AMERICAN EXPRESS NATIONAL BANK vs AIDA SHORVOGHLIAN, et al.

him. The generalized allegations that the corporate fraud was committed "by and through" Shayan and Bahman do not distinguish their respective knowledge, representations, omissions, or participation. (FAC, P. 148.) Because fraud must be pleaded against each defendant specifically, the allegations are insufficient in their present form. Accordingly, the demurrer to the Fifth Cause of Action is SUSTAINED as to Shayan and Bahman.

Sixth Cause of Action Defendants correctly observe that section 7068.1 does not require an officer personally to supervise every construction site or perform every listed supervisory activity. But the First Amended Complaint alleges a complete failure to exercise supervision or control, not merely Bahman's absence from the jobsite. Whether Bahman exercised another statutorily permissible form of supervision, whether any breach caused Plaintiffs' damages, and whether the evidence ultimately supports personal liability present factual questions that cannot be resolved on demurrer. The Court therefore concludes that the Sixth Cause of Action sufficiently alleges an individual duty, breach, causation, and damage for pleading purposes. The demurrer to the Sixth Cause of Action is OVERRULED. Court is to give notice.

INVESTMENTS, LLC vs OPUS ESCROW, et al. As the bankruptcy of Defendant Opus remains pending, the Court continues the Order to Show Cause hearing to November 30, 2026 at 8:30 a.m. in Department X. The parties are invited to submit briefing on the issue of the Court's authority to sign the order for good faith settlement while the bankruptcy stay is in effect. Any briefing on this issue should be submitted five court days prior to the continued OSC hearing. Court is to give notice.

Case Number: 25NNCV03653 Hearing Date: September 1, 2026 Dept: X #20 - AMERICAN EXPRESS NATIONAL BANK vs AIDA SHORVOGHLIAN, et al. Summary judgment is GRANTED for $247,539.84 and recoverable costs, without additional prejudgment interest. Plaintiff has not established a separate amount of additional prejudgment interest beyond the balance owed. Plaintiff has adequately authenticated the Cardmember Agreement and account statements for purposes of this motion. The declaration identifies the records, explains how and when they were created, describes their maintenance in the ordinary course of business, and addresses the reliability of American Express's computerized systems.

The evidence establishes a written Cardmember Agreement governing the account, Defendants' acceptance through use of the account, and Plaintiff's extension of credit. A credit-card collection action based on the cardholder's contractual obligation to pay is properly treated as an action for breach of the cardmember agreement. (See Professional Collection Consultants v. Lauron (2017) 8 Cal.App.5th 958, 971.)

The Agreement requires payment of all charges and makes the Basic Cardmember and Company jointly and severally liable. Plaintiff's records establish that Defendants used the account, failed to make the required payments, and defaulted. Those records further establish that, after all payments and credits were applied, $247,539.84 remained due as of May 15, 2026. Plaintiff has therefore established the contract, its performance, Defendants' breach, and resulting damages. Plaintiff has met its initial burden.

There is no opposition filed. No evidence presented raises a triable issue concerning those elements. Judgment shall be entered against Defendants Aida Shorvoghlian and Double ARSV LLC, jointly and severally, for $247,539.84, plus recoverable court costs. The Court will sign the proposed judgment submitted with the moving papers. On its own motion, the trial and FSC dates are advanced and vacated. Moving Party is to give notice.

Case Number: 25NNCV07413 Hearing Date: September 1, 2026 Dept: X #6 - MERCEDES-BENZ VEHICLE TRUST, AS SERVICED BY ITS ATTORNEY IN FACT, MERCEDES-BENZ FINANCIAL SERVICES USA, LLC, et al. Service remains outstanding on the cross-complaint. The Order to Show Cause hearing is discharged. The Court sets an Order to Show Cause re: Sanctions up to $250.00 against Cross-Complainant's Counsel, Motaz M Gerges, for the failure to serve the Cross-Complaint (Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 3.110). The Order to Show Cause hearing is set for November 10, 2026 at 8:30 a.m. in Department X of the Alhambra Courthouse. On its own motion, the Case Management Conference is continued to November 10, 2026 at 8:30 a.m. in Department X. Court is to give notice.

Case Number: 25NNCV08714 Hearing Date: September 1, 2026 Dept: X #7 - MANDY LEONNA SEATON vs ALYSSA RUNYEON, et al. The Court has reviewed the Case Management Statements filed by the parties. The Court issues the following Case Management Order: Plaintiff's medical damages currently do not exceed $50,000. The parties in the above-captioned case are ordered to the Mediation Volunteer Panel (MVP), a court-connected program administered by the Los Angeles Superior Court's Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) Office.

Cases referred to the MVP program will be eligible for three hours of virtual mediation at no cost with a qualified and impartial mediator who volunteers preparation time and the first three hours of the virtual mediation session. Thereafter, if the parties wish to continue the mediation, the mediator may charge the hourly rate as listed in their MVP profile listed on the Court's website at www.lacourt.org/ADR. The ADR Office will email a detailed Notice of Referral to Mediation (Notice) to all parties and their attorneys of record.

The Notice directs the parties or their attorneys to meet and confer regarding the selection of a mediator and submit an online Response to the Notice. Parties may select a mediator from the MVP profiles or request the ADR Office to assign a mediator. Mediator profiles, including contact information, areas of expertise, and hourly rates, are available on the Court's ADR webpage. Regardless of the method of mediator selection, the plaintiff or plaintiff's counsel must submit an online Response within 15 calendar days of the date on the Notice.

A link to the Response Form is available on the Court's ADR webpage and on the Notice of Referral to Mediation. The ADR Office will email a Notice of Mediator Assignment to the mediator and the parties in all MVP cases once the Response Form is received and processed. If an MVP mediator is not available, the ADR Office may refer cases to other no-cost or low-cost mediation resources when necessary (e.g. Mediation Center of Los Angeles or the Civil Mediation Vendor Resource List).