Judge: Melvin D. Sandvig, Case: LC105208, Date: 2023-11-15 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: LC105208 Hearing Date: November 15, 2023 Dept: F47
Dept. F47
Date: 11/15/23
Case #LC105208
MOTION FOR
ASSIGNMENT ORDER & RELATED RESTRAINING ORDER
Motion filed on 8/16/23.
MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff/Judgment
Creditor Hamid Reza Mirshojae
RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant/Judgment
Debtor Ross Reghabi dba Southern California Law Group
RULING: The hearing on the motion will be
continued.
SUMMARY OF FACTS & PROCEDURAL HISTORY
This matter consists of two consolidated cases, Los
Angeles Superior Court Case Nos. LC105208 (“Mirshojae Case”) and LC106904
(“Reghabi Case”). The Mirshojae Case
consists of Hamid Mirshojae’s (“Hamid”) claims against Khosro Reghabi, aka Ross
K. Reghabi, dba Southern California Law Group (“Reghabi”) for malpractice,
intentional misrepresentation, and breach of fiduciary duty. The Reghabi Case consists of claims against
Hamid and Ahang Zarin Kelk (“Ahang”) for purportedly unpaid legal fees.
Hamid’s claims against Reghabi and Reghabi’s claims
against Hamid went to trial in February 2020. On March 24, 2020, Hamid obtained a judgment
against Reghabi for $5,4482,269.18 (“Reghabi Judgment”) and prevailed against the
fee claims brought against him by Reghabi.
Hamid has collected some payment on the Reghabi Judgment; however, the
outstanding balance on the judgment still exceeds $5.8 million. (Beatty Decl.).
Reghabi is a judgment creditor with regard to a judgment
entered against Fereshteh Nasseh (“Nasseh”) in LASC Case No. PC057770 on or
about July 31, 2019 (“Nasseh Judgment”).
(Beatty Decl.). The Nasseh
Judgment awards $157,632.35 plus $55,577.66 in attorneys’ fees. (Beatty Decl., Ex.4). On or about June 8, 2021, the Court released
cash deposited with the Court to Reghabi in the amount of $21,227.50 to be
applied to Nasseh’s judgment liability. (Beatty Decl., Ex. 5).
On 8/16/23, Hamid filed and served the instant motion
seeking an order assigning to Hamid any and all interest of Reghabi in the
judgment against Freshteh Nasseh in LASC Case No. PC57770 (“Nasseh Judgment”)
and all rights to payment thereunder, including accrued interest through the
date of payment. Additionally, Hamid
requests an order restraining Reghabi and any others from assigning,
encumbering, or modifying Reghabi’s rights to payment under the Nasseh
Judgment. No response or other
opposition to the motion has been filed.
ANALYSIS
CCP 708.510 provides, in part:
“(a) Except as otherwise provided
by law, upon application of the judgment creditor on noticed motion, the court
may order the judgment debtor to assign to the judgment creditor . . . all or
part of a right to payment due or to become due, whether or not the right is
conditioned on future developments . . .
(b) The notice of the motion shall
be served on the judgment debtor. Service shall be made personally or
by mail.” (emphasis added).
In determining whether to order an assignment or the
amount of an assignment, the court may take into consideration all relevant
factors, including: (1) The reasonable requirements of a judgment debtor who is
a natural person and of persons supported in whole or in part by the judgment
debtor, (2) Payments the judgment debtor is required to make or that are
deducted in satisfaction of other judgments and wage assignments, including earnings assignment orders for support,
(3) The amount remaining due on the money judgment, and (4) The amount being or
to be received in satisfaction of the right to payment that may be assigned. CCP 708.510(c). The only constraint on the Court’s discretion
is that a right to payment may be assigned to a judgment creditor “only to the
extent necessary to satisfy the money judgment.” CCP 708.510(d). Hamid contends that the relevant factors
weigh in favor of assigning the Nasseh Judgment to Hamid.
The Court may also restrain Reghabi from assigning or
otherwise disposing of the right to payment sought to be assigned. CCP 708.520.
Hamid argues that a restraining order is necessary because Reghabi has
shown himself to be untrustworthy.
CONCLUSION
The proof of service for the motion indicates the motion
and supporting documents were served by e-service on attorney Behrouz Shafie of
Behrouz Shafie & Associates on behalf of Reghabi. Such service does not comply with the
requirements of CCP 708.510(b) which, as noted above, requires that the motion
be served on judgment debtor, personally or by mail. As noted above, there is no opposition or
other response to the motion by Reghabi to cure the defect in service.
Therefore, the hearing on the motion will be continued to
allow for proper service of the motion in compliance with CCP 708.510(b).