Regent Alliance v. Rabizadeh CA2/1

Filed 5/14/14 Regent Alliance v. Rabizadeh CA2/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 ONE

REGENT ALLIANCE LTD., B244652

Plaintiff and Appellant, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC429863) v.

ROUHOLLAH RABIZADEH et al.,

Defendants and Respondents.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles, Daniel J. Buckley, Judge. Affirmed. Daar & Newman, Jeffery J. Daar and Michael R. Newman for Plaintiff and Appellant. Law Office of Mohammad A. Fakhreddine and Mohammad A. Fakhreddine for Defendants and Respondents. _________________________

Regent Alliance Ltd. (Regent) sued three purchasers of children’s clothing for conversion, alleging that the purchasers bought, from other defendants, clothing belonging to Regent that those other defendants had converted. The trial court granted the purchasers’ motions for summary judgment, and Regent appeals. We affirm. Regent, a Hong Kong corporation that manufactures children’s clothing, filed a first amended complaint in 2010 against multiple defendants, including Rouhollah Rabizadeh, Bahram Dahi, and his wife Farahnaz Dahi1 (the purchasers), all three doing business as B&R Clothing and Kids Street. The complaint alleged in its 13th, 14th, and 15th causes of action that Rabizadeh, Bahram, and Farahnaz purchased and resold converted property, children’s clothing (the clothing) from other defendants (the warehouse defendants) including YHK Transportation, Inc., against which the complaint also alleged conversion. YHK had agreed with Regent to store the clothing in YHK’s warehouse facility in Carson, California, but after the clothing was delivered to the warehouse and YHK took possession, YHK transferred the clothing without Regent’s knowledge to another defendant’s warehouse in Commerce. The warehouse defendants, who “had previously converted the Children’s Clothing,” then sold it to the purchasers, who subsequently sold the clothing to others. In May 2012, Rabizadeh, Bahram, and Farahnaz filed separate motions for summary judgment. The three motions are virtually identical, except that Farahnaz’s motion stated that she had no involvement in her husband’s business or in the purchase of the clothing. Regent filed oppositions. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Rabizadeh, Bahram, and Farahnaz after a hearing on July 25, 2012, adopting its tentative ruling. The court concluded that the evidence and declarations from the purchasers “meets the initial burden to show that they purchased the clothing under circumstances that did not indicate to a prudent person that the clothing had been stolen,” negating an essential element of