Pahmer v. Vasseghi CA2/8

Filed 2/7/14 Pahmer v. Vasseghi CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION EIGHT

MARCEL PAHMER, B242899

Plaintiff and Appellant, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC 427722) v.

DONNA VASSEGHI et al.,

Defendants and Appellants.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Luis A. Lavin, Judge. Affirmed in part; dismissed in part.

Manatt, Phelps & Phillips and Benjamin G. Shatz for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Law Offices of Timothy V. Milner and Timothy V. Milner for Defendants and Appellants.

******

This case involves a dispute about a note and a deed of trust. We do not consider the portion of the appeal challenging the order denying defendants’ motion for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) because defendants did not appeal from the post-judgment order denying a JNOV. We affirm the trial court’s order denying defendants’ motion for a new trial. We dismiss the cross-appeal because it was abandoned. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND On December 10, 2009, plaintiff Marcel Pahmer filed a complaint against defendants Mohammad R. Sahranavard (Mohammad),1 Donna Vasseghi, Chandara Sreng, Hamid Sahranavard, and H&M Trading, asserting eight causes of action.2 As to Mohammad, Pahmer asserted actions for breach of contract and fraud. As to all of the named defendants, Pahmer alleged each engaged in actual and constructive fraudulent transfer. The jury found in favor of Mohammad as to the allegations of breach of contract and fraud. As to the claims of fraudulent transfer, the jury found in favor of Pahmer and awarded him $598,683 in damages. In addition, the jury found Vasseghi conspired with Mohammad to fraudulently transfer property, including money, and ordered Vasseghi to pay $125,000 in punitive damages. The court entered judgment on May 10, 2012. On May 16, 2012, defendants filed a motion for JNOV, or in the alternative, a new trial. Defendants argued there could be “no conspiracy, fraudulent transfer or punitive damages owed in the absence of money being owed under the [promissory] [n]otes,” given the jury’s finding of no breach of contract. Vasseghi contended the motion should be granted as to the punitive damages assessed against her, as they were not reasonably