Judge: Teresa A. Beaudet, Case: 294S16415TCV, Date: 2025-01-09 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 294S16415TCV    Hearing Date: January 9, 2025    Dept: 50

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 50

Background

Plaintiff Daniel Perez (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Joseph Safran (“Safran”) and One Capital Group, Inc. on August 17, 2016. The Complaint alleges causes of action for (1) breach of written contract, (2) open book account, (3) money had and received,

(4) unjust enrichment, (5) conversion, (6) fraud in the inducement, and (7) equitable relief.

In the Complaint, Plaintiff alleges, inter alia, that “[o]n or about October 30, 2014, Safran and Plaintiff executed an agreement relating to 1240-1350 N. Fairfax Ave., West Hollywood, California 90046 (the ‘Property’) whereby Plaintiff agreed to loan defendants $200,000.00 (the ‘Loan’) for a period of two years…for the sole purpose of purchasing the Property, in exchange for repayment of the Loan plus returns on the Loan (the ‘Agreement’).” (Compl., ¶ 13.) “Prior to the execution of the Agreement, the parties orally agreed that if the Property was not timely purchased by the defendants, the defendants would immediately repay the Loan to Plaintiff in full with interest.” (Compl., ¶ 14.)

Plaintiff alleged that “[o]n or about October 31, 2014, and in accordance with the defendants’ instructions, Plaintiff wired the defendants $190,000.00 of the $200,000.00 (the ‘Funds’) in accordance with the terms of the Agreement.” (Compl., ¶ 15.) “Immediately thereafter, the defendants informed Plaintiff that they had sufficient funds to close the purchase of the Property and that the remaining $10,000.00 of the Loan no longer needed to be funded by Plaintiff.” (Compl., ¶ 16.) “[S]ometime after October 31, 204, the defendants deposited the Funds along with funds of other parties into an escrow account with North American Title Company for the purposes of purchasing the property.” (Compl., ¶ 17.)

Plaintiff alleged that “sometime after escrow was opened, a dispute arose between the seller(s) of the Property and the defendants regarding the purchase of the Property.” (Compl., ¶ 21.) “[S]ometime in mid-2016, an arrangement was reached between the seller(s) of the Property and the defendants, whereby the defendants would receive no less than the full amount of funds deposited into escrow for the purchase of the Property and the escrow would be cancelled.” (Compl., ¶ 23.) “Upon discovery that the escrow would be cancelled and that the defendants would be released the funds deposited into escrow, including his Funds, Plaintiff contacted the defendants and inquired as to the return of his Loan.” (Compl., ¶ 25.) “[I]nstead of providing information regarding the escrow and its cancellation, the defendants became upset and uncooperative and refused to return the funds from escrow, claiming that the arrangement with the seller was confidential.” (Compl., ¶ 27.)

Plaintiff alleges that “an amount no less than $1,200,000.00, (including Plaintiff’s Funds) was released to the defendants on or about July 5^th or 6^th, 2016 and that escrow was cancelled and that the funds were released.” (Compl., ¶ 28.) Plaintiff alleges that “[a]s a result of the cancellation of escrow and the failure to purchase the Property, the entire Loan plus interest became due and payable to Plaintiff. Throughout July 2016, the defendants promised they would return the Funds in exchange for veiled promises and requests. Despite repeated demands, the defendants have not returned the Funds and refuse to return the Funds.” (Compl., ¶ 29.)

On October 25, 2018, the Court entered a Judgment in this action indicating that “judgment is entered in favor of Plaintiff Daniel Perez (“Plaintiff”) and against defendants Joseph Safran, an individual (“Safran”) and One Capital Group, Inc., a California Corporation (“One Capital”) jointly and severally, in the sum of $190,000.00.” (Emphasis in original.)

Plaintiff filed an ex parte application “to advance the hearing on [Plaintiff’s] Motion for Order to Deem the Real Property Commonly Known as 5930 Beeman Avenue, Valley Village, California 91607 Community Property and for an Order that Creditor’s Judgment Lien Attach to the Property (the ‘Motion for Order’), which was filed on November 27, 2024, and is currently set for hearing on May 1, 2025, to January 19, 2025, or alternatively, to the first available date on the Court’s calendar in the next sixty (60) days.” Plaintiff’s ex parte application also seeks a

“temporary restraining order enjoining defendant and judgment debtor Joseph Safran…and Karen Harrosh…and all persons acting in concert or participating with them from further encumbering, assigning, or in any way transferring ownership of or title to the real property commonly known as 5930 Beeman Avenue, Valley Village, California 91607…until the Court has heard and ruled on the Motion for Order.” Plaintiff’s ex parte application is unopposed.

            On December 19, 2024, Department 47 of this Court issued a minute order providing, inter alia, as follows:

“The above captioned Ex Parte Application is GRANTED IN PART and continued for further hearing as indicated below.

The Court will issue a Temporary Restraining Order issued between now and JANUARY 9, 2025, pending a final order of this action by the Honorable Teresa A. Beaudet.

Hearing on Ex Parte Application To Advance Hearing On Motion For An Order To Deem The Real Property Commonly Known As et. al. And For An Order That Plaintiff’s Judgment Lien Attach To The Property And Application For Temporary Restraining Order Or Preliminary Injunction is continued to 01/09/2025 at 10:00 AM in Department 50 at Stanley Mosk Courthouse.”

Discussion

A.    Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Application to Advance the Hearing on Plaintiff’s “Motion for Order”

As set forth above, Plaintiff moves ex parte “to advance the hearing on [Plaintiff’s] Motion for Order to Deem the Real Property Commonly Known as 5930 Beeman Avenue, Valley Village, California 91607 Community Property and for an Order that Creditor’s Judgment Lien Attach to the Property (the ‘Motion for Order’), which was filed on November 27, 2024, and is currently set for hearing on May 1, 2025, to January 19, 2025, or alternatively, to the first available date on the Court’s calendar in the next sixty (60) days.” (Ex Parte Application at p. 2:5-11.)

Plaintiff cites to California Rules of Court, rule 1.10, which provides that “[u]nless otherwise provided by law, the court may extend or shorten the time within which a party must perform any act under the rules.” Plaintiff also cites to Code of Civil Procedure section 128, subdivision (a)(3), which provides that “[e]very court shall have the power to do all of the following:…(3) To provide for the orderly conduct of proceedings before it, or its officers.”

Plaintiff argues that “[g]ood cause exists for the relief requested herein because Debtor and Harrosh have demonstrated calculated efforts to divert income and assets in order to avoid paying [Plaintiff] the amount due pursuant to the judgment.” (Ex Parte Application at p. 6:13-15, emphasis omitted.) Plaintiff notes that on September 13, 2024, the Court entered an “Order on Motion to Garnish Wages of Spouse of Judgment Debtor and for Assignment Order Against Spouse” in this action. The September 13, 2024 Order provides, inter alia, that “Harrosh and Debtor failed to meet their burden of establishing the validity of the 2001 SPA. Consequently, the 2001 SPA does not act as a bar to the garnishment sought in the Motion.” The September 13, 2024 Order further provides as follows:

“That the following right to payment due, or to become due, including, but not limited to rent, referral fees, fees for services, contingency fees, royalties, commissions, payments in general, payments from sales, payments from leases, payments from refinances, payment from loan originations, payments from relocations, payments from a patent or copyright, advances, accounts receivable, general intangibles (as defined by Commercial Code Section 9102(a)(42)), judgments, instruments (as defined by Code of Civil Procedure Section 708.510(a) and the comment to Section 708.510), etc. (the Funds) from all third parties, including, but not limited to, Sapir Realty Corporation, a California corporation and doing business as Weichert, Realtors – All Stars, and the tenant(s) occupying the real property commonly known as 5930 Beeman Avenue, Valley Village, California 91607, be, and hereby are, assigned to Creditor’s counsel c/o Daniel Medioni, Esq. of Wolf, Rifkin, Shapiro, Schulman & Rabkin, LLP, 11400 West Olympic Boulevard, 9th Floor, Los Angeles, California 90064, to be applied to the judgment herein until such judgment is fully satisfied, including interest thereon. Judgment was entered on October 25, 2018, in the principal amount of $190,000.00. The balance on the judgment is $262,597.70 as of September 23, 2022 (the date the last writ of execution was issued) and is accruing interest at the rate of $52.05 per day from and after September 24, 2022…

Harrosh and any representative, agent, employee or attorney of Harrosh and any person(s) in active concert and participating with Harrosh are hereby restrained from encumbering, assigning, disposing of or spending the Funds and/or all rights to payment thereunder…”

Plaintiff’s counsel states that “[o]n October 4, 2024, less than three (3) weeks after the Order, Debtor and Harrosh encumbered [5930 Beeman Avenue, Valley Village, California 91607 (the ‘Property’)] by taking a second deed of trust in the amount of $285,127.00, secured by the Property (the ‘2nd DOT’) recorded with the Los Angeles County Recorder’s office as instrument number 20240682403.” (Medioni Decl., ¶ 11.) Plaintiff’s counsel states that “[o]n November 27, 2024, Creditor filed his Notice of Motion and Motion for an Order to Deem the Real Property Commonly Known as 5930 Beeman Avenue, Valley Village, California 91607 Community Property and for an Order That Plaintiff’s Judgment Lien Attach to the Property (the ‘Motion For Order’).” (Meidioni Decl., ¶ 10.) Plaintiff’s counsel asserts that “[t]he 2nd DOT has reduced the amount of equity in the Property, which is Debtor and Harrosh’s only known asset.” (Meidioni Decl., ¶ 12.)

Plaintiff asserts that May 1, 2025 was the “first available [sic] on the Court’s motion reservation system (CRS) for the Creditor’s Motion for Order to be heard…” (Ex Parte Application at p. 4:27-28.) Plaintiff states that he is “concerned that if [Safran] and Harrosh are given five (5) months before the Motion for Order is heard, Debtors will further encumber or transfer the Property as evidenced by the 2nd DOT.” (Ex Parte Application at p. 7:1-3.)

Based on the foregoing, and in light of the lack of any opposition, the Court finds that

Plaintiff has demonstrated good cause for the Court to advance the hearing on Plaintiff’s “Motion for Order” filed on November 27, 2024.

B.     Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Application for a Temporary Restraining Order

A temporary restraining order may issue when “[i]t appears from facts shown by affidavit or by the verified complaint that great or irreparable injury will result to the applicant before the matter can be heard on notice.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 527, subd. (c)(1).) “[T]rial courts should evaluate two interrelated factors when deciding whether or not to issue [a restraining order]. The first is the likelihood that the plaintiff will prevail on the merits at trial. The second is the interim harm that the plaintiff is likely to sustain if the [restraining order] were denied as compared to the harm that the defendant is likely to suffer if the [order] were issued.” (Church of Christ in Hollywood v. Superior Court (2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 1244, 1251.)

“The trial court’s determination must be guided by a mix of the potential-merit and interim-harm factors; the greater the plaintiff’s showing on one, the less must be shown on the other to support [a restraining order]…Of course, [t]he scope of available preliminary relief is necessarily limited by the scope of the relief likely to be obtained at trial on the merits…A trial court may not grant a [restraining order], regardless of the balance of interim harm, unless there is some possibility that the plaintiff would ultimately prevail on the merits of the claim.”(Church of Christ in Hollywood v. Superior Court, supra, 99 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1251-1252 [internal quotations omitted].)

            Furthermore, “an injunctive order should be limited in scope to the subject of the litigation.” (City of Redlands v. County of San Bernardino (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 398, 415.)

Here, Plaintiff asserts that he has a “reasonable probability of success on the merits.” (Ex Parte Application at p. 8:2.) Plaintiff cites to Code of Civil Procedure section 708.240, subdivision (b)[1], which provides that “[t]he judgment creditor may apply to the court in which an action under this article is pending for either or both of the following:…(b) A temporary restraining order or a preliminary injunction or both, restraining the third person from transferring to any person or otherwise disposing of the property in which the judgment debtor is claimed to have an interest, pursuant to Chapter 3 (commencing with Section 525) of Title 7, and the court may make, dissolve, and modify such orders as provided therein.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 708.240, subd. (b).)

As set forth above, the Court entered a Judgment in this action on October 25, 2018 indicating that “judgment is entered in favor of Plaintiff Daniel Perez (“Plaintiff”) and against defendants Joseph Safran, an individual (“Safran”) and One Capital Group, Inc., a California Corporation (“One Capital”) jointly and severally, in the sum of $190,000.00.” (Emphasis in original.) Plaintiff’s counsel states that “[Safran] has made absolutely zero payments towards the Judgment.” (Medioni Decl., ¶ 15, emphasis omitted.)

Plaintiff’s counsel states that “[o]n August 7, 2020, Harrosh purchased the real property commonly known as 5930 Beeman Avenue, Valley Village, California 91607 (the ‘Property’) for $1,200,000.00.” (Medioni Decl., ¶ 4, Ex. 3.) As set forth above, on September 13, 2024, the Court issued an Order in this action providing, inter alia, as follows:

“That the following right to payment due, or to become due, including, but not limited to rent, referral fees, fees for services, contingency fees, royalties, commissions, payments in general, payments from sales, payments from leases, payments from refinances, payment from loan originations, payments from relocations, payments from a patent or copyright, advances, accounts receivable, general intangibles (as defined by Commercial Code Section 9102(a)(42)), judgments, instruments (as defined by Code of Civil Procedure Section 708.510(a) and the comment to Section 708.510), etc. (the Funds) from all third parties, including, but not limited to, Sapir Realty Corporation, a California corporation and doing business as Weichert, Realtors – All Stars, and the tenant(s) occupying the real property commonly known as 5930 Beeman Avenue, Valley Village, California 91607, be, and hereby are, assigned to Creditor’s counsel c/o Daniel Medioni, Esq. of Wolf, Rifkin, Shapiro, Schulman & Rabkin, LLP, 11400 West Olympic Boulevard, 9th Floor, Los Angeles, California 90064, to be applied to the judgment herein until such judgment is fully satisfied, including interest thereon. Judgment was entered on October 25, 2018, in the principal amount of $190,000.00. The balance on the judgment is $262,597.70 as of September 23, 2022 (the date the last writ of execution was issued) and is accruing interest at the rate of $52.05 per day from and after September 24, 2022…

Harrosh and any representative, agent, employee or attorney of Harrosh and any person(s) in active concert and participating with Harrosh are hereby restrained from encumbering, assigning, disposing of or spending the Funds and/or all rights to payment thereunder…”

Plaintiff’s counsel states that “[o]n October 4, 2024, less than three (3) weeks after the Order, Debtor and Harrosh encumbered the Property by taking a second deed of trust in the amount of $285,127.00, secured by the Property (the ‘2nd DOT’) recorded with the Los Angeles County Recorder’s office as instrument number 20240682403.” (Medioni Decl., ¶ 11.) Plaintiff’s counsel asserts that “[t]he 2nd DOT has reduced the amount of equity in the Property, which is Debtor and Harrosh’s only known asset.” (Meidioni Decl., ¶ 12.)

As discussed, on November 27, 2024, Plaintiff filed a Motion for an Order to Deem the Real Property Commonly Known as 5930 Beeman Avenue, Valley Village, CA 91607 Community Property and for an Order that Plaintiff’s Judgment Lien Attach to the Property. In the November 27, 2024 motion, Plaintiff asserts that “[j]udgment debtor [Safran] has been married to Karen Harrosh…since 2001,” and that “[5930 Beeman Avenue, Valley Village, California 91607] is a community asset that is subject to enforcement of the Judgment.” (Plaintiff’s November 27, 2024 Motion at p. 1:3-4; 7:12.) Per Code of Civil Procedure section 708.240, subdivision (b), Plaintiff, as the judgment creditor, may apply for a temporary restraining order restraining Harrosh “from transferring to any person or otherwise disposing of the property in which [Safran] is claimed to have an interest…”

Plaintiff asserts that he will suffer irreparable injury if a temporary restraining order is not issued. Plaintiff’s counsel asserts that “[Safran] and Harrosh encumbered the Property with the 2nd DOT for the express purpose of thwarting [Plaintiff’s] ability to enforce the Judgment against the Property,” and that “[Safran] has made absolutely zero payments towards the Judgment.” (Medioni Decl., ¶¶ 13, 15, emphasis omitted.) Plaintiff argues that “[Safran] and Harrosh will not suffer any damage whatsoever by the imposition of the injunction. Debtor is required by law to comply with the judgement ordered by the Court…” (Ex Parte Application at p. 9:11-13.)

Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that Plaintiff has shown a likelihood of prevailing on the merits (as discussed, Judgment has been entered in favor of Plaintiff). The Court finds that Plaintiff has shown that he is likely to sustain interim harm if the temporary restraining order is denied, as compared to any purported harm that Safran is likely to suffer if the order were issued. In addition, as discussed, the ex parte application is unopposed. Thus, Safran does not dispute that the requested injunctive relief is warranted here.

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, the Court grants Plaintiff’s ex parte application to advance the hearing on Plaintiff’s “Motion for Order” filed on November 27, 2024. However, the Court notes that Plaintiff requests that the hearing be advanced to January 19, 2025, which is a Sunday. The Court sets the hearing for January 21, 2025 at 2:00 p.m. in Dept. 50. Any opposition to the motion shall be filed and served per code, with a courtesy copy delivered to Dept. 50. Any reply in support of the motion shall be filed and served per code, with a courtesy copy delivered to Dept. 50.

The Court grants Plaintiff’s ex parte application for a temporary restraining order.

The Court orders that defendant and judgment debtor Joseph Safran (“Safran”) and Karen Harrosh (“Harrosh”), and all persons acting in concert or participating with Safran and Harrosh, are hereby enjoined from further encumbering, assigning, or in any way transferring ownership of or title to the real property commonly known as 5930 Beeman Avenue, Valley Village, California 91607 until the date the Court has issued an Order on Plaintiff’s Motion for Order filed on November 27, 2024.

Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of this Order.

DATED:  January 9, 2025                        ________________________________

Hon. Teresa A. Beaudet

Judge, Los Angeles Superior Court