Motion to Amend Assignment Order and Turnover Order; Motion for Sanctions; Motion for Award of Post-Judgment Attorneys’ Fees and Costs
LINE CASE NO. CASE TITLE TENTATIVE RULING 9:01 1 9:01 2 9:01 3 9:01 4 9:01 5
9:00 16CV293258 Tom Lopes Distributing, Inc. Order on Plaintiff’s Motion to 1 d/b/a Western States Oil Amend Assignment Order and Company Turnover Order, for Sanctions, v. and for Award of Post-Judgment Shamrock Tank Lines, Inc., Attorneys’ Fees and Costs et al.
See Line 1 below for complete tentative ruling. After the hearing, the Court will prepare and file the formal order.
9:00 24CV450398 Jinsong Hu Order on Plaintiff’s Motion For 2 v. Relief from Order under Code Fidelity National Title Company of Civil Procedure Section 473 and for Leave to Amend Complaint
See Line 2 below for complete tentative ruling. After the hearing, the Court will prepare and file the formal order.
Defendant Fidelity National Title Company as the prevailing party in this civil action is ORDERED to prepare and file a proposed Judgment in favor of Defendant and against Plaintiff within 20 days of today.
SO ORDERED.
Line 1 Case Name: Tom Lopes Distributing, Inc. d/b/a Western States Oil Company v. et al.
Case No.: 16CV293258 Plaintiff and Judgment Creditor Tom Lopes Distributing, Inc. d/b/a Western States Oil Company (“Western”) now moves for an Order:
(1) To amend the Assignment and Turnover Order to add Hovanes Nadjarian a/k/a MLN Tanklines, Inc., and MLN Tanklines, Inc.;
(2) For Sanctions against HOVANES NADJARIAN for “disobey[ing] the Court’s Order Granting Motion Compelling Third Party MLN Tanklines, Inc. to Obey Subpoena for Business Records of Judgment Debtor Hovanes Nadjarian [of] June 22, 2025”; and
(3) For award of Post-Judgment attorneys’ fees and costs for the period ending with the hearing on this Motion. Amended Notice of Motion (the “Motion”) at 1:26-2:15 (filed: Jan. 5, 2026).
The Motion came on for hearing on June 12, 2026, at 9:00 AM in Department 16. After reviewing all the papers and the record, and giving counsel for all parties the full and fair opportunity to be heard, the Court finds and rules as follows.
Western’s Motion is DENIED in all respects because it is little more than a thinlyveiled, untimely Motion for reconsideration of the Court’s Order filed and served on Western’s counsel on December 15, 2025 that DENIED the sanctions sought there by Western against the same Defendant Hovanes Nadjarian for violating the same June 22, 2025 Order that Western seeks sanctions here against the same Defendant again. In essence, it’s a repeat motion that asks the Court to reconsider its December 15, 2025 Order without meeting the standards for reconsideration under Code of Civil Procedure Section 1008. While Western euphemistically calls this unauthorized Motion “creative,”1 it is in fact an abuse of the judicial process that disregards the virtue of finality and disregards the Court’s file-stamped December 15, 2025 Order that Western goes so far as
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
1 Western Memo. of Points & Authorities In Support of Motion at 10:17-18 (“Western
Memo.”)(filed: Jan. 5, 2026).
to falsely say “has not been filed”2 when Western filed this Motion on January 5, 2026. And while Court appreciates that Western strenuously disagrees with the Court’s December 15, 2025 decision denying sanctions requested there, Western has put forth no grounds that convince the Court to reconsider let alone reverse itself.
Important background facts that Western now skirts are that on July 14, 2025 (in this decade-old case filed in 2016), Western in a motion requested the following four elements of relief:
1. To Amend the Judgment nunc pro tunc to add MLN TANKLINES, INC.;
2. To Amend the Judgment Debtor’s name to HOVANES NADJARIAN, a/k/a MLN TANKLINES, INC.
3. Hold HOVANES NADJARIAN in contempt of Court; more specifically, Plaintiff asks this Court to “imprison” Mr. Nadjarian for “up to six months”; and
4. That HOVANES NADJARIAN pay Plaintiff $4,744.83 in reimbursement for Plaintiff’s post-judgment attorney’s fees ($ 3,160.00) and for Plaintiff’s costs incurred ($1,584.83).
Amended Notice of Motion at 2:7-23 (filed: July 14, 2025). More specifically, regarding the contempt sanctions sought in item 3 above, Western sought to sanction Hovanes Nadjarian “for violating the Court’s Order Granting Motion Compelling Third Party MLN Tanklines, Inc. to Obey Subpoena for Business Records of Judgment Debtor Hovanes Nadjarian [of] June 22, 2025.” Id. at 2:11-13. After reviewing and carefully considering all the voluminous papers and record and giving all parties the full and fair opportunity to be heard at a hearing on October 17, 2025, the Court GRANTED the Relief sought in items 1, 2, and 4 above but DENIED the relief for contempt sanctions sought in item 3 above in a formal order that the Court signed on December 3, 2025, and which the Clerk filed and served on parties including on Western’s counsel Joseph P.
Thompson on December 15, 2025—as is crystal clear from the file-stamped December 15, 2025 Order on the public portal of the Santa Clara County Superior Court that anyone worldwide accessing this case was able to see as of December 15, 2025.
Disregarding that file-stamped December 15, 2025 Order, Western now redundantly moves for largely-similar elements of relief:
1. To Amend the assignment and turnover order to add HOVANES NADJARIAN, a/k/a MLN TANKLINES, INC., and MLN TANKLINES, INC.;
2. For Sanctions against HOVANES NADJARIAN for “disobey[ing] the Court’s Order Granting Motion Compelling Third Party MLN Tanklines, Inc. to Obey Subpoena
2 Amended Declaration of Joseph P. Thomson In Support of Motion at ¶ 5 (“Thompson Decl.”) (filed: Jan. 5, 2026).
for Business Records of Judgment Debtor Hovanes Nadjarian [of] June 22, 2025”; and
3. For an award of post-judgment attorneys’ fees for the period ending with the hearing on the motion and for reimbursement of costs incurred.
Amended Notice of Motion at 2:1-15
Regarding the first element of relief now sought, it is DENIED as redundant or unnecessary in light of the fact that the Court in its December 15, 2025 Order already GRANTED Western’s request to Amend the Judgment nunc pro tunc to add MLN TANKLINES, INC. and Amend the Judgment Debtor’s name to HOVANES NADJARIAN, a/k/a MLN TANKLINES, INC. And Western now, in the few perfunctory lines it spends in its new Motion on this amendment request, says nothing to convince the Court that this newly-requested amendment of the “assignment and turnover order” is necessary or justified in light of the relief already granted in the Court’s December 15, 2025 Order.
Regarding the second element of relief now sought, Western openly disagrees with the Court’s December 15, 2025 Order denying contempt sanctions for violating the June 22, 2025 Order by arguing that “failure of HOVANES NADJARIAN to obey the Court’s Order [of June 22, 2025] is ample justification for the Court to hold him in contempt, or, if the Court will not do so . . . impos[e] monetary sanctions[.]” Western Memo. at 11:23- 25. And while the Court respects Western’s right vigorously to disagree with its decisions, here Western does not come close to satisfying the statutory requirements of Code of Civil Procedure Section 1008(a) for a motion for reconsideration.
For this new Motion was neither made within 10 days after service by the Clerk of Court on December 15, 2025 of the file-stamped December 15, 2025 Order nor is based on new or different circumstances or law that change the Court’s mind at all. C.C.P. § 1008(a).
The Court’s careful review of the case docket confirms that the Court’s Order denying the contempt sanction was signed by Judge Parrett on December 3, 2025, and filed and served on Western by our Clerk’s Office on December 15, 2025. And this filestamped December 15, 2025 Order was also posted on the Court’s public portal on December 15, 2025 for anyone worldwide, including Western’s counsel, to see on December 15, 2025. So the Court finds that Western’s statement that “as of this date” of January 5, 2026 when Western filed this Motion that the file-stamped December 15, 2025 Order “has not been filed”3 is false if not intentionally misleading. Western’s Memo. at 3:19-25.
And the Court views Western’s statement that the file-stamped December 15, 2025 Order “has not been filed” when Western filed this Motion on January 5, 2026 as misleading because Western’s “justification” for bringing this repeat Motion is that—while supposedly “waiting” for this Order to be filed—Western while searching the internet came across “evasion tactics” online of HOVANES NADJARIAN for which he should be
3 Thompson Decl. at ¶ 5 (“Thompson Decl.”) (filed: Jan. 5, 2026).
sanctioned for allegedly violating the same June 22, 2025 Order. Western Memo. at 3:19- 25 & 5:23-6:6.
The Court is unimpressed by Western’s counsel’s “creative” attempt to skirt the Court’s December 15, 2025 Order denying Western’s Motion for contempt sanctions for Nadjarian’s alleged violation of the June 22, 2025 Order by claiming that (a) Western never saw the file-stamped December 15, 2025 Order when it filed this new motion on January 5, 2026, and (b) the Court’s carefully-considered December 15, 2025 Order should change because Western now asks for “monetary sanctions” instead of “contempt sanctions” based on alleged violation of the same June 22, 2025 Order. So Western’s request to for the Court to award “sanctions” now for allegedly violating the same June 22, 2025 Order that the Court already carefully considered but denied in its December 15, 2025 Order is respectfully DENIED in all respects now.
Regarding the last element of relief now sought asking for additional postjudgment attorneys’ fees and costs, that request is DENIED as well. In the broad exercise of its discretion, the Court declines to award any attorneys’ fees or costs now for the “13.20 hours” Western’s counsel unilaterally decided to spend surfing the web, e.g., looking at websites of the “California Secretary of State, and other search sites” for evidence of Nadjarian’s alleged violation of the June 22, 2025 Order. Amended Decl. of Joseph P.
Thompson at ¶ 11 (filed on Jan. 5, 2026); & Supp. Decl. of Joseph P. Thompson at ¶ 22 (filed on March 30, 2026)(requesting an additional “10.0” hours for searching internet sites for evidence of Nadjarian’s alleged violation of the June 22, 2025 Order). In the broad exercise of its discretion, the Court declines to award Western these attorneys’ fees and costs sought now because the Court finds and rules that none of those 23.20 hours were reasonably incurred for this new motion that Western has lost in its entirety.
The Court also wishes to point out for the record that the voluminous repeat postjudgment arguments in this Motion—including more than five pages of single-spaced, dense text from a “previous (2022) . . . post judgment motion” that Western says it “now repeats for the benefit of the newly appointed judge”4 is not well taken at all by the undersigned Judge—who will not permit Western to relitigate years of post-judgment arguments now under the guise that it is to “help” the new judge who practiced complex civil litigation for over twenty years before taking the bench.
To the extent that Western undoubtedly disagrees with multiple decisions of multiple Judges of Santa Clara County Superior Court who have presided over this case since it was filed a decade ago in 2016, Western is free vigorously to pursue its appellate remedies (if any remain) with the Sixth Appellate District, the California Supreme Court, and the United States Supreme Court itself. But this trial court will not entertain any further improper and untimely motions for reconsideration to relitigate this decade-old case unless and until an appropriate appellate authority says otherwise. After all, in the eyes of the law, finality is a virtue.
4 Western Memo. at 5:17-19 (emphasis added)
Conclusion & Order
For the foregoing reasons, Western’s Motion is DENIED in its entirety with prejudice.
SO ORDERED.
Date: June 12, 2026 Hon. Vincent I. Parrett Superior Court of the State of California, County of Santa Clara
10