SOFIA FARHADI vs. SHAHIN ZACKARY, et al.

perpetual determination. In support, Plaintiff points to cases like Phan v. Knight Sacramento SU Inc. (2026) 121 Cal.App.5th 641. However, there the agreement applied to "any and all claims which arise out of the employment context or any other interaction/relationship we had, have or may have in the future." As such, the Court found that the plain language of Phan's agreement was so broad as to encompass all claims against Knight and related third parties, whether or not related to her employment.

By contrast, here, the arbitrable claims are appropriately limited to those related to, and arising out of Plaintiff's employment. Accordingly, while Plaintiff has demonstrated a degree of procedural unconscionability, she has not demonstrated any degree of substantive unconscionability. As a result, the Court finds that the arbitration agreement is enforceable. (Ajamian, supra, Cal.App.4th at p. 796.)

Based on the foregoing, Defendant's motion to compel arbitration is granted, with the exception of the representative component of the PAGA claim which Defendant agrees is not subject to arbitration. This action is stayed pending the completion of arbitration. It is so ordered. Dated: September, 2026 Hon. Jon R. Takasugi Judge of the Superior Court

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at [email protected] by 4 p.m. the day prior as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org. If a party submits on the tentative, the party's email must include the case number and must identify the party submitting on the tentative. If all parties to a motion submit, the court will adopt this tentative as the final order. If the department does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on the tentative and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion may be placed off calendar. For more information, please contact the court clerk at (213) 633-0517.

Court of California County of Los Angeles DEPARTMENT 17 TENTATIVE RULING SOFIA FARHADI vs.

SHAHIN ZACKARY, et al. | Case No.: 26STCV11499 Hearing Date: September 2, 2026 | Cross-Defendants' motion to quash service of the cross-complaint is DENIED.

On 4/9/2026, pro per Plaintiff Sofia Farhadi dba Select Auto (Plaintiff) filed suit against Shahin Zackary and Stanford Mart, LP, alleging 20 causes of action. On 6/16/2026, Stanford Mart, LP and Shahin Zackary (collectively, Cross-Complainants) filed a Cross-Complaint (XC) against Hamidreza Rezaei, Sofia Farhadi, and Seyed Majid Sadeghi (collectively, Cross-Defendants), alleging: (1) claim and delivery; (2) conversion; (3) breach of contract; (4) wrongful retention; and (5) violation of Business & Professions Code section 17200. On 8/17/2026, pro per Cross-Defendants moved to quash service of the cross-complaint.

Discussion

Cross-Defendants argue that that the purported substituted service did not validly effect service on the Moving Parties. However, as noted by Cross-Complainants, the declaration of diligence, declaration of mailing, and related service documents have all been submitted.

As set forth in the supporting declaration of Matthew Abbasi, Cross-Defendants Hamidreza Rezaei and Seyed Majid Sadeghi were served via substituted service at 1760 Long Beach Blvd., Long Beach, California 901113-1961, on 6/29/2026, by leaving the Summons on Cross-Complaint and Cross-Complaint with a person apparently in charge, followed by first-class mailing to the same address on 6/30/2026. The attached declarations of diligence reflect attempts at personal service on three different dates before substituted service was completed, Plaintiff Sofia Farhadi was served via first-class mail at address listed on her Complaint in this matter.

The Court finds that the preponderance of evidence supports a finding of proper service of all Cross-Defendants. Based on the foregoing, Cross-Defendants' motion to quash service of the cross-complaint is denied.