Judge: Melvin D. Sandvig, Case: LC105208, Date: 2023-01-05 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: LC105208 Hearing Date: January 5, 2023 Dept: F47
Dept. F-47
Date: 1/5/23
Case #LC105208 (consolidated with LC106094)
MOTION TO VACATE ALL ORDERS
Motion filed on
9/2/22.
MOVING PARTY: Ahang Zarin aka
Ahang Kelk aka Ahang Mirshojae
RESPONDING PARTY: Hamid
Mirshojae
NOTICE: ok
RULING: The motion is denied.
These are two consolidated actions, the “Mirshojae Case”
(LC015208) and the “Reghabi Case” (LC106904).
In the Mirshojae Case, Hamid Reza Mirshojae (Hamid) sued Khosro Reghabi
aka Ross K. Reghabi dba Southern California Law Group (Reghabi) for
malpractice, intentional misrepresentation and breach of fiduciary duty. In the Reghabi Case, Reghabi sued Hamid and
Ahang Zarin Kelk (Ahang) for allegedly unpaid legal fees.
In the Reghabi Case, the Court issued terminating
sanctions against Ahang and judgment against Ahang and in favor of Reghabi was
entered in the amount of $390,274.24.
Hamid’s claims against Reghabi and Reghabi’s claims against Hamid went
to trial in February 2020. Hamid
obtained a judgment against Reghabi in the amount of $5,482,269.18 and
prevailed against Reghabi’s fee claims (Reghabi Judgment).
On 8/18/20, Hamid obtained an order assigning Reghabi’s
judgment against Ahang to Hamid (Assigned Judgment). (See 8/18/20 Minute Order). Thereafter, the Court issued charging orders
and appointed a receiver. (See
9/22/20 and 10/12/20 Order Appointing Receiver). On 5/4/21, Hamid filed an Acknowledgment of
Satisfaction of Judgment as to the Assigned Judgment.
On 9/2/22, Ahang filed and served the instant motion
seeking an order, pursuant to CCP 473(d), vacating all orders made by the trial
court on or after 8/14/20 in LASC Case #LC106094 pertaining to or affecting
Ahang Zarin aka Ahang Kelk aka Ahang Mirshojae (Ahang) and returning all funds
taken as a result of such orders. Hamid
has opposed the motion. The hearing on
the instant motion was originally scheduled for 12/22/22. The hearing was continued to 1/5/23 by the
Court; however, the due dates for the opposition and reply remained as to the
original hearing date. (See Notice of Continuance filed
11/9/22). The opposition was filed and
served late because Hamid’s counsel was unaware that the filing deadlines
remained as to the original hearing date.
(See Opposition, p.2, fn.1).
Ahang has filed a reply on the merits; therefore, the Court finds no
prejudice resulted from the late filing and service of the opposition. As such, the opposition was considered by the
Court. See CRC 3.1300(d).
CCP 473(d) provides:
“The court may, upon motion of the
injured party, or its own motion, correct clerical mistakes in its judgment or
orders as entered, so as to conform to the judgment or order directed, and may,
on motion of either party after notice to the other party, set aside any void judgment
or order.”
Ahang has failed to establish
that any of the orders entered by this Court on or after 8/14/20 and against
Ahang are void. The motion concedes that
on 8/18/20, Ahang appeared before this Court and “informed the court that the
matter had been settled and the ASOJ’s [Assignment and Satisfaction of
Judgment] had been filed with the court.”
(See Motion, p.6:19-21).
Further, Ahang argues that this Court “was on full notice that, on
August 13, 2020, the entire judgment against AHANG in Superior Court Case
LC106094, had been satisfied, and the final act in relation to the matter
against her had been performed by the filing of the ASOJ.” (Id. at p.6:24-26; See also
Ahang Decl. ¶4).
The foregoing establishes that
Ahang essentially presented the same argument and evidence more than two years
ago which were rejected by the Court. (See
also 8/18/20 Minute Order). As such,
Ahang’s remedy was to file a timely motion for reconsideration or an
appeal. Instead, Ahang inexplicably and
improperly waited almost a year and half after the Assigned Judgment was
satisfied to move to have the orders leading up to such satisfaction vacated
and to have the funds which satisfied the judgment returned to her.
The Court finds no basis to
vacate any of the orders requested or to return any funds to Ahang. As such, the motion is denied.
Ahang’s counsel is reminded to review the 5/3/19 First
Amended General Order Re Mandatory Electronic Filing for Civil. When e-filing documents, parties must comply
with the “TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS” which are set forth at page 4, line 4 through
page 5, line 12 of the Court’s 5/3/19 First Amended General Order Re Mandatory
Electronic Filing for Civil. See also
CRC 3.1110(f)(4). The declarations and
exhibits attached to the motion are not bookmarked as required. Failure to comply with these requirements in
the future may result in matters being
placed off calendar, matters being continued so documents can be resubmitted in
compliance with these requirements, documents not being considered and/or the
imposition of sanctions.