Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

RAVAND CONSTRUCTION, INC., a

California Corporation, HASSAN

MOHAMMADKHANIGHIYASVAND aka

RAMIN GHIYASVAND, an individual;,

Plaintiff,

vs.

ALEN AIR SYSTEMS, a California

Corporation; ALEN MANOOKIAN, an

individual; and DOES 1 through 50,

inclusive,,

Defendants.

Case No.: 23STCV18258

DEPARTMENT 45

[TENTATIVE] RULING

Action Filed: 08/02/2023

[1st Amended Complaint Filed: 11/08/2023]

Trial Date: 06/30/2025

Hearing Date: August 9, 2024

Moving Party: Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant Hassan Mohammadkhanighiy Asvand

Responding Party: Defendant/Cross-Complainant Alen Manookian

Motions: Cross-Defendant Hassan Mohammadkhanighy Asvand’s Demurrer to the First Amended Cross-Complaint

Tentative Ruling: The Court considered the moving papers, opposition, and reply. Cross-Defendant Hassan Mohammadkhanighy Asvand’s Demurrer to the First Amended Cross-Complaint is OVERRULED.

Background

Factual and Procedural Background

On August 2, 2023, Ravand Construction, Inc. (Construction) and Hassan Mohammadkhanighiy Asvand aka Ramin Ghiyasvand (RG) filed a Complaint against Alen Air Systems (AAS) and Alen Manookian (Manookian). The Complaint alleged six causes of action based on the alleged failure to repay three separate loans made by Construction and RG as creditors to Alen Air Systems and Manookian as debtors. On November 8, 2023, a Cross-Complaint (XC) was filed by AAS and Manookian against RG alleging three causes of action: (1) assault, (2) battery, and (3) intentional infliction of emotional distress. The XC alleges that on May 31, 2023, RG attacked Manookian with a box cutter while the two were in RG’s vehicle. (XC, ¶¶10-15.) Manookian suffered a slashing injury and a broken nose. (Id. at ¶15.) The XC additionally alleges that RG was criminally charged and has a criminal case currently pending. (Id. at ¶16.)

The motion before the Court is RG’s demurrer to the XC. RG demurs solely to the first cause of action for assault. Manookian opposes the demurrer, RG files a reply.

Meet and Confer

“Before filing a demurrer…the demurring party shall meet and confer in person or by telephone with the party who filed the pleading that is subject to demurrer for the purpose of determining whether an agreement can be reached that would resolve the objections to be raised in the demurrer.” (Code Civ. Proc. §430.41(a).) There is no indication that any meet and confer efforts took place, therefore the requirements under Code Civ. Proc. §430.14(a) remain unsatisfied. However, per Code Civ. Proc. §430.41(a)(4), “A determination by the court that the meet and confer process was insufficient shall not be grounds to overrule or sustain a demurrer.” Therefore, the Court will turn its attention to the demurrer.

Discussion

Legal Standard

“[A] demurrer tests the legal sufficiency of the allegations in a complaint.” (Lewis v. Safeway, Inc. (2015) 235 Cal.App.4th 385, 388.) A demurrer can be used only to challenge defects that appear on the face of the pleading under attack or from matters outside the pleading that are judicially noticeable. (See Donabedian v. Mercury Ins. Co. (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 968, 994 [in ruling on a demurrer, a court may not consider declarations, matters not subject to judicial notice, or documents not accepted for the truth of their contents].) For purposes of ruling on a demurrer, all facts pleaded in a complaint are assumed to be true, but the reviewing court does not assume the truth of conclusions of law. (Aubry v. Tri-City Hosp. Dist. (1992) 2 Cal.4th 962, 967.)

Analysis

“The essential elements of a cause of action for assault are: (1) defendant acted with intent to cause harmful or offensive contact, or threatened to touch plaintiff in a harmful or offensive manner; (2) plaintiff reasonably believed [he or] she was about to be touched in a harmful or offensive manner or it reasonably appeared to plaintiff that defendant was about to carry out the threat; (3) plaintiff did not consent to defendant’s conduct; (4) plaintiff was harmed; and (5) defendant’s conduct was a substantial factor in causing plaintiff’s harm.” (So v. Shin (2013) 212 Cal.App.4th 652, 668-669.)

Upon demurrer, RG argues that at no time could Manookian “have reasonably [believed] he was about to be touched since the subsequent alleged touching came suddenly and without warning.” (Opposition Papers, 6:5-9.) The Court is unpersuaded. Manookian has properly pled the elements for assault sufficient to survive demurrer.

Manookian alleges that RG was traveling on the freeway “at a high rate of speed of about 80 to 90 MPH” (XC, ¶10) all the while yelling at Manookian that he intended to kill them both. (Id.) The XC continues stating that RG “threatened to take Manookian to a place in the City of Lancaster, where he intended to kill Manookian.” (XC, ¶12.) Moreover, in addition to threatening to kill Manookian’s parents (XC, ¶13) RG was allegedly holding a box cutter with the blade out in his right hand. (XC, ¶14.) RG then allegedly struck Manookian causing a slashing injury and a broken nose. (XC, ¶15.)

The XC alleges the first element of intent by alleging the threats and intention to kill Manookian. The second element is properly alleged in that Manookian, believing he was in danger, repeatedly requested that RG stop the vehicle and allow Manookian to leave. Third it is clear by the XC, that Manookian in no way consented to being touched, however, Manookian was then struck with the box cutter, thereby fulfilling the fourth element. Finally, the XC makes clear that RG’s actions were a substantial factor in causing the harm. Therefore, the demurrer to the first cause of action for assault is overruled.

Conclusion

Accordingly, Cross-Defendant Hassan Mohammadkhanighy Asvand’s Demurrer to the First Amended Cross-Complaint is OVERRULED.

It is so ordered.

Dated: August 9, 2024

_______________________

MEL RED RECANA

Judge of the Superior Court