Judge: Jon R. Takasugi, Case: BC409459, Date: 2024-08-14 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: BC409459    Hearing Date: August 14, 2024    Dept: 17

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

DEPARTMENT 17

TENATIVE RULING

Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction is GRANTED.

            On 2/19/2010, judgment was entered in favor of Plaintiff against Defendant Joseph Boodaie in the amount of $964,709.14.

            On 2/3/2020, the judgment was renewed.

            Now, Plaintiff moves for a preliminary injunction to prevent Defendant from frustrating the judgment.

            The motion is unopposed.

Discussion

            Plaintiff argues that since the entry of judgment, Defendant “has done everything under the sun to avoid enforcement of Plaintiff’s judgment” (Motion, 1: 5-6.) Plaintiff contends that he has located a property owned by Defendant in Israel (the Subject Property) and “while Defendant has been under personal jurisdiction of this Court for judgment debtor examinations between April 9, 2024 and the present, Defendant has attempted to transfer the Subject Property to the Third Party but has not been successful in doing so since the Third Party cannot fly to Israel to accomplish the transfer due to her age.” (Motion, 4: 7-8.)

As a result, Plaintiff seeks a preliminary injunction restraining and enjoining Defendant and Third Party and their agents, servants, employees, officers, representatives, successors, partners, assigns, and any and all persons acting in concert or participating with them, as follows:

1. Signing any power of attorney to transfer the Subject Property;

2. Transferring or hypothecating the right, title or interest in the Subject Property to any other person, entity or trust;

3. Taking out any loans, mortgages, deeds of trust, liens, and/or encumbering the Subject Property;

4. Representing to any third party, including but not limited to any person, entity, potential buyer, or renter, that Defendant and Third Party have any rights and/or title to the Subject Property rightfully belonging to Plaintiff; and,

5. Taking any further action to perform any construction, major repairs, alter, destroy, and/or take any action to change the Subject Property.

To obtain a preliminary injunction, a moving party must show that it is likely to succeed on the merits of its claims, that it will suffer irreparable harm if alleged conduct is not enjoined, and that its entitlement to an injunction outweighs any harm to the opposing parties. (Cal. Civ. Proc. § 526(a); Shoemaker v. County of Los Angeles (1995) 37 Cal. App.4th 618, 624; Robbins v. Superior Court (1985) 38 Cal.3d 199, 206.)  California courts have recognized that injunctive relief is extraordinary and should only be granted when the stringent requirements for such relief are met. “The power to issue preliminary injunctions is an extraordinary one and should be exercised with great caution and only where it appears that sufficient cause for hasty action exists.” (West v. Lind (1960) 186 Cal.App.2d 563, 565.)

To justify “the exercise of the rather extraordinary power to restrain defendant’s actions prior to a trial on the merits,” a plaintiff must show a real and imminent threat of “irreparable injury” if injunctive relief is not granted. (Tahoe Keys Prop. Owners’ Ass’n v. State Water Res. Control Bd. (1994) 23 Cal.App.4th 1459, 1471.) An irreparable injury is typically “one for which either (1) its pecuniary value is not susceptible to monetary valuation, or (2) the item is so unique its loss deprives the possessor of intrinsic values not replaceable by money or in kind.” (Jessen v. Keystone Sav. & Loan Ass’n (1983) 142 Cal.App.3d 454, 457.)  “If monetary damages afford adequate relief and are not extremely difficult to ascertain, an injunction cannot be granted.” (Thayer Plymouth Center, Inc. v. Chrysler Motors Corp. (1967) 255 Cal. App. 2d 300, 306; see also Doyka v. Superior Court (1991)  233 Cal. App. 3d 1134, 1136 (injunction will not issue where “only money is involved”).

            Here, Plaintiff submitted evidence that:

-         Defendant is the owner of the Subject Property pursuant to contract entered for purchase of the Subject Property. (Kohanteb Decl., ¶6, Ex. 4.)

-         At the debtor examination on April 9, 2024, Defendant denied owning any real property in Israel, however, confirmed that the signature for the purchase of the Subject Property was his. (Kohanteb Decl., ¶8, Ex. 6.)

-         On June 28, 2024, Defendant appeared for further judgment debtor examination. At the judgment debtor examination, Defendant confirmed that he had retained an attorney in Israel who assisted him in purchasing the Subject Property. Defendant further testified that the Subject Property was purchased under his name to be transferred to the Third Party, however, refused to provide a copy of the alleged “trust.” Defendant walked away from the examination without being excused. (Kohanteb Decl., ¶9, Ex. 7.)

-         At the judgment debtor examination, Defendant was also provided his declaration submitted to the Israeli courts seeking to delay the proceedings so that Defendant has time to effectuate the transfer of the Subject Property to Third Party. Defendant further alleged that he was the owner of the Subject Property as of February 2, 2022 and has been attempting to transfer the Subject Property to Third Party, however Defendant has failed and continues to fail to provide a copy of the alleged “trust” or a document signed seeking to transfer the Subject Property. (Kohanteb Decl., ¶10, Ex. 8.)

-         Defendant appeared for further judgment debtor examinations on July 3, 2024, July 11, 2024 and July 18, 2024. In all instances, Defendant was asked to provide the alleged “trust” or a document signed seeking to transfer the Subject Property from 2022. Defendant did not provide any such documents in any of the aforementioned examinations and continues to refuse to do so. (Kohanteb Decl., ¶11.)

Taken together, Plaintiff’s evidence indicates that Defendant has been and is attempting to transfer the Subject Property to a third-party, and supports a reasonable inference that this is being done to avoid enforcement and execution of this Court’s judgment abroad. The Court agrees that this preliminary injunction, which orders both Defendant and Third Party not to execute any document which will transfer or otherwise hypothecate Defendant’s rights, title and interest to the Subject Property to Third Party or any other person or entity is necessary to prevent irreparable harm.

Defendant did not oppose this motion, and thus is considered to have conceded to the motion on the merits.

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction is granted.

It is so ordered.

Dated:  August    , 2024

   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.  For more information, please contact the court clerk at (213) 633-0517.