Judge: Jon R. Takasugi, Case: 19STCV20062, Date: 2023-05-01 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19STCV20062    Hearing Date: May 1, 2023    Dept: 17

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

DEPARTMENT 17

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiff’s motion for an award of after-judgment costs totaling $2,257.68 incurred in enforcing the judgment is GRANTED.

On June 7, 2019, Plaintiff Jacob Reich filed a Complaint against Defendant Mansour Hashem. On September 1, 2020, Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint (SAC) alleging: (1) breach of written contract; (2) money had and received; (3) common counts; (4) open book account; (5) account stated; (6) failure to honor checks; (7) fraud; (8) negligence; (9) unjust enrichment; (10) judiciary foreclosure; and (11) reformation of contract.

On September 9, 2019, Defendant filed a XC against Plaintiff, setting forth claims for (1) fraud, (2) breach of fiduciary duty, and (3) declaratory relief. 

Now, Plaintiff moves for an order awarding reasonable costs enforcing the judgment.

            The motion is unopposed.

Discussion 

            Plaintiff moves to recover costs incurred enforcing the 6/3/2021 judgment for the principal sum of $15,000.00, following an order granting Plaintiff attorney fees for Defendant’s frivolous anti-SLAPP motion.

            This is not the first motion of its kind. The Court granted a similar motion on 2/7/2022. Then, the Court tentatively granted a similar motion set for a hearing on 11/7/2022, but continued the hearing after Defendant moved ex parte to continue the motion based on the state of his health.

            This fourth motion, which seeks costs incurred after 1/3/2023, is unopposed. Thus, Defendant is considered to have conceded to the merits of the motion.

            Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motion for an award of after-judgment costs is granted.

It is so ordered.

Dated:  May    , 2023

   Hon. Jon R. Takasugi
   Judge of the Superior Court

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at smcdept17@lacourt.org by 4 p.m. the day prior as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  If a party submits on the tentative, the party’s email must include the case number and must identify the party submitting on the tentative.  If all parties to a motion submit, the court will adopt this tentative as the final order.  If the department does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on the tentative and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion may be placed off calendar. 

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

DEPARTMENT 17

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiff’s motion for an order of assignment and restraining order is CONTINUED. Defendant is ordered to submit supporting documentation to corroborate the statements set forth in his declaration.

On June 7, 2019, Plaintiff Jacob Reich filed a Complaint against Defendant Mansour Hashem. On September 1, 2020, Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint (SAC) alleging: (1) breach of written contract; (2) money had and received; (3) common counts; (4) open book account; (5) account stated; (6) failure to honor checks; (7) fraud; (8) negligence; (9) unjust enrichment; (10) judiciary foreclosure; and (11) reformation of contract.

            Now, Plaintiff seeks an order of assignment and restraining order.  

Discussion

Plaintiff seeks assignment of future rent payments from the real properties owned by the Defendant. Moreover, Plaintiff seeks a restraining order pursuant to which Defendant will be restrained from collecting any rent from his attached properties until the judgment is satisfied.

The Court previously continued this motion, and ordered Defendant to submit a detailed declaration setting forth his income, expenses, and costs of living. 

Per the Court’s instruction, Defendant submitted a declaration wherein he outlines his profits and losses, and indicates that he lives in a financial deficit. However, Defendant has not included any supporting documentation in his declaration. Such documentation is necessary in light of the expenses claimed. For example, Defendant claims that he spends approximately $3,600 per month on “gas, auto maintenance, groceries, household supplies and phones.” Defendant claims he pays $1,500 on average per month for maintenance on the 4 properties. Such claims, without any supporting evidence, are insufficient.

In order for the Court to conclude that Defendant has no net profits from the rents, such that no rent assignment is possible, Defendant must establish this beyond assertions. A detailed declaration is one which is supported by corroborating evidence. 

            Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motion for an order of assignment and restraining order is continued. Defendant is ordered to submit supporting documentation to corroborate the statements set forth in his declaration.  

It is so ordered.

Dated:  May    , 2023

   Hon. Jon R. Takasugi
   Judge of the Superior Court

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at smcdept17@lacourt.org by 4 p.m. the day prior as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  If a party submits on the tentative, the party’s email must include the case number and must identify the party submitting on the tentative.  If all parties to a motion submit, the court will adopt this tentative as the final order.  If the department does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on the tentative and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion may be placed off calendar. 

            Due to Covid-19, the court is strongly discouraging in-person appearances.  Parties, counsel, and court reporters present are subject to temperature checks and health inquiries, and will be denied entry if admission could create a public health risk.  The court encourages the parties wishing to argue to appear via L.A. Court Connect.  For more information, please contact the court clerk at (213) 633-0517.  Your understanding during these difficult times is appreciated.

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

DEPARTMENT 17

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiff’s motion for an order holding Defendant in contempt for failing to produce documents is CONTINUED. Plaintiff is ordered to file supplemental materials consistent with this ruling.

On June 7, 2019, Plaintiff Jacob Reich filed a Complaint against Defendant Mansour Hashem. On September 1, 2020, Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint (SAC) alleging: (1) breach of written contract; (2) money had and received; (3) common counts; (4) open book account; (5) account stated; (6) failure to honor checks; (7) fraud; (8) negligence; (9) unjust enrichment; (10) judiciary foreclosure; and (11) reformation of contract.

On September 9, 2019, Defendant filed a XC against Plaintiff, setting forth claims for (1) fraud, (2) breach of fiduciary duty, and (3) declaratory relief. 

Now, Plaintiff moves for an order holding Defendant in contempt for failing to produce documents.

Discussion

            Plaintiff argues that an additional ORAP is necessary because Defendant has intentionally concealed monies and is misrepresenting his assets to avoid satisfying the judgment. In support, Plaintiff submitted evidence that Defendant has borrowed money from initial lenders, and private individuals. In order to understand the “paper trail of money”, Plaintiff subpoenaed Defendant to appear and bring 59 categories of documents. (See Motion, Exh. 3.)

            A review of the 59 document production requests establishes that good cause exists to compel their production. As noted separately by the Court in its ruling on Plaintiff’s motion to garnish rent payments, Defendant’s declaration remains inadequate to show whether or not he qualifies for the garnishment gap.

            However, a request for an additional ORAP is not consistent with a request for an order of contempt. As such, the Court is confused as to what relief Plaintiff is actually seeking. If Defendant has not yet been ordered to produce the 59 documents as part of an additional ORAP, he cannot be held in contempt for such a failure. The confusion here is compounded by the fact that Plaintiff’s motion does not set forth any statutory citations or reference to any case law. A memorandum of points and authorities must set forth the legal basis for the relief sought, so that the Court may understand what is required to enter an order of contempt, and whether or not the evidence presented justifies that order. 

            The Court will continue this motion to allow Plaintiff to file a supplemental memorandum which: (1) clarifies the relief sought here; (2) sets forth authority which shows the legal standard for the entry of contempt; and (3) shows that the facts meet that standard. Defendant will then have the opportunity to oppose this motion, and Plaintiff to reply, all per code.

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motion for an order holding Defendant in contempt for failing to produce documents is continued.  

It is so ordered.

Dated:  May    , 2023

   Hon. Jon R. Takasugi
   Judge of the Superior Court

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at smcdept17@lacourt.org by 4 p.m. the day prior as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  If a party submits on the tentative, the party’s email must include the case number and must identify the party submitting on the tentative.  If all parties to a motion submit, the court will adopt this tentative as the final order.  If the department does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on the tentative and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion may be placed off calendar. 

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

DEPARTMENT 17

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiff’s motion for an award of after-judgment costs totaling $6,233.22 incurred in enforcing the judgment is GRANTED.

On June 7, 2019, Plaintiff Jacob Reich filed a Complaint against Defendant Mansour Hashem. On September 1, 2020, Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint (SAC) alleging: (1) breach of written contract; (2) money had and received; (3) common counts; (4) open book account; (5) account stated; (6) failure to honor checks; (7) fraud; (8) negligence; (9) unjust enrichment; (10) judiciary foreclosure; and (11) reformation of contract.

On September 9, 2019, Defendant filed a XC against Plaintiff, setting forth claims for (1) fraud, (2) breach of fiduciary duty, and (3) declaratory relief. 

Now, Plaintiff moves for an order awarding reasonable costs enforcing the judgment.

            The motion is unopposed.

Discussion 

            Plaintiff moves to recover costs incurred enforcing the 6/3/2021 judgment for the principal sum of $15,000.00, following an order granting Plaintiff attorney fees for Defendant’s frivolous anti-SLAPP motion.

            This is not the first motion of its kind. The Court granted a similar motion on 2/7/2022. Then, the Court tentatively granted a similar motion set for a hearing on 11/7/2022, but continued the hearing after Defendant moved ex parte to continue the motion based on the state of his health.

            This third motion, which seeks costs incurred after 9/29/2022, is unopposed. Thus, Defendant is considered to have conceded to the merits of the motion.

            Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motion for an award of after-judgment costs is granted.

It is so ordered.

Dated:  May    , 2023

   Hon. Jon R. Takasugi
   Judge of the Superior Court

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at smcdept17@lacourt.org by 4 p.m. the day prior as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  If a party submits on the tentative, the party’s email must include the case number and must identify the party submitting on the tentative.  If all parties to a motion submit, the court will adopt this tentative as the final order.  If the department does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on the tentative and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion may be placed off calendar.