Bidari v. Kelk CA2/5

Filed 6/24/16 Bidari v. Kelk CA2/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIVE

TAIMOOR BIDARI, B264953

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. SC115503) v.

AHANG ZARIN KELK et al.,

Defendants;

HAMID MIRSHOJAE,

Intervener and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Lawrence Cho, Judge. Affirmed. Miller Barondess, James Goldman and Christopher D. Beatty for Intervener and Appellant. Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis, Scott J. Leipzig and Kenyon D. Harbison for Plaintiff and Respondent.

I. INTRODUCTION

Hamid Mirshojae appeals from the May 13, 2015 post judgment orders in Bidari v. Kelk, case no. SC 115503 (“the lawsuit”) in favor of plaintiff, Taimoor Bidari. At issue are claims involving defendant, Ahang Mirshojae, Dr. Mirshojae’s former spouse, who is also sued under the name Ahang Zarin Kelk. The postjudgment orders: denied Dr. Mirshojae’s motion to intervene in the lawsuit; denied Dr. Mirshojae’s motion to expunge the recorded pending action notices concerning the property located at 22548 Pacific Coast Highway, unit 304, Malibu, California 90265 (the “property”); and granted plaintiff’s application for sale of the property to secure payment of his judgment against Ms. Kelk. On appeal, Dr. Mirshojae does not challenge the rulings denying his motions to intervene and expunge the pending action notices. His sole contentions on appeal are the trial court lacked power to order the sale of the property in the absence of an attachment and plaintiff’s recovery should be limited to $637,826. Because Dr. Mirshojae was never made a party in the trial court, he cannot raise any issues concerning the sale or any limits on plaintiff’s recovery. We affirm the orders.