Karamooz v. Superior Court CA4/3

Filed 8/6/21 Karamooz v. Superior Court CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

NIMA KARAMOOZ,

Petitioner,

v. G060286

THE SUPERIOR COURT OF ORANGE (Super. Ct. No. 30-2010-00380990) COUNTY, OPINION Respondent;

SAEED KARAMOOZ,

Real Party in Interest.

Original proceeding; petition for writ of mandate to challenge a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Jacki C. Brown, Judge. Petition granted; peremptory writ issued. Lefton Law and Jennifer Lefton; Conti Law and Alexander L. Conti for Petitioner.

One, Peter R. Afrasiabi; Law Office of Kathryn M. Davis and Kathryn M. Davis for Real Party in Interest.

* * *

THE COURT:*

A year ago, this court reversed a judgment in part and remanded for further proceedings. The task remaining for respondent court was to “enter a new judgment reflecting a surcharge in the amount of the liability for penalties and interest based on delay in filing tax returns and paying taxes, in an amount to be determined by the trial court.” (See Karamooz v. Karamooz (April 27, 2020, G056897) [nonpub. opn.].) Respondent court entered a corrected judgment with no surcharge, after concluding: (1) the existing evidentiary record did not establish the amount of liability for penalties and interest; and (2) it could not hold an evidentiary hearing to determine the liability. In support of the latter holding, respondent court cited other language in our prior opinion, to wit, “[t]his is not a remand for a new trial.” Petitioner Nima Karamooz filed a petition for writ of mandate, prohibition, or other appropriate relief. Among other remedies, petitioner asks this court to issue a peremptory writ in the first instance (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 1088, 1105) directing respondent court to vacate the corrected judgment and hold an evidentiary hearing to determine the amount of liability for tax penalties and interest. We invited opposition and indicated a peremptory writ of mandate in the first instance was requested by petitioner. (See Palma v. U.S. Industrial Fasteners, Inc.