Saghian v. Select Portfolio Services

(Van Nuys Courthouse East: Dept. B) August 26, 2026 DEPARTMENT B LAW AND MOTION RULINGS Attorneys who elect to submit on these published tentative rulings, without making an appearance at the hearing, may so notify the Court by communicating this to the Department's staff before the set hearing time. See, e.g., CRC Rule 324(b).

Counsel Fassett, of Price Postel and Parma LLC, moves to be relieved as counsel for plaintiff. Counsel appears to have lost contact with plaintiff. This motion was initially heard and denied 7/28/26 by Judge Amerian for failing to specify by what means notice was given to plaintiff. Counsel subsequently refiled and specified that notice was sent to plaintiff's last known address and emailed to plaintiff's last known email. Counsel attempted to contact plaintiff through plaintiff's other counsel (who is not seeking to be relieved).

Plaintiff did not file opposition. Trial is set for 9/14/26. As plaintiff has other counsel, a continuance should not be required. GRANT. Case Number: 23VECV05417 Hearing Date: August 26, 2026 Dept: B Tentative Ruling Motion to be relieved set for hearing Wednesday, 8/26/26. Plaintiff's counsel, Rogstad of The Green Law Group, LLC, moves to be relieved, stating plaintiff has been out of contact with counsel for over a year now. No trial date is set, as the matter was stayed due to bankruptcy. Notice was given to plaintiff via mail and email.

No opposition was filed. GRANT. Case Number: 26VECV04284 Hearing Date: August 26, 2026 Dept: B Tentative Ruling Saghian v. Select Portfolio Services, Case no. 26VECV04284 Hearing date August 26, 2026 Plaintiff Saghian's Motion for Preliminary Injunction Plaintiff Saghian, in pro per, sues defendants Select Portfolio Services, Inc., U.S. Bank, N.A., and Robertson, Anschutz, Schneid & Crane LLP for declaratory and injunctive relief arising from foreclosure proceedings. Plaintiff applied ex parte for a temporary restraining order preventing a trustee's sale and OSC re: preliminary injunction.

The court denied the application for lack of exigent circumstances and set the matter for hearing. 7/31/26 Min. Order. Defendants oppose. The planned trustee's sale which necessitated the initial ex parte application was cancelled. See Reply, 2:22-23 Defendants request judicial notice of: (1) Deed of Trust recorded March 27, 2007, LA County Recorder's Office, doc. No. 2007-703335; (2) Motion for Approval of Settlement filed December 27, 2017, In re David Saghian, US Bankruptcy Court, Central District of California, Case No. 1:16BK-13077-MT; (3) Order Granting Motion for Approval of Settlement entered January 19, 2018, In re David Saghian, US Bankruptcy Court, Central District of California, Case No. 1:16-BK-13077-MT; (4) Quitclaim Deed recorded September 9, 2019 LA County Recorder's Office doc.

No. 2019-919044; (5) Grant Deed recorded November 27, 2019 LA County Recorder's Office doc. No. 2019-1309177; (6) Notice of Default

recorded September 22, 2025 LA County Recorder's Office doc. No. 2025-650500; and (7) Notice of Trustee's Sale recorded January 9, 2026 LA County Recorder's Office doc. No. 2026-23954. GRANTED pursuant to Evid. Code Sec.452(c)-(d), (h). A party seeking injunctive relief must show entitlement to the remedy. Triple A Machine Shop, Inc. v. State (1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 131, 138. The availability of injunctive relief depends on two factors; moving party has the burden of proof. O'Connell v. Sup. Ct. (Valenzuela) (2006) 141 Cal.App.4th 1452, 1481.

If Plaintiff fails to present an adequate factual showing, supported by admissible evidence, injunctive relief must be denied. Code Civ. Proc., Sec.527(a); Caringe v. J.C.C. Enterprises (1988) 205 Cal.App.3d 1536, 1542. Where there is no chance of prevailing on the merits, an injunction should not issue, even if it would prevent irreparable harm. See Teachers Ins. & Annuity Ass'n. v. Furlotti (1999) 70 Cal.App.4th 1487, 1498. Plaintiff alleges defendants foreclosed on his primary residence. See Decl.

Saghian, para.

2. Plaintiff alleges he has valid defenses arising from a settlement reached in a prior Chapter 7 bankruptcy matter. Id. paras. 7-13. Plaintiff argues irreparable harm will result absent a TRO and OSC re: preliminary injunction, as defendants previously set the matter for trustee's sale and may do so again. See RJN 7. Defendants argue the bankruptcy settlement was between plaintiff and the bankruptcy estate; the settlement discharged the bankruptcy estate's interest in plaintiff's property and does not impact defendants' deed of trust.

See RJN 5. Defendants assert plaintiff remains in default on the loan secured by his property. See RJN 1, 6. Defendants were not parties to the bankruptcy settlement; the bankruptcy settlement has no bearing on plaintiff's obligations under the loan with defendants, nor does the settlement preclude defendants from moving to sell plaintiff's property if plaintiff defaulted on the loan. Plaintiff's argument that he relied on the bankruptcy settlement in good faith is unavailing. Plaintiff failed to establish facts justifying issuance of a preliminary injunction.

DENIED. | Home -->)" -->