Saeed Paul Ghafoori v. Ash Ahhour, et al.

reconsideration is denied.

[1] The Court notes that the plaintiff in Doss was a yard hostler whose " primary duty [was] to drive tractor trucks to move and position 53-foot trailers containing auto parts that were shipped to Tesla's factory in the stream of interstate commerce." (Doss, supra, 121 Cal.App.5th at p. 90 [emphasis added].) This differs from the Plaintiff here, whose primary duty as a parts advisor was to manage inventory. Plaintiff only occasionally used a forklift to unload cargo.

Belenco Quartz USA Inc., et al. Plaintiff Collect Access LLC's Request for Default Judgment

Plaintiff Collect Access LLC requests court judgment by default against Defendants Belenco Quartz USA Inc. and Abdel-Khalek Said El-Assadi. Plaintiff's application for default judgment meets all requirements. Plaintiff is entitled to $138,431.12 from Defendants. Plaintiff Collect Access LLC's request for default judgment is granted. The Court will sign and enter judgment using the proposed judgment Plaintiff submitted.

Case Number: 25STCV25004 Hearing Date: August 21, 2026 Dept: 510 No. 12 - Saeed Paul Ghafoori v. Ash Ahhour, et al.

Defendants Ash Ashour and Ashour Yehoshua, APC's Demurrer and Motion to Strike Portions of Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint

Demurrer

Defendants Ash Ashour and Ashour Yehoshua, APC demur to the second, third, fifth, and sixth causes of action in Plaintiff Saeed Paul Ghafoori's second amended complaint ("SAC").

A. Second Cause of Action: Breach of Fiduciary Duty

"To establish a cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty, a plaintiff must demonstrate the existence of a fiduciary relationship, breach of that duty and damages. [Citations.]" (Charnay v. Cobert (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 170, 182.) "An attorney owes the client a fiduciary duty 'of the highest character.' This fiduciary duty requires fee agreements and billings 'must be fair, reasonable and fully explained to the client.' [Citation.]" (Bird, Marella, Boxer & Wolpert v. Superior Court (2003) 106 Cal.App.4th 419, 430-31.)

Defendants argue Plaintiff's breach of fiduciary duty claim is duplicative of the legal malpractice claim and thus, the demurrer should be sustained without leave to amend as to this cause of action. Any attempt to clone a legal malpractice claim in order to multiply remedies is rejected. (Kracht v. Perrin, Gartland & Doyle (1990) 219 Cal.App.3d 1019, 1022-1023; see also Loube v. Loube (1998) 64 Cal.App.4th 421, 429-431.)

The Court agrees. Plaintiff's breach of fiduciary duty claim relies on the same set of facts, but frames each allegedly negligent act as a "failure to disclose" the negligent act. This framing does not create a breach of fiduciary claim distinct from professional negligence. The demurrer as to this cause of action is sustained without leave to amend.

B. Third Cause of Action: Refund of Attorney Fees

Plaintiff brings a cause of action for refund of attorney fees. This is not recognized as a standalone cause of action; rather, it speaks to the kind of damages Plaintiff could potentially obtain under other legal theories, including the legal malpractice cause of action. The demurrer as to this cause of action is sustained without leave to amend.

C. Sixth Cause of Action: Constructive Fraud/Concealment

Plaintiff alleges sufficient facts for fraudulent concealment. Fraud by concealment requires: (1) the defendant concealed or suppressed a material fact; (2) defendant had a duty to disclose the fact to plaintiff; (3) defendant intentionally concealed or suppressed the fact with intent to defraud plaintiff; (4) plaintiff must have been unaware of the fact and would have acted otherwise if he had known of the concealed fact; and (5) plaintiff suffered damage as a result of the concealment. (Boschma v. Home Loan Center, Inc. (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 230, 248.)

Here, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants failed to disclose several material facts regarding his underlying case, such as their failure to competently preserve the statute of limitations, and draft subpoenas. (SAC, P. 95.) Plaintiff alleges that Defendants had a duty to disclose these facts due to the attorney-client relationship. (Id., P. 94.) Plaintiff further alleges intentional concealment, reliance, and damages. (Id., P.P. 96-101.)

When liberally construing the allegations in Plaintiff's favor, as the Court must do on demurrer, Plaintiff states a claim for fraudulent concealment. The demurrer as to this cause of action is overruled.

D. Fifth Cause of Action: Unfair Business Practices - Business and Professions Code section 17200

Plaintiff alleges sufficient facts for this cause of action. Business and Professions Code section 17200 prohibits "unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent" acts, which are three separate varieties of violation. (Drum v. San Fernando Valley Bar Assn. (2010) 182 Cal.App.4th 247, 253.)

Here, the Court overruled the demurrer as to Plaintiff's fraud claim. Therefore, Plaintiff can sustain a cause of action for violation of Business and Professions Code section 17200 on the basis of Defendants' alleged fraudulent acts. The demurrer as to this cause of action is overruled.

Motion to Strike

Defendants Ash Ashour and Ashour Yehoshua, APC move to strike Plaintiff's request for certain damages. Specifically, Defendants move to strike the following allegations:

1. Prayer for restitution and injunctive relief under Business & Professions Code Sec. 17200

2. Prayer for punitive and exemplary damages

(Notice of Motion to Strike, at p. 2.)

The Court declines to strike Plaintiff's prayer for restitution and injunctive relief under Business & Professions Code section 17200. The demurrer as to this cause of action was overruled. These are available remedies under this cause of action. (See SAC, P. 91.) Plaintiff adequately pleads that he suffered loss of money requisite for standing. Whether Plaintiff will potentially be able to recover injunctive relief will be revealed in later stages of this case.

The Court declines to strike the prayer for punitive damages. Courts may strike allegations related to punitive damages where the facts alleged "do not rise to the level of malice, oppression or fraud necessary" to recover punitive damages under Civil Code section 3294. (Turman v. Turning Point of Central California, Inc. (2010) 191 Cal.App.4th 53, 64.)

Here, Plaintiff adequately alleges that Defendants acted fraudulently by intentionally concealing facts material to the underlying litigation. (SAC, P. 95.) These omissions caused damages of approximately $5,985,000. (Id., P. 100.) The Court cannot rule as a matter of law that this conduct was not malicious, fraudulent or oppressive.

Disposition

Defendants Ash Ashour and Ashour Yehoshua, APC's demurrer to Plaintiff Saeed Ghafoori's second amended complaint is overruled as to the fifth and sixth causes of action. It is sustained without leave to amend as to the second and third causes of action. Defendants Ash Ashour and Ashour Yehoshua, APC's motion to strike portions of Plaintiff Saeed Ghafoori's second amended complaint is denied.

Case Number: 25STCV37040 Hearing Date: August 21, 2026 Dept: 510 No. 4 - John B Beach v. Kevin H Kim