On November 08, 2021 a
Motion,Ex Parte
was filed
involving a dispute between
Mahinfar, Mike Massoud,
and
Auction.Com,
Does 1-50,
Southside Neighborhood Stabilization 2021-1,
for Other Real Property Unlimited
in the District Court of San Bernardino County.
Preview
m
@?/14/ZB $3 17:21 From:wqaaeuaa mm Lau uebf-
‘
V _
V SUPERDRFCgUg-gfiggfigflhfig
COUNTY 0F SAN BER VARDINO
SAN BERNARDINO D STRICT
JUL 17 2'2 3
Michael H. Moghtader, Esq. (SBN: 206421)
Christine Avakjan, Esq.
A Professional Law Corporation
(SBN: 319921) MHM LAwMNEn BY? Cesar R.
Z
Le 32, Deputy
16530 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 606 Encino, CA91436
Tel.(818) 996-9600
Fax (818) 996-1700
Attorney for Plaintiff, MIKE MASSOUD MAHINFAR
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
10
Case N0.: CIV SB 2131835
MIKE MASSOUD MAHINFAR,
11 g
Plaintiff,
12
g
PLAINTIFF MIKE MASSOUD
13
)
MAHINFAR’S OPPOSITION TO
VS.
)
MOTION T0 STRIKE MEMORANDUM
14
OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
g
15
AUCTIONCOM, Business fonn unknown;
g
16 Southside Neighborhood Stabilization 20214;)
Business fonn unknown, and Does lto 50 JUDGE HON- THOMAS S- GARZA
17
Inclusive a
)
DATE: August 9, 2023
)
TIME: 8:30 a.m.
18
)
DEPT: s 27
19
Defendants, )
)
20 )
21
Complaint filed: Nov. 8, 2021
g
22
23
/ / /
24
// /
25
// /
26
/ / /
27
///
28
/ / /
1
OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO STRIKE
37/14/2923 17121 Fromir‘99961733 NHH Lau Uebf '
PagE117/21
\y \z
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
I.
2
INTRODUCTION
3
Plaintiff Mike Massoud Mahinfar, (“Mn Mahinfrar”). opposes the Motion to Strike filed
4
by Defendant AUCTION.COM (“Defendant”) as follows:
Defendant is ill informed on the law. Defendant’s gounds are that “each request is
5 improper” and “not drawn 0r filed in conformity with the law of this state’ . Calif. Civil Pro
7 436. However Defendant fails to state how. Defendant merely repeats three sections of the
8 Plaintiff’s Complaint it wishes to strike With Plaintiff’s contentions about the revelation 0f
9 background information Which is necessary t0 infoml the coun 0f the nature of the dispute and
10
provide context for the haml done t0 plaintiff. Defendant’s Motion t0 Strike is little more than a
transparent attempt t0 exercise a veto over allegations which have direct bean'ng 0n the dispute
11
between the parties. The fact that defendant would like t0 bury these, but the Plaintifi has the
12
right t0 plead these elements.
13
Defendant fails t0 provide any factual support for the position that it is entitled t0 strike
14
factual allegations that it regards as “irrelevant” from the Complaint. Relying solely on three
15
sections ofthe Code of Civil Procedure, defendant has cobbled together the novel argument that
16
it is entitled t0 have the misleading and false statements in its advertising stricken unless
17 plaintiff can show that the inclusion of the material is absolutely essential t0 proof of any cause
18 0f action against defendant. In doing so, defendant misstates the law, attempts to improperly
19 shifi the burden, and misconstrues the nature ofthe Complaint.
Defendant cites n0 case law that holds that plaintiff is prohibited from spelling out the
20
extent and scope 0f the misleading advertising 0f which he has been the victim, but instead is
21
limited to descfibing only part of the scheme of fiduciary breaches that defendant deems
22
“relevant”. On its face, defendant’s position seeks t0 improperly bar the introduction of
23
background facts that provide the context for plaintiff’s claims and prohibit his relevant
24
pleading.
25
The only law cited by defendant in its motion t0 strike, Code of Civil Procedure
26
seca'ons 435-437, =is not intended as a tool for contesting allegations thatthe Court must accept
27 as true at the pleadings stage, nor is it intended to provide defendant With a means of erasing
28 core allegations concerning its wrongdoing, deception, fraud, misconduct, 0r propensity to
engage in such acts. The absence 0f any citation t0 any case law appears t0 be defendant’s
2
OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO STRIKE
Document Filed Date
July 17, 2023
Case Filing Date
November 08, 2021
Category
Other Real Property Unlimited
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Preview
m @?/14/ZB $3 17:21 From:wqaaeuaa mm Lau uebf- ‘ V _ V SUPERDRFCgUg-gfiggfigflhfig COUNTY 0F SAN BER VARDINO SAN BERNARDINO D STRICT JUL 17 2'2 3 Michael H. Moghtader, Esq. (SBN: 206421) Christine Avakjan, Esq. A Professional Law Corporation (SBN: 319921) MHM LAwMNEn BY? Cesar R. Z Le 32, Deputy 16530 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 606 Encino, CA91436 Tel.(818) 996-9600 Fax (818) 996-1700 Attorney for Plaintiff, MIKE MASSOUD MAHINFAR SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO 10 Case N0.: CIV SB 2131835 MIKE MASSOUD MAHINFAR, 11 g Plaintiff, 12 g PLAINTIFF MIKE MASSOUD 13 ) MAHINFAR’S OPPOSITION TO VS. ) MOTION T0 STRIKE MEMORANDUM 14 OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES g 15 AUCTIONCOM, Business fonn unknown; g 16 Southside Neighborhood Stabilization 20214;) Business fonn unknown, and Does lto 50 JUDGE HON- THOMAS S- GARZA 17 Inclusive a ) DATE: August 9, 2023 ) TIME: 8:30 a.m. 18 ) DEPT: s 27 19 Defendants, ) ) 20 ) 21 Complaint filed: Nov. 8, 2021 g 22 23 / / / 24 // / 25 // / 26 / / / 27 /// 28 / / / 1 OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO STRIKE 37/14/2923 17121 Fromir‘99961733 NHH Lau Uebf ' PagE117/21 \y \z MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES I. 2 INTRODUCTION 3 Plaintiff Mike Massoud Mahinfar, (“Mn Mahinfrar”). opposes the Motion to Strike filed 4 by Defendant AUCTION.COM (“Defendant”) as follows: Defendant is ill informed on the law. Defendant’s gounds are that “each request is 5 improper” and “not drawn 0r filed in conformity with the law of this state’ . Calif. Civil Pro 7 436. However Defendant fails to state how. Defendant merely repeats three sections of the 8 Plaintiff’s Complaint it wishes to strike With Plaintiff’s contentions about the revelation 0f 9 background information Which is necessary t0 infoml the coun 0f the nature of the dispute and 10 provide context for the haml done t0 plaintiff. Defendant’s Motion t0 Strike is little more than a transparent attempt t0 exercise a veto over allegations which have direct bean'ng 0n the dispute 11 between the parties. The fact that defendant would like t0 bury these, but the Plaintifi has the 12 right t0 plead these elements. 13 Defendant fails t0 provide any factual support for the position that it is entitled t0 strike 14 factual allegations that it regards as “irrelevant” from the Complaint. Relying solely on three 15 sections ofthe Code of Civil Procedure, defendant has cobbled together the novel argument that 16 it is entitled t0 have the misleading and false statements in its advertising stricken unless 17 plaintiff can show that the inclusion of the material is absolutely essential t0 proof of any cause 18 0f action against defendant. In doing so, defendant misstates the law, attempts to improperly 19 shifi the burden, and misconstrues the nature ofthe Complaint. Defendant cites n0 case law that holds that plaintiff is prohibited from spelling out the 20 extent and scope 0f the misleading advertising 0f which he has been the victim, but instead is 21 limited to descfibing only part of the scheme of fiduciary breaches that defendant deems 22 “relevant”. On its face, defendant’s position seeks t0 improperly bar the introduction of 23 background facts that provide the context for plaintiff’s claims and prohibit his relevant 24 pleading. 25 The only law cited by defendant in its motion t0 strike, Code of Civil Procedure 26 seca'ons 435-437, =is not intended as a tool for contesting allegations thatthe Court must accept 27 as true at the pleadings stage, nor is it intended to provide defendant With a means of erasing 28 core allegations concerning its wrongdoing, deception, fraud, misconduct, 0r propensity to engage in such acts. The absence 0f any citation t0 any case law appears t0 be defendant’s 2 OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO STRIKE