a preliminary injunction, the
trial court must ‘carefully weigh the evidence and decide whether the facts require
[ ] such relief.’ [Citation.] The court evaluates the credibility of witnesses
and makes factual findings on disputed evidence.” (Fleishman v. Superior
Court (2002) 102 Cal.App.4th 350, 356.)
A
judge is not precluded from granting a preliminary injunction merely because of
conflicts in the evidence. (See National Subscription
Television v. Formula International, Inc. (1984) 153
Cal.App.3d 308, 314.) Because a hearing on a preliminary
injunction is not a “trial of a question of fact” within the meaning of CCP §
632, a judge is not required to issue a statement of decision, even on request.
(Oiye v. Fox (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 1036, 1049.) A
plaintiff seeking injunctive relief must show the absence of an adequate
damages remedy at law. (CCP., §526(a)(4).) Mandatory preliminary injunctions rarely are granted
and are reserved for extreme cases where the right is established
clearly. (Teachers Ins. & Annuity Assn. v. Furlotti (1999) 70
Cal.App.4th 1487, 1493.)
A preliminary injunction ordinarily cannot take effect
unless and until the plaintiff provides an undertaking for damages which the
enjoined defendant may sustain by reason of the injunction if the court finally
decides that the plaintiff was not entitled to the injunction. (See CCP, §
529(a); CRC, rule 3.1150(f); City of South San Francisco v. Cypress Lawn
Cemetery Assn. (1992) 11 Cal.App.4th 916, 920.)
II. Request for Judicial Notice
The court may
take judicial notice of records of any court of record of the United States.
(Evid. Code, § 452(d)(2).) However, the court may only judicially notice the
existence of the record, not that its contents are the truth. (Sosinsky v.
Grant (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 1548, 1565.)
Plaintiff Khabushani requests
judicial notice of the following:
1)
Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a true
and correct copy of a Stipulation between Defendant Brent and Plaintiff Zohreh
Khabushani of October 15, 2012, in Ramin Zarrin-Ehteram v. Zohreh Khabushani,
Case No. 1:10-ap-014610-AA.
2)
Attached hereto as Exhibit B is a true
and correct copy of a Stipulated Judgment entered on October 17, 2012, in Ramin
Zarrin-Ehteram v. Zohreh Khabushani, Case No. 1:10-ap-01461-AA (filed
October 22, 2010).
3)
Attached hereto as Exhibit C is a true
and correct copy of an Assignment of Judgment filed by Najila K. Brent and
entered on September 20, 2017, in Hassan Zarrin-Ehteram v. Hassan
Hajirassouli, et al., Case No. PC003379 (filed April 8, 1991).
4)
Attached hereto as Exhibit D is a true
and correct copy of the Minute Order of January 24, 2023, in Ramin
Zarrin-Ehteram v. Zohreh Khabushani, et al., Case No. LC103757 (filed
January 11, 2016).
5)
Attached hereto as Exhibit E is a true
and correct copy of the Judgment entered March 3, 2023, in Ramin
Zarrin-Ehteram v. Zohreh Khabushani, et al., Case No. LC103757 (filed
January 11, 2016).
6)
Attached hereto as Exhibit F is a true
and correct copy of the Amended Judgment entered August 17, 2023, in Ramin
Zarrin-Ehteram v. Zohreh Khabushani, et al., Case No. LC103757 (filed
January 11, 2016).
7)
Attached hereto as Exhibit G is a true
and correct copy of the Renewal of Judgment filed by Najila Brent on October
14, 2022, in Ramin Zarrin-Ehteram v. Zohreh Khabushani, Case No.
1:10-ap-01461-AA (filed October 22, 2010).
8)
Attached hereto as Exhibit H is a true
and correct copy of the Writ of Execution obtained by Najila Brent on July 26,
2023, in Ramin Zarrin-Ehteram v. Zohreh Khabushani, Case No.
1:10-ap-01461-AA (filed October 22, 2010).
Plaintiff Khabushani’s request for
judicial notice is granted.
III. Discussion
Plaintiff requests that this court quash and recall the Writ
of Execution issued by the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Central
District of California on July 26, 2023. (RJN Ex. H.) The court does not reach the merits of Plaintiff’s motion because
Plaintiff has failed to show that this court has jurisdiction to quash and
recall a writ issued by the bankruptcy court. Under 11 U.S.C.A. § 105(a), a bankruptcy court is authorized to issue
any order, process or judgment necessary to
carry out the provisions of the Bankruptcy Code, and “‘gives the bankruptcy
court the power and the jurisdiction to enforce its valid orders.’ ” (In re Protarga, Inc. (Bankr.
D. Del. 2005) 329 B.R. 451, 479 [internal quotations omitted].)
Moreover,
the Stipulated Judgment of the parties’ states:
9. Should any dispute regarding this stipulation for Entry of
Judgment and Settlement Agreement, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the
Central District of California, Woodland Hills Division shall have the
exclusive jurisdiction to determine the same.
(RJN, Ex. A at p. 5.)
The only explanation Plaintiff offers as to why this court has
jurisdiction is that “the Stipulated Judgment deals with a matter of
California state law” and that “Ms. Khabushani understands that this is the
appropriate forum to quash the Writ of Execution[.]” (Mot., p. 6:24-25.) Plaintiff
fails to cite any case law supporting the proposition that a judgment entered
by the bankruptcy court that touch on matters of California law gives state
court jurisdiction over the judgment. In the absence of any case law showing
the contrary, the court finds that Plaintiff has failed to show that this court
has the jurisdiction to grant Plaintiff’s requested preliminary injunction.
Accordingly, the motion is
denied.
Conclusion
Plaintiff Khabushani’s Motion for
a Preliminary Injunction is denied. Plaintiff to give notice.