Judge: Jon R. Takasugi, Case: 21STCV11674, Date: 2022-08-09 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV11674    Hearing Date: August 9, 2022    Dept: 17

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

DEPARTMENT 17

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendants’ motions to compel further responses are DENIED. Defendant is sanctioned, jointly and severally with counsel, $350.00 per motion, or $700.00 in total.

On 3/26/2021, Plaintiff Adonis Kish (Plaintiff) filed a second suit against Antiaging Institute of California, Inc. and Shoreh Ershadi alleging: (1) fraudulent transfer; and (2) constructive fraudulent transfer.

In Plaintiff’s previous action against Defendants, Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment was granted on 2/25/2019. On 8/13/2019, this Court entered a judgment in favor of Adonis Kish and against Defendant Antiaging Institute of California for a sum total of $666,945.40.

            Now, in this action, Defendant Antiaging moves to compel further responses from Plaintiff to Form Interrogatory 17.1 and Requests for Admission (RFAs) Nos. 9-12.

Discussion

            Defendant argues that Plaintiff should be compelled to provide further discovery responses pertaining to the Court’s prior ruling in Los Angeles Superior Court case BC575478. More specifically, Defendant argues that it is entitled to this information because it pertains to a matter already litigated, and is relevant to its defense in this action as to whether or not certain matters raised in this action are subject to the defenses of res judicata or collateral estoppel.

            In opposition, Plaintiff argues that neither res judicata nor collateral estoppel are applicable because the “[i]ssue of whether Ershadi was the alter ego of Antiaging was never determined on its merits in the prior action,” and even if it was “new facts can and will establish that Ershadi is the alter ego of Antiaging now and, therefore, should be held liable for Antiaging’s conduct in transferring its business opportunities.” (Opp., 2: 18-20.)

            The Court agrees with Plaintiff. Form Interrogatory No. 17 relates to RFA Nos. 9-12 which read as follows:

-         No.9: Admit that in Los Angeles Superior Court case BC575478 the Court denied the motion of Adonis Kish for summary judgment or summary adjudication asking in reply to the opposition that the Court determine that Shoreh Ershadi was the alter ego of AntiAging Institute of California, Inc.

-         No. 10: Admit that in open court at a hearing in Los Angeles Superior Court case BC575478, the Court expressly stated the motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication of Adonis Kish was granted only as to the contract cause of action.

-         No. 11: Admit that in open court at a hearing in Los Angeles Superior Court case BC575478, the Court expressly stated that the Court was not granting the motion for summary judgment or adjudication of Adonis Kish on causes of action other  than breach of contract.

-         No. 12: Admit that in open court at a hearing in Los Angeles Superior Court case 18 BC575478, Adonis Kish never attempted to set the case for trial against Shoreh Ershadi following denial of the motion of Adonis Kish asking in the reply to opposition that the Court determine that Shoreh Ershadi was the alter ego of AntiAging Institute of California, Inc.

In BC575478, this Court determined on 7/29/2021 that the Court’s 2/25/2019 ruling granting summary judgment was to Antiaging Institute alone, and that, while there was still a pending claim against Defendant Ershadi, the five-year statute of limitations for prosecuting an action had expired. The basis of the claims against Defendant Ershadi in that action were based on alter-ego liability. As such, the conclusion that Defendant Ershadi remained an active defendant in that case after the 2/25/2019 ruling necessarily meant that the issue of alter-ego liability had not been adjudicated.

Given that the claims in this action concern alter-ego liability, Defendant has not shown how the doctrines of res judicata or collateral estoppel—which it argues as the basis for compelling further responses—could be appliable here. Those doctrines prevent re-litigation of the same issue or claim. Here, the issue of alter-ego liability has not been litigated, and that fact is a matter of public record.

Based on the foregoing, Defendants’ motions to compel further responses are denied. Defendant is sanctioned, jointly and severally with counsel, $350.00 per motion or $700 in total. ($350/hr x 1 hr x 2 motions.)

It is so ordered.

Dated:  August    , 2022

   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.