arrow left
arrow right
  • HASSAN HASHEMIAN ET AL VS FRANK RAHBAN ET AL Other Complaint (non-tort/non-complex) (General Jurisdiction) document preview
  • HASSAN HASHEMIAN ET AL VS FRANK RAHBAN ET AL Other Complaint (non-tort/non-complex) (General Jurisdiction) document preview
						
                                

Preview

¢ ev ” . CM-015 ‘ATTORNEY OR PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY (Name, Slate Bar number, and address): FOR COURT USE ONLY L_ Richard I. Arshonsky, Esq. (SBN 155624) , Levinson Arshonsky & Kurtz, LLP 15303 Ventura Boulevard + Suite 1650 FILE Sherman Oaks, CA 91403 ‘Su rior Court of California FAXNO. (Optionay: (818) 382-3433 county of Los Angeles TELEPHONE NO.: (818) 382-3434 E-MAIL ADDRESS (Optiona): rarshonsky@laklawyers.com ATTORNEY FOR (Name): Plaintiffs MAR 01 2018 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ficarClerk of Court street aooress: 111 North Hill Street [Sherri R. Carpe, By. Deputy MAILING ADDRESS: ciryanp zip cove: Los Angeles, CA 90012 arancH name: Central District LAINTIFF/PETITIONER: HASSAN HASHEMIAN, as Trustee of the Hashemian ICASE NUMBER: Revocable Family Trust dated September 21, 1989,et al BC695297 DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT: FRANK RAHBAN, an individual; et al. JUDICIAL OFFICER: oePt.: NOTICE OF RELATED CASE Identify, in chronological order according to date of filing, all cases related to the case referenced above. 41 Title: Said Rahban, etc., et al v. Farhad Rahban, etc., et al. Case number: BC693651 Court: same as above [_] other state or federal court (name and address): Department: 12 Case type: [J limited civil GQ unlimited civil probate family law other (specify): Filing date: Feb 13, 2018 Has this case been designated or determined as "complex?" [ Yes [x] No Relationship of this case to the case referenced above (check all that apply): involves the same parties and is based on the same or similar claims. arises from the same or substantially identical transactions, incidents, or events requiring the determination of the same or substantially identical questions of law or fact. involves claims against, title to, possession of, or damages to the same property. is likely for other reasons to require substantial duplication of judicial resources if heard by different judges. [1 Additional explanation is attached in attachment 1h Status of case: pending ([) dismissed C3 with CI without prejudice wo (1 disposed of by judgment Title: Fortune Company, LLC, et al v. Rahban Case num BC695301 Court: same as above on {J other state or federal court (name and address): Department: 53 Page 1 of 3 Form Approved for Optional Use sos Cal, Rules of Court, rule 3.300 Judicial Council of California NOTICE OF RELATED CASE ‘CM-015 (Rev. July 1, 2007) fQ