2016-00199983-CU-FR

JBWC Properties CA, LLC vs. Maliheh Seyedin Pakzat

Nature of Proceeding: Motion to Compel Production of Documents (Mohammad Seyedin)

Filed By: Hirsch, Stuart D.

Plaintiff JBWC Properties CA, LLC’s unopposed motion to compel “the further deposition of non-party Mohammad Seyyedin, the production of documents during that deposition and continuing the trial and corresponding cut-off dates” is granted as set forth below.

As seen from the moving papers, the parties entered a stipulation whereby Defendant Zahra Seyyedin agreed through her counsel that her father Mohammad Seyyedi would be made available for an October 1, 2018 deposition. Plaintiff served Mr. Seyyedin with a deposition subpoena which included a request for documents. The deposition did not go forward.

The motion is granted. Mr. Seyyedin is ordered to comply with the deposition subpoena and appear for his deposition and produce the requested documents. The deposition shall be completed no later than November 30, 2018, though the parties are free to agree on a later date. The parties shall meet and confer on the specific date, time and location.

To the extent that Plaintiff seeks an order continuing the December 11, 2018 trial date, it appears from the reply that a stipulation has been reached to continue the trial and all discovery related deadlines. Nonetheless, Plaintiff must file a motion continuing trial with the Presiding Judge. (Local Rule 1.05(B).[unless otherwise directed by the Presiding Judge, ….all motions for consolidation, severance, bifurcation, intervention, pretrial conference, coordination and to advance or for continuance of trial, a setting

conference, or pretrial conference shall be heard by the Presiding Judge.]) No sanctions were requested and none are awarded.

This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to CRC rule 3.1312 or other notice is required.

Item 6 2016-00199983-CU-FR

JBWC Properties CA, LLC vs. Maliheh Seyedin Pakzat

Nature of Proceeding: Motion to Compel Production of Documents (Zahra Seyyedin)

Filed By: Hirsch, Stuart D.

Plaintiff JBWC Properties CA, LLC’s unopposed motion to compel “the further deposition of Zahra Seyyedin, the production of documents during that deposition and continuing the trial and corresponding cut-off dates” is granted as set forth below.

As seen from the moving papers, the parties entered a stipulation whereby Defendant Zahra Seyyedin agreed that she would appear for a continued deposition on October 2, 2018 and produce the documents requested in the deposition notice. The deposition did not go forward.

The motion is granted. Defendant Zahra Seyyedin is ordered to appear for her continued deposition and produce the requested documents as she agreed to do. The deposition shall be completed no later than November 30, 2018, though the parties are free to agree on a later date. The parties shall meet and confer on the specific date, time and location.

To the extent that Plaintiff seeks an order continuing the December 11, 2018, it appears from the reply that a stipulation has been reached to continue the trial and all discovery related deadlines. Nonetheless, Plaintiff must file a motion continuing trial with the Presiding Judge. (Local Rule 1.05(B).[unless otherwise directed by the Presiding Judge, ….all motions for consolidation, severance, bifurcation, intervention,
pretrial conference, coordination and to advance or for continuance of trial, a setting conference, or pretrial conference shall be heard by the Presiding Judge.])

No sanctions were requested and none are awarded.

This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to CRC rule 3.1312 or other notice is required.

Item 7 2016-00199983-CU-FR

JBWC Properties CA, LLC vs. Maliheh Seyedin Pakzat

Nature of Proceeding: Motion to Compel Special Interrogatories

Filed By: Hirsch, Stuart D.

Plaintiff JBWC Properties CA, LLC’s motion to compel further responses to interrogatories is granted as set forth below.

In this fraudulent conveyance action Plaintiff alleges that Defendants have fraudulently transferred properties in order to avoid an underlying judgment.

At issue on this motion are Defendant Zahra Syyedin’s second further responses to Plaintiff’s special interrogatories 5-11, 18 and 39. Interrogatories 5-11 and 18 ask for an accounting or to describe all transactions regarding specific properties. No. 39 asked for details regarding payments Defendant Maliheh Seyedin Pakzat (the judgment debtor) made to her.

As seen from the moving papers, Defendant’s second further responses are deficient. First, the current responses assert objections which were not asserted in Defendant’s original responses. Those objections have been waived. “[O]bjections must be interposed in a timely fashion, and, absent good cause for relief from default, the Court will not consider belated objections or additional objections.” (Deyo v. Kilbourne

(1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771, 785.) Defendant must provide further responses removing the objections.

In addition, the interrogatories asked Defendant to describe each specific transaction in detail, yet each response fails to do so. Defendant apparently agreed to do so in meet and confer efforts with Plaintiff. Defendant’s opposition argues that she answered the interrogatories to the best of her abilities. However, if she is unable to provide the specific details of the transactions regarding the subject properties after a reasonable and good faith investigation, she must say so in a further response. (CCP § 2030.220(c).)

While Plaintiff indicated that the responses were not verified, Defendant’s opposition indicates that verifications have been provided.

Defendant also argues Plaintiff failed to adequately meet and confer because while the parties met and conferred regarding Defendant’s previous responses, Plaintiff did not meet and confer regarding the latest second further responses. While this appears to be literally true, the parties did meet and confer with respect to the previous versions of the responses and what exactly Plaintiff was seeking. The Court will not deny the motion on this basis.

As a result, no later than November 30, 2018, Defendant shall serve verified further responses to special interrogatories nos. 5-11, 18 and 39 consistent with the above. The Court is allowing additional time due to the fact that Defendant’s counsel’s motion to withdraw was granted.

Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is denied. The Court finds that sanctions would be unjust under the circumstances given the failure to specifically meet and confer on Defendant’s second further responses.

The notice of motion does not provide notice of the Court’s tentative ruling system as required by Local Rule 1.06(D). Plaintiff’s counsel is ordered to notify Defendant’s counsel immediately of the tentative ruling system and to be available at the hearing, in person or by telephone, in the event Defendant’s counsel appears without following the procedures set forth in Local Rule 1.06(B).

The minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to CRC rule

3.1312 or other notice is required.

Item 8 2016-00199983-CU-FR

JBWC Properties CA, LLC vs. Maliheh Seyedin Pakzat

Nature of Proceeding: Motion to Withdraw as Counsel

Filed By: Etehad, Simon P.

Counsel’s unopposed motion to withdraw as counsel of record for Defendant Zahra Seyyedin is granted.

The Court is aware that the parties have stipulated to continue the December 11, 2018 trial and have an ex parte application to continue scheduled for October 31, 2018 with the Presiding Judge.

Given that stipulation, the Court will sign the order submitted, which shall be “effective upon the filing of the proof of service of th[e] signed order upon the client.”

The notice of motion does not provide notice of the Court’s tentative ruling system as required by Local Rule 1.06(D). Counsel is ordered to notify the client immediately of the tentative ruling system and to be available at the hearing, in person or by telephone, in the event the client appears without following the procedures set forth in Local Rule 3.04(B).