Riazadi vs. Joshi

against the defendant.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 583.420(a)(1).) The court thus deems it appropriate to set an order to show cause regarding service on Vasken.

An Order to Show Cause re: why the complaint as to Vasken Tatarian, in his individual capacity and as trustee, should not be dismissed for failure to properly serve him within two years after the action was commenced, is scheduled for 10/5/26 at 8:45am in Dept. C24. The 8/24/26 CMC is continued to 10/5/26 at 8:45am.

The clerk of the court shall give notice of this ruling.

305 Riazadi vs. Before the court is a demurrer filed by defendants Joshi Vinit Joshi (Joshi individually) and Global Implant Dentistry (Global individually; Defendants together) to plaintiff Nuri Riazadi’s (Riazadi or Plaintiff) First Amended Complaint (FAC). The demurrer is SUSTAINED.

As to causes of action numbers 1 – 7, those causes of action appear barred by the doctrine of res judicata based upon the entry of judgment by default in the matter of Orange County Superior Court Case No. 30-2024-01380242-CU-FR-CJC (Global Case). (Demurrer, Request to Take Judicial Notice, Exs. A and D.) The claims in the Global Case and the present matter are identical, final judgment has been entered in the Global Case, and Plaintiff and Defendants were all parties to both actions. (Boeken v. Philip Morris USA, Inc. (2010) 48 Cal. 4th 788, 797.)

The original complaint also sought payments which were billed by non-party 3Dex for services it allegedly rendered, however 3Dex is not a party to this action. Although Plaintiff now alleges 3Dex was not registered in any state at the time the oral

contract were entered (FAC ¶ 8), there are allegations throughout the FAC indicating Plaintiff alleged he conducted work through 3Dex (FAC ¶ 11), Plaintiff assigned alternatively either his own employees or 3Dex employees to complete the work agreed upon (FAC ¶¶ 12-13), invoices to Defendant were billed by 3Dex. (FAC ¶¶ 14, 16), and 3Dex was defamed by Defendants (FAC ¶¶ 68-69.) Plaintiff has not pled sufficient facts to support the legal capacity to sue for any alleged breach of contract between Defendants and 3Dex or related damages. (Bus. & Prof. Code § 17918.) As 3Dex appears to be a real party in interest which is not a party to this action, the demurrer to causes of action numbers 1 – 8 is sustained pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 430.10, subdivisions (b) and (d).

Plaintiff has also pled no new facts under almost any of the causes of action and this has failed to plead sufficient facts to support causes of action numbers 1 – 7. (Code of Civil Procedure section 430.10, subdivision (e).) Plaintiff did not properly plead a contract between Plaintiff and Defendants, damages, or duties owed by Defendants to Plaintiff. As to cause of action number 6, Plaintiff failed to plead sufficient fact to show Defendants ever acquired or misappropriated any “trade secrets” or what said “trade secrets” were.

The demurrer is sustained with a final leave to amend as to each of the causes of action. Plaintiff is given leave to file an amended complaint by 9/11/26.

Defendants’ request to take judicial notice is granted pursuant to Evidence Code section 452, subdivision (d).

The 8/24/26 CMC is continued to 12/7/26 at 8:45am in Dept. C24.

Defense counsel shall give notice.

306 Pollock vs. The motion by Laguna Niguel Investors No. 1, LLC Laguna Niguel (Laguna) to vacate the order granting Newmark Investors No 1, Merrill Companies, Inc. (Newmark) leave to file a LLC cross-complaint is DENIED.

Here, the order Laguna seeks to vacate is the 3/13/26 Order entered pursuant to stipulation of the parties. (ROA 86.) At the time the stipulation and proposed order was submitted to the court, Laguna was not a party to the action and the only parties were the plaintiff, Patti Pollock, and Newmark. The stipulation was signed by all parties to the action. Although Laguna was not a party to the action, Newmark served a copy of the stipulation and proposed order on Laguna on 3/11/26. Laguna did not file any objection to the stipulation.

Laguna argues the order should be vacated pursuant to CCP §473(d) which allows the court to set aside a “void order.” This argument lacks merit. Further, Laguna mistakenly argues the stipulation was incomplete because it failed to disclose there had been a joint dismissal of cross-complaints earlier in the action. (Howell Decl. ¶11.) It was the Court that entered the dismissal.

Laguna’s argument that Newmark is equitably estopped from pursuing the cross-complaint because of separate agreements between the two companies does not warrant vacating the order.

Newmark shall give notice.

307 Delgadillo vs. Plaintiff Olivia Delgadillo’s motion for attorney fees General Motors, and costs is GRANTED in the reduced amount of LLC $9,880 in fees and $1,679.88 in costs, for a total amount of $11,659.88. (Civ. Code § 1794, subd. (d).)