Haase v. Magdangal, et al.

$300,000 but Golshan refused.

On or about March 20, 2020, Kamali went to Ataian's office to discuss Saint Glen. During their discussion Ataian told Kamali to return to Ataian the $450,000 because Ataian 'did not want the restaurant anymore.' In order to avoid paying Kamali the outstanding $300,000, Ataian contacted Kamali sometime after March 20, 2020, indicating that newly invoiced liabilities and newly discovered liabilities had not been paid." (TAXC, P.P. 26-29.)

The Court finds that Ataian's alleged conduct described above does not constitute acts of interference. First, Ataian's instruction to Kamali to return the $450,000 deposit cannot constitute interference with the SPA because Ataian had no right to the deposit under the SPA. The SPA obligated Golshan to pay the $450,000 deposit, and therefore, any right to demand its return would belong to Golshan, not Ataian. Ataian had no contractual right to that deposit.

The TAXC also alleges that Ataian interfered with the SPA by "indicating that newly invoiced liabilities and newly discovered liabilities had not been paid." (TAXC, P. 29.) Merely informing Kamali that certain invoices remained unpaid does not constitute an act of interference. The Court has already determined that Ataian's assertion was true because these invoices had not been paid. (1/30/2026 Minute Order.) The Court further determined that Kamali breached the SPA by failing to pay the outstanding invoices. (1/30/2026 Minute Order, p. 25.)

An intentional act of interference must be conduct designed to induce a breach of the contract or disrupt the contractual relationship. (I-CA Enterprises, Inc., supra, 235 Cal.App.4th at p. 289.) Ataian identifying Kamali's existing breach, i.e., that Kamali had failed to satisfy his obligations under the SPA, was not conduct inducing a breach. It was merely an assertion that a breach had already occurred. Thus, the motion for judgment on the fifth cause of action is GRANTED.

Sixth Cause of Action, Declaratory Relief

In the declaratory relief cause of action, Kamali seeks a judicial declaration and determination regarding several matters of contractual interpretation. (TAXC, P. 101(a)-(n).) Upon review, the Court has already addressed each of these items during Phase I and Phase II. (9/12/2025 Minute Order; 1/30/2026 Minute Order.) Accordingly, there are no remaining issues for the Court to adjudicate with respect to the relief sought under this cause of action. Thus, the motion for judgment on the sixth cause of action is GRANTED.

ATAIAN/GOLSHAN MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS: Because the Court has granted Golshan and Ataian's Motion for Partial Judgment in its entirety, the Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is DENIED as MOOT.

RULING: Kamali's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, or Alternatively, Partial Judgment on the Court Trial is DENIED. Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant Hamad Golshan and Cross-Defendant Hootan Ataian's Motion for Partial Judgment on the Court Trial is GRANTED. Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant Hamad Golshan and Cross-Defendant Hootan Ataian's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is MOOT.

DEPARTMENT D IS CONTINUING TO CONDUCT AND ENCOURAGE VIDEO APPEARANCES

If you wish to appear remotely on LACourtConnect, you may register by visiting www.lacourt.ca.gov to schedule a remote appearance. Please note that LACourtConnect offers free audio and video appearances. Department D is now requiring either live or VIDEO appearances, not audio appearances.

Case Number: 24NNCV06260 Hearing Date: August 28, 2026 Dept: D TENTATIVE RULING Calendar: 10 Date: August 28, 2026 Case No: 24NNCV06260 Trial Date: Not yet set Case Name: Haase v. Magdangal, et al. MOTIONS TO COMPEL DISCOVERY

Moving Party: Defendant, Rey Magdangal Responding Party: Plaintiff, Cynthia Haase [Unopposed] RELIEF REQUESTED: Compel Plaintiff's responses to Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Requests for Production, and deem Requests for Admission Admitted. CAUSES OF ACTION: from Form Complaint 1) Motor Vehicle Negligence CHRONOLOGY: Discovery Served: August 13, 2025 Responses Served: No responses served Motion Served: March 20, 2026 SUMMARY OF FACTS: The Complaint alleges that on December 3, 2022, in Monrovia, California, defendant Rey Magdangal ("Defendant") negligently operated a motor vehicle in such a manner as to cause injury to plaintiff Cynthia Haase ("Plaintiff").

ANALYSIS: A motion to compel an initial response can be made on the ground that a party did not serve a timely response to interrogatories or a demand to produce. (CCP Sec.Sec. 2030.290, subd. (a) [interrogatories], 2031.300, subd. (a) [demand to produce]; Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 404.) The discovering party can also make a motion to deem as admitted any unanswered requests for admission or any requests answered in a late or unverified response. (CCP Sec. 2033.280, subd. (b); CCP, Sec. 2033.240, subd. (a) [RFA responses must be signed by responding party under oath]; Appleton v. Superior Court (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 632, 636 [unsworn response to RFAs is treated like no response].) These requests are not automatically deemed admitted; the discovering party must make the motion. (CCP Sec. 2033.280, subd. (b).)

To establish this ground, a movant must show: (1) Proper service (CCP Sec.Sec. 2030.080, subd. (a) [interrogatories], 2031.040 [demand to produce]); Sec. 2033.070 [requests for admission]) (2) Expiration of the deadline for the initial response 30 days after service or on date agreed to by parties (CCP Sec.Sec. 2030.260, subds. (a), (b) [interrogatories], 2031.260, subds. (a), (b) [demand to produce] 2033.250, subds. (a), (b) [requests for admission]); and (3) No timely response. (CCP Sec.Sec. 2030.290 [interrogatories], 2031.300 [demand to produce] Sec. 2033.280, subd. (b) [requests for admission])

A court must deny a motion to compel initial discovery where the discovery sought is outside the scope of discovery. (CBS, Inc. v. Superior Court (1968) 263 Cal.App.2d 12, 19; CCP Sec. 2017.010 [scope of discovery].) The FROGs, SROGs, RFPs, and RFAs were served via electronic service on Plaintiff on August 13, 2025. (All Mots., Leaton Decl., Ex. A.) The deadline to respond was 30 days after service, plus two court days for electronic service. (CCP Sec. 1010.6 subd. (a)(3)(B).) Thus responses were due on September 16, 2025. As of the date of the hearing on these motions, there is no evidence before the Court that Plaintiff has responded to the discovery requests. Thus, the Motions are GRANTED.

Request for Sanctions

The Court must impose monetary sanctions against anyone--party, nonparty, or attorney--who unsuccessfully makes or opposes the motion, unless it finds that the person to be sanctioned acted with substantial justification or other circumstances make the imposition of the sanctions unjust. (CCP Sec.Sec. 2030.290, subd. (c) [interrogatories], 2031.300, subd. (c) [demand to produce]; Sinaiko, supra, 148 Cal.App.4th at 404 [interrogatories and demand to produce].) The Court must award sanctions when a party's response to request for admissions is untimely, and the discovering party makes a motion to deem the requests admitted. (CCP, Sec. 2033.280, subd. (c); Appleton, supra, 206 Cal.App.3d at 635-636 [sanctions are mandatory].)

"The court may award sanctions under the Discovery Act in favor of a party who files a motion to compel discovery, even though no opposition to the motion was filed, or opposition to the motion was withdrawn, or the requested discovery was provided to the moving party after the motion was filed." (Rules of Court, rule 3.1348, subd. (a).) Even after a party provides discovery responses, a party can keep its motion on calendar and the court has authority to grant sanctions, even if it denies the motion to compel responses "as essentially unnecessary, in whole or in part." (Sinaiko, supra, 148 Cal.App.4th at 409.) The burden is on the party subject to sanctions to show substantial justification or injustice. (Mattco Forge, Inc. v. Arthur Young & Co. (1990) 223 Cal.App.3d 1429, 1436.)

Defendant requests sanctions in the amount of $1,260.00 per motion. The amount requested is high given that the motions are largely duplicative and the hearings on the motions are scheduled concurrently. The sanctions are adjusted accordingly. Sanctions are awarded as follows: 3 hours total at $300.00 per hour for attorneys fees of $900.00 per motion.

RULING: Defendant's motion to compel responses to Form Interrogatories is GRANTED. Plaintiff is ordered to serve full, Code-compliant, verified responses, without objections within 30 days. Monetary sanctions sought by the moving party: Utilizing a lodestar approach, and in view of the totality of the circumstances, the Court finds that the total and reasonable amount of attorney's fees and costs incurred for the work performed in connection with the pending motion is $900.00 (3.0 hours @ $300/hour) [4.0 hours requested] plus $60 in filing fees [Amount Requested $1,260.00], which sum is to be awarded in favor of Defendant Rey Magdangal and against Plaintiff Cynthia Haase and Plaintiff's attorney of record, Brittany Torbert, jointly and severally, payable within 30 days. (CCP, Sec. 2030.290, subd. (c); CRC Rule 3.1348(a).)

Defendant's motion to compel responses to Special Interrogatories is GRANTED. Plaintiff is ordered to serve full, Code-compliant, verified responses, without objections within 30 days. Monetary sanctions sought by the moving party: Utilizing a lodestar approach, and in view of the totality of the circumstances, the Court finds that the total and reasonable amount of attorney's fees and costs incurred for the work performed in connection with the pending motion is $900.00 (3.0 hours @ $300/hour) [4.0 hours requested] plus $60 in filing fees [Amount Requested $1,260.00], which sum is to be awarded in favor of Defendant Rey Magdangal and against Plaintiff Cynthia Haase and Plaintiff's attorney of record, Brittany Torbert, jointly and severally, payable within 30 days. (CCP, Sec. 2030.290, subd. (c); CRC Rule 3.1348(a).)

Defendant's motion to compel responses to Requests for Production, is GRANTED. Plaintiff is ordered to serve full, Code-compliant, verified responses, without objections within 30 days. Monetary sanctions sought by the moving party: Utilizing a lodestar approach, and in view of the totality of the circumstances, the Court finds that the total and reasonable amount of attorney's fees and costs incurred for the work performed in connection with the pending motion is $900.00 (3.0 hours @ $300/hour) [4.0 hours requested] plus $60 in filing fees [Amount Requested $1,260.00], which sum is to be awarded in favor of Defendant Rey Magdangal and against Plaintiff Cynthia Haase and Plaintiff's attorney of record, Brittany Torbert, jointly and severally, payable within 30 days. (CCP, Sec. 2031.300, subd. (c); CRC Rule 3.1348(a).)

Defendant's motion to deem Requests for Admissions Admitted, is GRANTED. The admissions are hereby deemed ADMITTED as truth. Monetary sanctions sought by the moving party: Utilizing a lodestar approach, and in view of the totality of the circumstances, the Court finds that the total and reasonable amount of attorney's fees and costs incurred for the work performed in connection with the pending motion is $900.00 (3.0 hours @ $300/hour) [4.0 hours requested] plus $60 in filing fees [Amount Requested $1,260.00], which sum is to be awarded in favor of Defendant Rey Magdangal and against Plaintiff Cynthia Haase and Plaintiff's attorney of record, Brittany Torbert, jointly and severally, payable within 30 days. (CCP, Sec. 2033.280, subd. (c); CRC Rule 3.1348(a).)

DEPARTMENT D IS CONTINUING TO CONDUCT AND ENCOURAGE VIDEO APPEARANCES

If you wish to appear remotely on LACourtConnect, you may register by visiting www.lacourt.ca.gov to schedule a remote appearance. Please note that LACourtConnect offers free audio and video appearances. Department D is now requiring either live or VIDEO appearances, not audio appearances.

Case Number: 25NNCV04398 Hearing Date: August 28, 2026 Dept: D TENTATIVE RULING Calendar: 6 Date: August 28, 2026 Case No: 25NNCV04398 Trial Date: Not yet set Case Name: Oakhurst Opportunity Lending Fund I, LP v. Hu, et al. MOTION TO SET BENCH TRIAL [CRC rules 3.729 and 3.1335] Moving Party: Plaintiff, Oakhurst Opportunity Lending Fund I, LP Responding Party: Defendant/Cross-Complainants, Aiton Capital Inc. and Chicago Title Company RELIEF REQUESTED: An order from this Court setting the initial bench trial on Plaintiff's equitable causes of action in August or September 2026, or as soon thereafter as the Court can accommodate.

CAUSES OF ACTION: from First Amended Complaint 1) Quiet Title 2) Declaratory Relief 3) Cancellation of Instruments 4) Injunctive Relief 5) Slander of Title

CAUSES OF ACTION: from Aiton Capital, Inc.'s Cross-Complaint 1) Conversion 2) Unjust Enrichment 3) Money Had and Received 4) Declaratory Relief

CAUSES OF ACTION: from Bank of America N.A.'s Cross-Complaint 1) Interpleader 2) Declaratory Relief

CAUSES OF ACTION: from Citizen Business Bank's Cross-Complaint 1) Interpleader

CAUSES OF ACTION: from Chicago Title Company's Cross-Complaint 1) Equitable Indemnity 2) Contribution

SUMMARY OF FACTS: Plaintiff Oakhurst Opportunity Lending Fund I, LP ("Plaintiff") alleges that it is the owner of real property on Old Mill Road in San Marino, which it acquired through a non-judicial foreclosure sale in April of 2024 by a successful credit bid. Plaintiff alleges that its successful credit bid and title to the premises is reflected in a Trustee's Deed Upon Sale dated May 6, 2024, and recorded on May 7, 2024. Plaintiff alleges that following the purchase, certain individuals, including a borrower on whom Plaintiff had foreclosed its security interest, failed to vacate the property. Plaintiff commenced unlawful detainer proceedings, and ultimately obtained a judgment and writ of possession following judgment in the eviction action. Possession