Jaleh Elghanian v. Abner Partiyeli, et al.

Notice: OK

Now before the Court is counsel Rinat Klier Erlich's motion to be relieved as counsel for Defendants Marcus Murchinson, Tree of Life Missionary Baptist Church, and Watts Up Community Development Corporation, originally set for hearing on November 5, 2026, and advanced to September 9, 2026, by court order on August 19, 2026.

The Court's review shows that counsel's moving papers do not satisfy the requirements of California Rules of Court, rule 3.1362. Besides typographical errors in various of the papers (e.g., in Date Action Filed), and without commenting on substantive deficiencies within the papers themselves, the moving papers do not show that Defendants themselves were served with the motions, with counsel's August 12, 2026, proof of service showing only service by email on counsel for Plaintiff.

Separately, trial in this action is set for October 23, 2026, almost completely foreclosing Defendants' ability to find substitute counsel to defend this action at trial, which is itself a ground for denial. (See Ramirez v. Sturdevant (1994) 21 Cal.App.4th 904, 915 [court should consider whether the attorney's "withdrawal can be accomplished without undue prejudice to the client's interests"].)

Moreover, withdrawal of counsel would likely result in delay of proceedings by trial continuance, where the entity Defendants cannot appear in pro per and may suffer a default for lack of representation, another ground for denial. (See Mandell v. Superior Court (1977) 67 Cal.App.3d 1, 4 [motion should be denied if it will cause undue delay in the proceeding or cause injustice].)

The Court accordingly DENIES counsel's motion. Defendants are to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at smcdept731@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org. 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. 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 the parties do not submit on the tentative, they should arrange to appear remotely.

MOTION OF DEFENDANTS TO SEAL EXHIBITS 2 TO 6 OF PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO QUASH AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS AGAINST PLAINTIFF AND HER COUNSEL, FAHIM FARIVAR, ESQ. FOR $3,325.00 Moving Party: Defendants, Abner Partiyeli, Farshid Partiyeli, Robertson Regency Center, LLC, 914 Holding Group LLC, Clara Industrial Holding, LLC, Euro-Cuisine Inc., and Westlake Spring, LLC Opposing Party: Plaintiff, Jaleh Elghanian [Notice of Non-Opposition] Notice: OK Background Facts

Now before the Court is Defendants' motion to seal Exhibits 2 to 6 attached to the Declaration of Fahim Farivar, Esq., dated June 3, 2026, and filed in support of a June 3, 2026, opposition by Plaintiff to a motion by Defendants to quash various subpoenas served by Plaintiff for business records. Exhibit 2 was attached to the electronic copy of the June 3rd declaration, while Exhibits 3 to 6 were lodged with the Court on June 3, 2026. Defendants' motion is unopposed by Plaintiff, who has filed a notice of non-opposition to Defendant's motion. Defendants' motion to seal is now before the Court.

Motion to Seal Legal Standard

"The public has a First Amendment right of access to civil litigation documents filed in court and used at trial or submitted as a basis for adjudication." (Savaglio v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 588, 596 (Savaglio), citing NBC Subsidiary (KNBC-TV), Inc. v. Superior Court (1999) 20 Cal.4th 1178, 1208-1209, fn. 25.)

Therefore, before a trial court orders a record sealed, it must hold a hearing and make express findings set forth in California Rules of Court, rule 2.550, subdivision (d): (1) there exists an overriding interest that overcomes the right of public access to the record; (2) the overriding interest supports sealing the record; (3) a substantial probability exists that the overriding interest will be prejudiced if the record is not sealed; (4) the proposed sealing is narrowly tailored; and (5) no less restrictive means exist to achieve the overriding interest. (Savaglio, supra, at p. 596; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.550, subd. (d).)

A court's order allowing documents to be filed under seal must contain express factual findings establishing these five factors. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.550(d).)

Discussion

The Court finds in favor of sealing the record, with a caveat to relief below. Here, a review of Exhibits 2-6 shows an overriding interest in the subject documents, chiefly consisting of financial information and financial data. A person has a right to prevent disclosure of information about personal finances, including information about bank accounts, assets, and debts. (See In re Ins. Installment Fee Cases (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 1395, 1428 [information privacy in personal financial affairs]; Ameri-Med Corp. v. Worker's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1996) 42 Cal.App.4th 1260, 1286-1287 (Ameri-Med) [limited informational privacy in corporation's financial information unrelated to the claims asserted].)

This overriding interest supports sealing of the record at issue, which is presently open to the public as to Exhibit 2, and where a failure to seal could lead to publishing of Exhibits 3 to 6. The keeping of this information in the public domain will also cause prejudice if the record is not sealed insofar as there will remain a public disclosure of the very information subject to the overriding interest.

Last, but with a caveat below, the request is narrowly tailored to financial information and data, where no less restrictive means exist to protect the overriding interest. Moreover, Plaintiff supports sealing the record via the August 27, 2026, notice of non-opposition. Sufficient grounds thus exist for relief. c.

Conclusion

Defendants' motion to seal is GRANTED. The Clerk SHALL strike the June 3rd declaration from the record, and Plaintiff SHALL refile the June 3, 2026, declaration, with no changes except for as to Exhibit 2, to be redacted only as to bank account information, and with Exhibits 4 to 6 remaining as is, i.e., rather than showing any exhibit, simply containing a 'conditionally filed' slip page. Defendants are ordered to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at smcdept731@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org. 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. 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 the parties do not submit on the tentative, they should arrange to appear remotely.

Case Number: 24STCV00460 Hearing Date: September 10, 2026 Dept: 731 [TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF SEVA VENTURES, LLC'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT Moving Party: Plaintiff, Seva Ventures, LLC Opposing Party: Defendant, The Handsel Group, LLC Notice: OK Background Facts

Plaintiff Seva Ventures, LLC ("Seva Ventures") sues Defendants The Handsel Group, LLC (The Handsel Group), Doe 1 Henry Kim, Doe 2 George Vergara, and Does 3 through 50 pursuant to a January 12, 2024, First Amended Complaint ("FAC") alleging various claims arising from Defendants' alleged refusal to comply with the terms of a contractual agreement through which Plaintiff acquired a 70% ownership interest in The Handsel Group in lieu of unpaid monies owed by Defendants to Plaintiff.

Now before the Court is Plaintiff's motion for leave of Court to file a Second Amended Complaint ("SAC") that (1) adds Henry Kim and George Vergara, Member owners of The Handsel Group, as Defendants, with a breach of contract claim stated against them, and (2) adds new allegations of further breaches and misrepresentations related to the same