Akhoundzadeh v Khatibi

(Van Nuys Courthouse East: Dept. T) September 1, 2026 DEPARTMENT T LAW AND MOTION RULINGS If ALL parties submit on the tentative, then no appearance is necessary unless some other matter (i.e., Case Management Conference) is on calendar. It is not necessary to call the court to request oral argument. Oral argument is permitted on all tentative rulings.

Khatibi Ex parte application to continue hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment. GRANTED. Good cause is shown. The court will continue the hearing to ________ 2026 at 8:30 a.m.. Opposition and Reply per Code. Any further continuance will require a doctor's note explaining the medical need for a further continuance. The TSC will be continued to the same date and time. The motion to release fund was previously withdrawn and is no longer on calendar. Case Number: 25VECV02234 Hearing Date: September 1, 2026 Dept: T 25VECV02234 KREDELL V ZOREF [TENTATIVE] ORDER: Defendant Joy Zoref's Motion for Summary Judgment and the alternative Motion for Summary Adjudication as to Issue nos. 1, 2, 4, are DENIED.

The Motion for Summary Adjudication as to Issue no. 3 is CONTINUED to _______________, 2026 for further briefing. Defendant Joy Zoref's Evidentiary Objections are SUSTAINED as to nos. 1 and 6; OVERRULED as to nos. 2 and 4, and are NOT CONSIDERED as to nos. 3, 5, 7-10.

Introduction

Defendant Joy Zoref (Defendant) moved for summary judgment (MSJ) against Plaintiff Dale Kredell's (Plaintiff) Complaint. Alternatively, Defendant moved for summary adjudication (MSA) and placed into issue the first cause of action (COA) for negligence (Issue 1), the second COA for premise liability (Issue 2), the request for punitive damages (Issue 3), and the third COA for retaliatory eviction (Issue 4). [NOTE: Plaintiff's Opposition has a typo in a citation. Plaintiff cited to "Brantley v. Pisaro, 42 Cal. 4th 1591, 1601 (Cal.App. 1996)". (Oppo pg. 12:11.)

The correct citation should be "42 Cal.App. 4th 1591". It is apparent that the mistake is a typo because Plaintiff correctly cited "(Cal.App. 1996)" at the end of the citation. Defendant's Reply made a mistake in citing to the MSJ statute. Defendant identified the MSJ statute as " Civil Code section 437c(b)(3)", when it should have been the Code of Civil Procedure. (Reply pg. 2:6.)] Counsel is advised to be more careful on citations.

Procedure

Plaintiff's opposing separate statement included objections. However, Plaintiff's objections failed to comply with the requirement to submit written objections separately from other papers in support of the opposition to the MSJ/MSA. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1354(b).) Further, Plaintiff's objections in the separate statement failed to comply with the formatting requirements to assert an objection within the separate statement because the objection did not reference the objection by number. (Id.) The Court further noted that Plaintiff's objections included a reference to "California Rule of Court, Rule 31.1650(d)", which is a non-existent rule. (See Plaintiff's Statement of Disputed Facts (PSDF)