Armin Azod v. James G. Robinson

C.D. California

Armin Azod v. James G. Robinson

DecidedNovember 25, 2024

Docket2:22-cv-05214

StatusUnknown

This text of Armin Azod v. James G. Robinson (Armin Azod v. James G. Robinson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, C.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Armin Azod v. James G. Robinson, (C.D. Cal. 2024).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES — GENERAL

Present: The Honorable CHRISTINA A. SNYDER Catherine Jeang Deborah Parker N/A Deputy Clerk Court Reporter / Recorder Tape No. Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs: Attorneys Present for Defendants: Armin Azod David Arbogast Amanda Fleming Proceedings: ZOOM HEARING RE: PETITIONERS’ MOTION FOR FULL EXEMPTION FROM NOTICE OF ATTORNEY LIEN UNDER CAL. CODE CIV. PROC. § 708.450 (Dkt. 102, filed on September 5, 2024) The Court has reviewed David Arbogast’s (“Arbogast”) notice of lien, dkt. 100, and first amended notice of lien, dkt. 107. The Court has also reviewed petitioners Armin Azod, Ramez Elgammal, Shantanu Sharma, Dong Zhang, and Peter John’s (“the Azod parties”) motion for full exemption from Arbogast’s notice of lien, dkt. 102, Arbogast’s opposition brief, dkt. 109, and the Azod parties’ reply brief, dkt. 111. The Court finds that it lacks jurisdiction to determine the existence or validity of Arbogast’s purported attorney’s lien. See Carroll v. Interstate Brands Corp., 99 Cal. App. 4th 1168, 1172 (2002) (collecting cases and finding that “[a|ppellate courts have consistently held that the trial court in the underlying action has no jurisdiction to determine the existence or validity of an attorney’s lien on the judgment.”): Garcia v. Haskett, No. C 05-3754 CW, 2006 WL 1821232, at *3 (N_D. Cal. June 30, 2006) (noting that plaintiff's motion to extinguish a lien was previously denied because “under California law, in particular [Carroll], plaintiff could not move to extinguish the notice of lien... its validity would have to be determined in a “subsequent, independent action.”). In any event, there is a pending action in Los Angeles County Superior Court, Suretec Insurance Company v. David M. Arbogast, et al., Case No. 24TRCV03676, which seeks to compel Arbogast and the Azod parties to interplead and litigate these claims. See dkt. 113-1. Accordingly, the Court DENIES the Azod parties’ motion without prejudice. IT IS SO ORDERED. — 00 0 Initials of Preparer CMJ

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES — GENERAL

Present: The Honorable CHRISTINA A. SNYDER Catherine Jeang Deborah Parker N/A Deputy Clerk Court Reporter / Recorder Tape No. Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs: Attorneys Present for Defendants: Armin Azod David Arbogast Amanda Fleming Proceedings: ZOOM HEARING RE: PETITIONERS’ MOTION FOR FULL EXEMPTION FROM NOTICE OF ATTORNEY LIEN UNDER CAL. CODE CIV. PROC. § 708.450 (Dkt. 102, filed on September 5, 2024) The Court has reviewed David Arbogast’s (“Arbogast”) notice of lien, dkt. 100, and first amended notice of lien, dkt. 107. The Court has also reviewed petitioners Armin Azod, Ramez Elgammal, Shantanu Sharma, Dong Zhang, and Peter John’s (“the Azod parties”) motion for full exemption from Arbogast’s notice of lien, dkt. 102, Arbogast’s opposition brief, dkt. 109, and the Azod parties’ reply brief, dkt. 111. The Court finds that it lacks jurisdiction to determine the existence or validity of Arbogast’s purported attorney’s lien. See Carroll v. Interstate Brands Corp., 99 Cal. App. 4th 1168, 1172 (2002) (collecting cases and finding that “[a|ppellate courts have consistently held that the trial court in the underlying action has no jurisdiction to determine the existence or validity of an attorney’s lien on the judgment.”): Garcia v. Haskett, No. C 05-3754 CW, 2006 WL 1821232, at *3 (N_D. Cal. June 30, 2006) (noting that plaintiff's motion to extinguish a lien was previously denied because “under California law, in particular [Carroll], plaintiff could not move to extinguish the notice of lien... its validity would have to be determined in a “subsequent, independent action.”). In any event, there is a pending action in Los Angeles County Superior Court, Suretec Insurance Company v. David M. Arbogast, et al., Case No. 24TRCV03676, which seeks to compel Arbogast and the Azod parties to interplead and litigate these claims. See dkt. 113-1. Accordingly, the Court DENIES the Azod parties’ motion without prejudice. IT IS SO ORDERED. — 00 0 Initials of Preparer CMJ

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Armin Azod v. James G. Robinson, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/armin-azod-v-james-g-robinson-cacd-2024.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack