Judge: Peter A. Hernandez, Case: 23STCP01472, Date: 2024-10-16 Tentative Ruling
The Court often posts its tentative several days in advance of the hearing. Please re-check the tentative rulings the day before the hearing to be sure that the Court has not revised the ruling since the time it was posted.
Please call the clerk at (213) 633-0154 by 4:00 pm. the court day before the hearing if you wish to submit on the tentative.
Case Number: 23STCP01472 Hearing Date: October 16, 2024 Dept: 34
1. Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant Jila Babazadeh-Shraga’s Motion for
Judgment on The Pleadings is DENIED.
2. Defendant/Cross-Complainant Gohar Babazadeh’s Motion for
Judgment on The Pleadings is GRANTED.
Background
On May 3, 2023 Jila Babazadeh-Shraga (“Jila”)
filed a Complaint against Gohar Babazadeh (“Gohar”), Elizabeth Babazadeh as
Executor of The Estate of Louise Babazadeh, Elizabeth Babazadeh, as Trustee of
The Babazadeh Family Trust (“Elizabeth”), Shalom Brothers Enterprises, L.P.
(“Shalom”); Hayem’s Daughters, Inc. (“Hayem”); and all persons unknown claiming
any legal or equitable right, title, estate, lien or interest in the property
described in the complaint adverse to Jila’s title, or any cloud on Jila’s title.
The caption of the complaint lists seven causes of
action; however, the body of the complaint only alleges four: (1) winding down
and liquidation of Shalom against Shalom, Gohar, and Elizabeth; (2) judicial
dissolution of Hayem against Hayem, Gohar, and Elizabeth; (3) partition of 2207
Veteran Avenue, Los Angeles, California 90064 (“Veteran Property”) against
Gohar and anyone unknown persons claiming an interest in the Veteran Property;
and (4) declaratory relief against Gohar and Elizabeth.
The complaint stems from allegations that a
partnership is being continued contrary to its governing documents. Shalom is a
limited partnership in which Jila owns 33.33%. (Complaint, ¶ 1.) Jila’ sister
Gohar also owns 33.33% of Shalom, while Ebrahim Babazadeh (“Ebrahim”) was the
General Partner. (Id. at ¶ 2.) Pursuant to the Partnership Agreement
(“PA”) that governed Shalom, the death of a General Partner triggered the
winding down of Shalom. (Id., Exh. 1, ¶ 2.6.) Ebrahim died on June 5,
2010. However, the complaint alleges Gohar seized control of Shalom and has
continued to operate Shalom for 13 years as a limited partner. (Complaint,
¶10.) Jila then filed suit requesting (1) the wind up and liquidation of
Shalom, (2) the dissolution and wind up of Hayem, a corporation where both
sisters own 33.33% of stock, and (3) the partition by sale of real property
located at 2207 Veteran Avenue, Los Angeles, California 90034 (the “Veteran
Property”) jointly owned by Jila and Gohar.
On June 22, 2023, Gohar filed a cross-complaint alleging
causes of action against Jila and Roes 1-25 for:
1.
Winding Down and
Liquidation of Shalom Brothers Enterprise, L.P.; and
2.
Partition.
On September 11, 2024, the court granted Jila’s
Motion for Summary Judgment and ordered to (1) terminate, wind down, and
liquidate Shalom in accordance with the PA that governed Shalom; (2) order a
judicial dissolution of Hayem and grant judicial supervision of the winding up
of Hayem, and (3) order a sale and partition of the Veteran Property, with
proceeds of the sale to be divided in accordance with the ownership of the
Veteran Property which is 50% each to Jila and Gohar.
On September 12, 2024, Jila filed their Motion for
Judgement on the Pleadings. On September 30, 2024, Gohar filed their opposition
to Jila’s motion. On September 30, 2024, Jila filed their reply to Gohar’s
opposition.
On September 18, 2024, Gohar filed their Motion
for Judgment on the Pleadings. On October 3, 2024, Jila filed their opposition
to Gohar’s motion. As of October 8, 2024, Gohar has not filed a reply to Jila’s
opposition.
1. Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant
Jila Babazadeh-Shraga’s Motion for Judgment on The Pleadings
A.
Legal
Standard
“A party may move for
judgment on the pleadings.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 438, subd. (b)(1).)
Under section 438:
The motion provided for in
this section may only be made on one of the following
grounds: . . .
(A) If the moving party is a plaintiff, that
the complaint states facts sufficient to constitute a cause or causes of action
against the defendant and the answer does not state facts sufficient to constitute
a defense to the complaint.
(B) If the moving party is a defendant, that
either of the following conditions exist:
(i) The
court has no jurisdiction of the subject of the cause of action alleged in the
complaint.
(ii) The
complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action
against that defendant.
(Code Civ. Proc., § 438, subd. (c)(1)(B).)
“A motion for judgment on the
pleadings performs the same function as a general
demurrer, and hence attacks
only defects disclosed on the face of the pleadings or by matters that
can be judicially noticed.” (Cloud
v. Northrop Grumman Corp. (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 995, 999,
citations omitted.)
“In deciding or reviewing a
judgment on the pleadings, all properly pleaded material facts
are deemed to be true, as
well as all facts that may be implied or inferred from those expressly
alleged.” (Fire Ins. Exch.
v. Super. Ct. (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 446, 452.)
B.
Request
for Judicial Notice
“A court may properly take
judicial notice of its own records. (Evid. Code, § 452, subd. (e).)” (Garcia
v. Sterling (1985) 176 Cal.App.3d 17, 21.)
Jila requests that the court
take judicial notice of: (1) Order Appointing Receiver, dated March 7, 2024, over
Shalom; (2) Court Order Expanding the Receiver’s Powers to Include the
Marketing and Sale of Shalom’s real property; and (3) Court Order granting
Jila’s Motion for Summary Judgment. (Jila’s RJN, 1:1-14.)
Jila’s Request for Judicial
Notice is granted.
Gohar also requests that the
court take judicial notice of the documents set forth in their Request for
Judicial Notice filed on September 18, 2024.
Gohar’s Request for Judicial
Notice is granted.
C.
Merits
Pursuant to Court Order dated
September 11, 2024, Jila’s motion becomes moot since the court granted Jila’s
Motion for Summary Judgment and ordered to (1) terminate, wind down, and
liquidate Shalom in accordance with the PA that governed Shalom; (2) order a
judicial dissolution of Hayem and grant judicial supervision of the winding up
of Hayem, and (3) order a sale and partition of the Veteran Property, with
proceeds of the sale to be divided in accordance with the ownership of the
Veteran Property which is 50% each to Jila and Gohar. This is the same relief
requested by Gohar in their cross-complaint.
The motion is denied.
2. Defendant/Cross-Complainant
Gohar Babazadeh’s Motion for Judgment on The Pleadings
A.
Legal
Standard
See above.
B.
Request
for Judicial Notice
“A court may properly take
judicial notice of its own records. (Evid. Code, § 452, subd. (e).)” (Garcia
v. Sterling (1985) 176 Cal.App.3d 17, 21.)
Gohar requests that the court
take judicial notice of the documents set forth in their Request for Judicial
Notice filed on September 18, 2024.
Gohar’s Request for Judicial
Notice is granted.
Jila requests that the court
take judicial notice of: (1) Court Order granting Jila’s Motion for Summary
Judgment dated September 11, 2024; (2) Court Order appointing the receiver on
March 4, 2024, and Order granting the receiver expanded powers to sell the real
property owned by Shalom; and (3) Court
Order dated February 29, 2024, scheduling the trial date in this action. (Jila’s
Opp., RJN, 19:1-11.)
Jila’s Request for Judicial
Notice is granted.
C.
Merits
Pursuant to Court Order dated
September 11, 2024, Gohar’s motion is granted. The court granted Jila’s Motion
for Summary Judgment and ordered to (1) terminate, wind down, and liquidate
Shalom in accordance with the PA that governed Shalom; (2) order a judicial
dissolution of Hayem and grant judicial supervision of the winding up of Hayem,
and (3) order a sale and partition of the Veteran Property, with proceeds of
the sale to be divided in accordance with the ownership of the Veteran Property
which is 50% each to Jila and Gohar. This is the same relief requested by Gohar
in their cross-complaint. This is the same relief requested in Gohar’s
cross-complaint.
The motion is granted.
Conclusion
1. Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant Jila Babazadeh-Shraga’s Motion for
Judgment on The Pleadings is DENIED.
2. Defendant/Cross-Complainant Gohar Babazadeh’s Motion for
Judgment on The Pleadings is GRANTED.