Judge: Stephen P. Pfahler, Case: 23STCV00908, Date: 2024-05-23 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV00908    Hearing Date: May 23, 2024    Dept: 68

Dept. 68

Date: 5-23-24

Case #23STCV009008

Trial Date: 10-28-24 c/f 7-12-24

PREFFERENCE

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff, Parvis Shavalian

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendants, Sami Kohanim, et al.

RELIEF REQUESTED

Motion for Trial Preference

SUMMARY OF ACTION

In June 2016, Plaintiffs Ilanit Shavalian and Ilan Shavalian, and Defendants Kourosh Shavalian, Ramin Kohanim, and Sami Kohanim entered into a joint venture for the development of “five small lot residences” in Highland Park, Los Angeles. The parties “formed” Defendant Prime LA Ventures LLC for purposes of conducting the demolition and development. Each member contributed $30,000.

On June 23, 2026, Plaintiff Parvis Shavalian loaned Prime LA Ventures LLC $200,000 pursuant to a 48 month promissory note. On June 29, 2016, Prime LA Ventures LLC purchased the subject property for $628,000 using the $200,000 plus a separate $425,000 “private lender” loan. On April 9, 2018, Parvis loaned an additional $100,000 to Prime LA Ventures LLC.

In 2020, the Shavalian parties “discovered” two additional loans for $475,000 were taken out on the property without their knowledge or consent. The Kohanims purportedly admitted to taking out said loans, and “diverted the funds” to other “unrelated” projects. Following the admission, the Kohanims agreed to “take responsibility” for the two loans. The loans were never repaid.

The developed property sold, but the loan dispute remained outstanding. On January 7, 2022, all parties agreed that the Kohanims would “surrender any interest in Prime LA Ventures, LLC” held, and the Kohanims would pay an additional $400,000 within six months of the execution of the agreement by December 21, 2022. No payment was made.

On January 12, 2023, Plaintiffs filed a complaint for 1. Fraud; 2. Unjust Enrichment; 3. Breach of Fiduciary Duty—Individual Claims; 4. Breach of Fiduciary Duty—Derivative Claims; 5. Breach of Promissory Note; 6. Breach of Contract–Settlement Agreement; 7. Intentional Interference with Contractual Relations; and 8. Financial Elder Abuse. On March 27, 2023, the clerk entered a default against Prime LA Ventures, LLC. On March 21, 2023, Sami Kohanim answered the complaint.

On September 18, 2023, the court granted Plaintiffs leave to file a first amended complaint. On September 26, 2023, Plaintiffs filed their first amended complaint for 1. Fraud; 2. Unjust Enrichment; 3. Breach of Fiduciary Duty—Individual Claims; 4. Breach of Fiduciary Duty—Derivative Claims; 5. Breach of Promissory Note; 6. Breach of Contract – Settlement Agreement; 7. Intentional Interference with Contractual Relations; 8. Financial Elder Abuse; 9. Professional Negligence; and10. Breach Of Fiduciary Duty—Real Estate Broker. On October 23, 2023, Sami Kohanim answered the first amended complaint. On February 23, 2024, the clerk entered a default against Ramin Kohanim.

RULING: Granted.

Evidentiary Objections to the Declaration of Parvis Shavalian: Overruled.

Evidentiary Objections to the Declaration of Ilanit Shavalian: Overruled/Not Relied Upon in Support of the Motion

Evidentiary Objections to the Declaration of Vadim Frish: Overruled (Code Civ. Proc., § 36.5)

Plaintiff Parvis Shavalian moves for trial preference on grounds that plaintiff is 79 years old, with an untreatable brain tumor. Defendant Sami Kohanim in opposition challenges the lack of any evidentiary showing of a deteriorating condition and impacts to trial from the brain tumor. Defendant also challenges the right of the other parties to seek preference given only Parvis moves for preference. Defendants finally contend significant prejudice as a result of any preference. The court electronic filing system shows no reply prior to the time of the tentative ruling publication cutoff.

Code of Civil Procedure section 36 subdivision (a) states in relevant part: “A party to a civil action who is over 70 years of age may petition the court for a preference, which the court shall grant if the court makes both of the following findings: (1) The party has a substantial interest in the action as a whole. (2) The health of the party is such that a preference is necessary to prevent prejudicing the party’s interest in the litigation.”

Parvis and Ilanit Shavalian submit declarations representing the existence of the brain tumor though the imaging referral slip attached to the declaration, which only seems to order a brain scan with possible “DSA for super sagittal sinus thrombosis.” The motion otherwise lacks any declaration of support from any treating physician, and the parties admittedly remain unsure about life expectancy notwithstanding the implied terminal prognosis. The court however can accept the showing of counsel for purposes of establishing age and medical condition impacting the trial. [Declaration of Vadim Frish.] (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 36, subd. (a), (c)(1), (e), 36.5.) Attorney Frish represents the declining capacity of Parvis “related to memory loss and difficulties communicating” as a result of the brain tumor. The court finds the declaration sufficient for establishing a prejudicial impact to Parvis, thereby entitling Parvis to preference.

The court however agrees that Plaintiffs lack any address of trial preference relative to their own case. Parvis was only a lender of funds, though the first amended complaint identified Parvis as a party to all causes of action except for the Breach of Fiduciary Duty – Real Estate Broker, with Parvis exclusively identified in the intentional inference with contractual relations and financial elder abuse claims.

The challenge however also lacks any legal support regarding the right to advance all intertwined claims, and simply relies on previously unchallenged distinctions of the parties’ claims. The court declines to consider any substantive challenges to the complaint.

The court also shows no material prejudice. The current trial date was continued from July 12, 2024 to October 28, 2024. A 120-day setting window from the hearing date is Friday September 20, 2024. Given the court sets its trials for Mondays, the starting date of September 16, 2024, would comply with both the setting window and court policy. The date may be advanced for a further 15-day window (plus four additional days) continuance, if necessary, thereby leading to a trial date as late as September 30, 2024. Given the default against Rami, and the appearance of all other defendants, the court finds no material prejudice from advancing the trial by four (4) total weeks based on the necessity of conducting discovery amongst the parties.

The motion is therefore granted. “Upon the granting of such a motion for preference, the court shall set the matter for trial not more than 120 days from that date and there shall be no continuance beyond 120 days from the granting of the motion for preference except for physical disability of a party or a party’s attorney, or upon a showing of good cause stated in the record. Any continuance shall be for no more than 15 days and no more than one continuance for physical disability may be granted to any party.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 36, subd. (f).)

The court notes Defendants’ right to a motion for summary judgment, if sought, but cannot shorten the 75-day filing deadline. (See Polibrid Coatings, Inc. v. Superior Court (2003) 112 Cal.App.4th 920, 923; Mediterranean Const. Co. v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 257, 262.)

The court orders the parties to cooperate in the expedited setting of the depositions of witnesses, experts and parties. Depositions can occur via video or telephonic means, due to distance, Covid or other health concerns and/or in the interests of efficiently expediting discovery should the individual plaintiff or witness(es) require accommodation, as well. The court also advises the parties that any extensive discovery disputes may be referred to a referee via expedited schedule.

Plaintiff to give notice.