Judge Thomas D. Long, Case Number: BC607465, Date: 2024-02-15 Tentative Ruling

On the Complaint, the Court entered judgment in favor of Defendants Kevin Moda, Hoffman La Brea LLC, and JKDM LLC (collectively, “Moda Parties”) and against Plaintiffs Mahvash Mazgani (aka Mimi Mazgani), Nazanin Mazgani, and Neyaz Mazgani (collectively, “Mazgani Parties”).

On Moda’s Cross-Complaint, the Court entered judgment in favor of Cross-Complainant Kevin Moda and against Cross-Defendant Mahvash Mazgani, and in favor of Cross-Defendants Nazanin Mazgani and Neyaz Mazgani with Kevin Moda taking nothing from them.

On January 24, 2024, the Court awarded Moda $64,267.43 in costs from the Mazgani Parties.

On February 22, 2024, the Court set an Order to Show Cause Re: Stay Enforcement and stayed the enforcement of the July 7, 2023 judgment until further order of the Court.

On February 23, 2024, Moda filed a Motion to Un-Stay Execution. This motion was filed by attorney Vip Bhola on behalf of Cross-Complainant Kevin Moda.

On March 13, 2024, Kevin Moda (as Defendant in Pro Per) filed a notice of joinder. The pleading’s caption also reflects attorney Vip Bhola as attorney for Cross-Complainant Kevin Moda.

On March 13, 2024, Vip Bhola as attorney for Cross-Complainant Kevin Moda filed a reply. Moda also filed a request for judicial notice, with a caption reflecting Moda as Defendant in Pro Per and Vip Bhola as attorney for Cross-Complainant Kevin Moda.

Moda’s request for judicial notice of the briefing on appeal is denied. Moda relies on these documents for their truth and the legal arguments contained therein. A court may take judicial notice of the existence of each document in a court file, but can only take judicial notice of the truth of facts asserted in documents such as orders, findings of fact and conclusions of law, and judgments.’”]; Bach v. McNelis (1989) 207 Cal.App.3d 852, 864-865 [a court “may not judicially notice the truth of assertions in declarations or affidavits filed in court proceedings.”].)

An Involuntary Petition under Chapter 7 was filed on October 2, 2019 against Mahvash Mazgani commencing the bankruptcy case. (Newell Decl. ¶ 3.)

On October 17, 2023, the Bankruptcy Court issued an order stating that “the automatic stay remains in effect as to enforcement of any judgment in the Superior Court case.” (Bhola Decl., Ex. I.)

On December 11, 2023, Moda filed an Ex Parte Application for Order to Clerk to Issue Writ of Possession/Turn Over Order in Aid of Execution of Judgment. On December 12, 2023, the Court took all non-costs matters off calendar because “the Bankruptcy Stay remains in place as stated by United States Bankruptcy Judge Barry Russell.”

On January 19, 2024, the Bankruptcy Court granted Mahvash Mazgani’s motion for sanctions, finding that “Kevin Moda and Vipan K. Bhola violated the automatic stay by attempting to enforce Mr. Moda’s non-final Superior Court judgment by: 1) Mr. Moda sending letters to Debtor’s tenants identifying himself as owner of Debtor’s property and directing them to suspend payment of rents to Debtor; and 2) by Mr. Bhola filing an Ex Parte Application for Mr. Moda in the Superior Court seeking such an order.” (Bhola Decl., Ex. L at p. 2.)

On February 22, 2024, this Court stayed the enforcement of the July 7, 2023 judgment until further order of the Court.

Moda seeks an order compelling the issuance of the writ of execution (which includes a writ of possession as to 10954 Massachusetts Ave, Los Angeles, CA 90024 and 141 S. Clark #320, Los Angeles, CA 90048) and an abstract of judgment or an order clarifying that the Court has not ordered the Clerk’s office not to issue them. (Motion at p. 2.)

According to Moda, “Mahvash Mazgani argued in this Court (before Honorable Bryant-Deason) and the bankruptcy court that Mr. Moda filed his Motion for Leave from the Automatic Stay on July 16, 2020. The hearing on the Motion was set for September 15, 2020. The automatic stay was lifted without any redemption by law on August 15, 2020.” (Motion at p. 9.) Moda cites 11 U.S.C. § 362(c) to support his contention that a constructive trust has been imposed by law and the Bankruptcy Court no longer has jurisdiction over the properties.

“The automatic stay is an injunction issuing from the authority of the bankruptcy court, and bankruptcy court orders are not subject to collateral attack in other courts. [Citation.] That is so not only because of the “comprehensive jurisdiction” vested in the bankruptcy courts, [citation], but also because ‘“persons subject to an injunctive order issued by a court with jurisdiction are expected to obey that decree until it is modified or reversed, even if they have proper grounds to object to the order.”’ [Citation.] . . . Any state court modification of the automatic stay would constitute an unauthorized infringement upon the bankruptcy court’s jurisdiction to enforce the stay.” (In re Gruntz (9th Cir. 2000) 202 F.3d 1074, 1082.) The Bankruptcy Court’s exclusive jurisdiction over all of the debtor’s property is a critical feature of every bankruptcy proceeding. (Central Virginia Community College v. Katz (2006) 546 U.S. 356, 363-364.)

Mahvash Mazgani’s bankruptcy proceedings are still pending. Moda’s sole avenue for relief from the automatic bankruptcy stay is through the Bankruptcy Court. No judgment enforcement is currently possible with respect to the properties because that judgment is against only Mahvash Mazgani. This is made especially clear by the Bankruptcy Court’s January 19, 2024 order finding that Moda and his counsel “violated the automatic stay by attempting to enforce Mr. Moda’s non-final Superior Court judgment.” (Bhola Decl., Ex. L at p. 2.)

With respect to Nazanin Mazgani and Neyaz Mazgani, who are not subject to the bankruptcy stay, the only judgment against them is one for costs. On January 25, 2024—the day after the order awarding Moda costs—the Mazgani Parties filed a notice of appeal of the costs order. “It is settled that a judgment which awards no damages, but is for costs alone, need not be bonded because costs are routine and are usually granted to the successful party in every case; to require a bond in order to stay enforcement of a judgment for costs would essentially negate the automatic stay provisions of [Code of Civil Procedure] section 916. [Citations.] This is an effective exception to the general rule that execution on a money judgment is not stayed pending appeal unless a bond is posted.” (Pecsok v. Black (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 456, 459.) Accordingly, enforcement of the costs order against the Mazgani Parties is stayed pending their appeal.

The Court ORDERS that enforcement of the judgment against Mahvash Mazgani remain STAYED until further order of the Bankruptcy Court as well as further order of this Court. The Court notes that on February 22, 2024, it set an OSC hearing for today to address whether and the extent to which the Judgment herein of July 7, 2023 is void. No parties responded to the OSC with respect to the Judgment’s validity, and the Court remains concerned that the Judgment herein is void and unenforceable at least as to occupants of property who are not parties to the litigation. The Court discharges the OSC and orders that the Judgment of July 7, 2023 remains stayed by this Court unless and until there is a further order herein lifting the stay.

The Court ORDERS that enforcement of the costs-only judgment against Nazanin Mazgani and Neyaz Mazgani remain STAYED pending appeal.

Moda’s motion for attorney fees remains under submission pursuant to the Court’s February 15, 2024 order.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMCDEPT48@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit. If all parties in the case submit on the tentative ruling, no appearances before the Court are required unless a companion hearing (for example, a Case Management Conference) is also on calendar.

Hon. Thomas D. Long

Judge of the Superior Court