Superior Court of California 

County of Los Angeles 

Department 78 

 

NEDA SAMSAMI, et al.,  

Petitioners 

v. 

AMIR MAHMOUDIANI aka AMIR LASHGARI, et al., 

Respondents 

  

AMIR MAHMOUDIANI aka AMIR LASHGARI 

Petitioner 

v. 

NEDA SAMSAMI, et al.,  

Respondents 

    Case No.:  20STCP01893 

  Consolidated with Related Case:    

                    20STCP02901 

 

Hearing Date: October 13, 2023 

 [TENTATIVE] RULING

AMIR MAHMOUDIANI’S MOTION FOR AN ASSIGNMENT ORDER AND AN ORDER RESTRAINING JUDGMENT DEBTOR

 

Mahmoudiani’s motion for an assignment order and an order restraining judgment debtor is granted.

Mahmoudiani is directed to file a new proposed order indicating the maximum amount of the commissions to be assigned. The new proposed order must be filed on or before October 18, 2023.

The Court sets a nonappearance review date of October 23, 2023 at 8:30 a.m. to review the proposed order. 

Moving party to provide notice and to file proof of service of such notice within five court days after the date of this order.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND   

These two Petitions address an arbitration award issued on March 5, 2020. Petitioners Neda Samsami and David Acosta (together, “Respondents”) filed their Petition to Vacate the Arbitration Award on June 11, 2020. Petitioner Amir Mahmoudiani (Aka Amir Lashgari) (“Lashgari”) filed his Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award on September 9, 2020. The Court has found those actions related and the actions were consolidated on November 12, 2020.  

The arbitration to which these Petitions relate was conducted by the California Association of Realtors pursuant to its rules as will be discussed. The issue in the arbitration was whether Lashgari or Respondents were the procuring cause for the sale of a home located at 3944 Alonzo Avenue, Encino California. Following a hearing on February 20, 2020, the arbitrators issued their written award on March 5, 2020. The award found in favor of Lashgari and required Respondent to pay Lashgari $43,000.  

PROCEDURAL HISTORY 

On June 11, 2020, Petitioners filed their petition to vacate arbitration against Respondents Amir M. Mahmoudiani (aka Amir Lashgari).

On November 20, 2020, the Court granted Mahmoudiani’s Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award.

On January 27, 2021, the Court granted Mahmoudiani’s motion for attorney fees.

On March 2, 2021, the Court entered judgment in favor of Mahmoudiani.

On July 25, 2023, Mahmoudiani filed this motion for assignment order and order restraining judgment debtor.

DISCUSSION

Mahmoudiani moves for an assignment order and an order restraining judgment debtor. Specifically, Mahmoudiani seeks an assignment to the rights and payments from earnings derived from commissions from the sale of real estate as licensed real estate agents to the extent necessary to pay his judgment. 

Code of Civil Procedure section 708.510(a)¿states, in¿relevant¿part:¿ 

 

(a) Except as otherwise provided by law, upon application of the judgment creditor on noticed motion, the court may order the judgment debtor to assign to the judgment creditor or to a receiver appointed pursuant to Article 7 (commencing with¿Section 708.610) all or part of a right to payment due or to become due, whether or not the right is conditioned on future developments, including but not limited to the following types of payments: 

(1) Wages due from the federal government that are not subject to withholding under an earnings withholding order. 

(2) Rents. 

(3) Commissions. 

(4) Royalties. 

(5) Payments due from a patent or copyright. 

(6) Insurance policy loan value. 

 

Code of Civil Procedure section 708.510(c) further provides: 

 

[I]n determining whether to order an assignment or the amount of an assignment pursuant to subdivision (a), the court may take into consideration all relevant factors, including the following: 

(1) The reasonable requirements of a judgment debtor who is a natural person and of persons supported in whole or in part by the judgment debtor. 

(2) Payments the judgment debtor is required to make or that are deducted in satisfaction of other judgments and wage assignments, including earnings assignment orders for support. 

(3) The amount remaining due on the money judgment. 

(4) The amount being or to be received in satisfaction of the right to payment that may be assigned. 

Code of Civil Procedure section 708.520 provides that “[w]hen an application is made pursuant to¿Section 708.510¿or thereafter, the judgment creditor may apply to the court for an order restraining the judgment debtor from assigning or otherwise disposing of the right to payment that is sought to be assigned.”¿(Code Civ. Proc., § 708.520(a).)¿“The court may issue an order pursuant to this section upon a showing of need for the order.” (Id., § 708.520(b).) 

Here, the Court entered judgment in favor of Mahmoudiani and against both Samsami and Acosta in the following amounts:

1. $43,000 representing the principal owed to Petitioner under the arbitral award

2. $11,366.38 representing attorney fees incurred to confirm the arbitration award

3. $1,007.09 representing the costs and fees incurred in confirming the arbitration award

4. $3,604.66 representing prejudgment interest at the rate of 10% from March 25, 2020, with the exception of October 19, 2020 to November 12, 2020.

In addition to the principal owed on the judgment, Mahmoudiani cites Code Civ. Proc., section 685.010, which provides that interest accrues at the rate of 10 percent per annum on the principal amount of money judgment remaining unsatisfied. Mahmoudiani’s counsel provides a calculation of interest in his declaration. (Berke Decl., ¶5.) Interest totals $3,732 for the time between the date of the judgment and date of the last payment made and $7,952.45 from the date the last payment was made to the date this motion was filed. 

Mahmoudiani acknowledges the $17,000 payment he received from Samsami on 10/19/21. 

The total judgment as of the date of the filing of this motion including interest and with credit for Samsami’s payment is $53,663.54.

Mahmoudiani provides records from the Bureau of Real Estate’s website showing both Acosta and Samsami maintain real estate licenses. (Berke Decl., Exhs. 2, 4.) Although Samsami objects to these records, the Court finds the records are properly authenticated by Berke’s declaration because he declares he performed a search on the Bureau of Real Estate’s online records. Samsami’s remaining objections are overruled.

Samsami disputes the judgment amount because Mahmoudiani’s counsel’s declaration incorrectly states she made a $17,000 payment on March 19, 2021. However, this appears to be a typographical error because the remainder of Mahmoudiani’s motion states she made payment on October 20, 2021 and accounts for the payment in the total judgment.

Samsami also disputes the amount of interest, arguing there is a difference of $1,524.71 between her calculation and Mahmoudiani’s calculation. 

Interest ceases to accrue when a judgment debtor delivers checks to a judgment creditor. (Long v. Cuttle Const. Co. (App. 3 Dist. 1998) 70 Cal.Rptr.2d 698.) Generally, there is no compounding of interest in the absence of specific statutory authority. (Westbrook v. Fairchild (App. 4 Dist. 1992) 9 Cal.Rptr.2d 277.) The only exception to the rule that interest on interest (i.e. compound interest) may not be recovered is in situations in which interest is included in a judgment which then bears interest at the legal rate. (Westbrook v. Fairchild (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 889, 894.)

Here, the original calculation of interest is included in the judgment principal. The judgment was not paid for 231 days between 3/2/2021 and 10/19/21. Interest thus accrued in the amount of $3,732.96. On 10/19/21, Samsami made a payment of $17,000. Interest ceased accruing on 10/19/2021 because Samsami made a payment toward the judgement and commenced again on 10/20/2021 because a balance remained on the judgment. Mahmoudiani’s calculation of interest from 10/20/2021 to the date of the filing of this motion appears to be based on compounded interest, meaning Mahmoudiani added $3,732.96 to the principal and calculated interest from this new amount. However, Code Civ. Proc., section 685.010 does not specifically state interest is compounded. Thus, the proper calculation of interest is $7,210.50 ($58,978.13-$17,000=$41,978.13, $41,978.13 x .1=$4,197.81, $4,197.81/365=$11.50, $11.50 X 627=$7,210.50) Thus, the total judgment is $52,921,59.

Samsami argues that the requested assignment is vague and would amount to wage garnishment. The Court first notes that the requested assignment is not vague because it does not seek “all commissions” as Samsami argues, but rights to payment of “earnings derived from commissions from the sale of real estate as licensed real estate agents.” The assignment of the rights to payment of commissions is explicitly permitted under Code Civ. Proc., section 708.510. 

Samsami cites Telecom Asset Mgmt., LLC v. FiberLight, LLC (2016) 203 F. Supp. 3d 1013 and Parish v. Peters (1991) 1 Cal. App. 4th 202 in support of her argument. However, Telecom concerned whether a plaintiff was entitled to restitution for unpaid commissions and is not applicable to the matter at hand. Parish concerned whether default judgment was void because the plaintiffs there failed to serve a statement of damages. It is not applicable to the matter at hand. Samsami also cites In re Marriage of Sorge (2012) 202 Cal.App.4th 626. However, that case examines whether a court may award attorney fees in marriage dissolution cases and is not applicable to the matter at hand. Samsami also cites to out-of-state authority. Such authority is not binding on California courts. (People v. Troyer (2011) 51 Cal.4th 599, 610.)

Samsami testifies that she has already remitted $17,000 to Respondent and assumed more than $25,000 in legal fees, bringing her to the brink of bankruptcy. (Samsami Decl., ¶3.) Samsami also argues that she does not have any prospective commissions. (Opp., p.9.) 

The Court may consider the reasonable needs of the judgment debtor. However, Samsami’s evidence fails to show that the commissions are her only source of income or that she cannot meet her financial obligations without the commissions. Even if she has no prospective commissions, Mahmoudiani is permitted to seek assignment of payment of any commissions Samsami may incur should she become active again.

A judgment debtor is explicitly permitted to seek assignment of the right to payment of commissions under Code of Civil Procedure section 708.510(a). Because the judgment entered in March 2021 remains outstanding after two years, the Court finds that the assignment order and restraining order are necessary to ensure the judgment is paid and to prevent the judgment debtors from assigning or disposing of the right to payment of their commissions.

The motion for an assignment order and an order restraining judgment debtor is granted. The total judgment that may be collected is $52,921,59.

DATED: October 13, 2023 

________________________

Hon. Jill Feeney 

Judge of the Superior Court