DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
BC424856·la·Civil·Contract
Hearing todayDENIED

VERNON FIFTY TWO, LLC v. VERNON PROPERTIES, INC., et al.

Plaintiff's motion for sanctions

Hearing date
Aug 18, 2026
Department
309
Prevailing
Defendant

Motion type

Browse all Motion for Sanctions rulings statewide →

Causes of action

Parties

PlaintiffVernon Fifty-Two, LLC
DefendantVernon Properties, Inc.
DefendantAzar Barani

Ruling

Indeed, the authority that Defendants invoke for the proposition that mediation agreements are subject to judicial orders of specific performance by noticed motion do not stand for the position advanced.

One addressed ADR clauses in construction contracts subject to special statutory enforcement procedures not applicable here. (See The McCaffrey Group, Inc. v. Superior Court (2014) 224 Cal.App.4th 1330, 1345 [addressing motions to compel mediation and stay proceedings per pre-litigation dispute agreements authorized by Right of Repair Act and Civil Code Sec. 930]), while another endorsed the enforceability of a mediation requirement--not through a motion seeking specific performance, but as a condition precedent to an award of attorney fees, justifying the denial of a motion for same. (See Frei v. Davey (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 1506, 1512.)

While Defendants also cite federal cases for the proposition that failure to comply with a contract making mediation a condition precedent to suit "warrants dismissal," federal authority is not applicable here and Defendants do not bring a motion for such relief.

More importantly, the parties have already agreed to participate in mediation, which is reflected in the Notice of the Parties' Agreement to Mediate, filed on 7/14/2026. As such, even assuming the Court had the power to compel mediation, the request would be moot.

Based on the foregoing, Defendants' motion to stay proceedings and compel mediation is moot. It is so ordered. Dated: August, 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.

County of Los Angeles DEPARTMENT 309

TENTATIVE RULING VERNON FIFTY TWO, LLC vs. VERNON PROPERTIES, INC., et al. | Case No.: BC424856 Hearing Date: August 18, 2026 | Plaintiff's motion for sanctions is DENIED.

On 10/27/2009, Plaintiff Vernon Fifty-Two, LLC (Plaintiff) filed suit against Vernon Properties, Inc. and Azar Barani, alleging: (1) breach of contract; (2) fraud; (3) conversion; and (4) alter ego liability. On 7/10/2026, Plaintiff moved for sanctions pursuant to CCP section 128.7.

Discussion

Plaintiff moves for sanctions on the grounds that D efendant Azar (Fatemeh) Barani's (Barani) Motion to Vacate Void Renewal of Judgment and Void Post-Judgment Enforcement, filed 3/6/2026 was (1) factually frivolous, (2) legally frivolous, (3) procedurally defective, and (4) filed for the improper purpose of needlessly increasing the costs of litigation, harassing, and injuring Plaintiff.

After review, the Court disagrees. While Defendant Barani's motion was ultimately denied, it was based on a weighing of arguments and prejudice which ultimately favored Plaintiff. In other words, the denial of Barani's motion was based on the persuasiveness of arguments advanced rather than any inherent frivolity in Barani's motion.

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff's motion for sanctions is denied. It is so ordered. Dated: August, 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. | Home -->)" -->

Cited authorities

Extracting citations from the ruling text…
Verify against the source PDF — LLM extraction may miss or mis-normalize citations.

Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities

Ask about this ruling

Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”

Answers reference only this ruling's text. Not legal advice — always verify against the source PDF.

Find similar rulings

Source

Share