Judgment Notice of Entry Small Claims

Cal. Super. - 6th Dist.March 2, 2020

Name and Address of Court \‘ ' / SUPERIOR COURT 0F CALIFORNI COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA 191 North First Street San José, California 951 13 x ‘ SC-1 30 SMALL CLAIMS CASE NO..: 2050082824 NOTICE T0 ALL PLAINTIFFS AND DEFENDANTS: Your small claims case has been decided. If you lost the case, and the court ordered you to pay money, your wages, money, and property may be taken without further warning from the court. Read the back of this sheet for important information about your rights. AVISO A TODOS LOS DEMANDANTES YDEMANDADOS: Su caso ha sido resuelto por Ia corte para reclamos judiciales menores. Si la corte ha decidido en su contra y ha ordenado que usted pague dinero, le pueden quitar su salario, su dinero, y otras cosas de su propiedad, sin aviso adicional por parte de esta corte. Lea el reverso de este formulario para obtener informacién de importancia acerca de sus derechos. PLAINTIFF/DEMANDANTE (Name, steer address, and telephone number of each): Radeen Shemirani 3341 Montevideo Drive SAN RAMON, CA 94583 DEFENDANT/DEMANDADO‘ (Name, street address, and telephone number of each): S & P Auto, Inc. Dba: Speedee Oil Change & Tune-Up SO: Pravin J. Patel [Agent I Service I Process 5564 Monterey Road SAN JOSE, CA 95138 z ORDER 0N SUBMITTED MATTER> [ Date of Hearing: 09/15/2020 8303m D15] Siamak Shemirani 3341 Montevideo Drive SAN RAMON, CA 94583 D See attached sheet for additional plaintiffs and defendants Hearing Officer: Hon. Commissioner Christine Copeland [ NOTICE OF ENTRY OF JUDGMENT] Judgment was entered as checked below on: 09/1 5/2020 < 1.) efendant (name, if more than one): S & P Auto, Inc. [Dba: Speedee Oil Change 8. Tune-Up ]** shall pay plaintiff (name, ifmore than one): Radeen Shemirani $1,710.11 Principal + Costs: $0.00 = [ $1,710.11 l Total Judgment On The Plaintiff’s Claim ]. Defendant does not owe plaintiff any money on plaintiff‘s claim. Plaintiff (name, if more than one): shall pay defendant (name, if more than one): principal and2$ costs on defendant's claim. Plaintiff does not owe defendant any money on defendant's claim Possession of the following property is awarded to plaintiff (describe property): Payments are to be made at the rate of: $ per (specify period): beginning on (date. and on the (specifi/ day): day of each month thereafter until paid in full. If any payment is missed. the entire balance may become due immediately.aM Dismissed In Court KWith Prejudice fl As To: Siamek Shermirani ONLY = IMPROPER PARTYD Attorney-Client Fee Dispute (Attachment to Notice of Entry of Judgment) (form SC-1 32) is attached.@ Other (specify): See Attached I Decision / Judgment / On I Matter Taken Under Submission. 10. This judgment results from a motor vehicle accident on a California highway and was caused by the judgment debtor's operation of a motor vehicle. lf the judgment is not paid. the judgment creditor ma e 'udgment debtor's driver's license suspended. 11. Enforcement of the judgment is automatically postponed for 30 da or, if an appeal is filed, until the appeal is decided. D This notice was personally delivered to (insert name and dat )2 ****[ Written Notice’To All Parties Via Mail ]****§ CLERK'S CERTIFICATE OF MAILING-I certify that l am not a p to this action. This Notice of Entry of dgme wasmailed first class, postage prepaid, in a sealed envelope to the parties a ' a ove. The mailing a this certification occurred at the place and on the date shown below. 5"!” 9m» EDD DD . Deputy Kathy Dalvidson "fifi‘afml’g'j u .(‘Wfi’ 7333. .Lxfim Code of Civil Procedures 5116.610 www/courtinfo.ca.gov Form Adopted for Alternative Mandatory Use Judicial Council of California SC-1 30 [Rev July 1. 2010] NOTICE 0F ENTRY OF JUDGMENT (Small Claims) SMALL CLAIMS JUDGMENT Case Name: Shemirani v. S &P Auto Inc. Case Number: 208C082824 Date of hearing: 9/ 1 5/20 Plaintiff Siamak Shemirani was incorrectly named as a party, and is dismissed with prejudice. Defendant Pravin Patel was incorrectly named as a party, and is dismissed with prejudice. Venue is proper; and the claim is filed timely. Defendant was served properly and timely. Plaintiff bought the 2006 Honda at issue from his former housemate, Taylor Beck, on 7/2/18. A_fteg Plaintiff bought the car from Beck, Beck] then filed an online complaint with the Bureau of Automotive Repair (B.A.R). Beck’s complaint was made on or around 8/1/18. In that complaint, Beck (ifBeck actually made this complaint) disingenuously told B.A.R.: “I would like to refer my friend [Plaintiff] . . . .for any further contact or questions, as he has been assisting me with this process and knows more about the situation that I do myself.” There was a problem with Beck’s transmission, and the evidence suggests that it is traceable to .a 201 6 servicing wherein Defendant used the wrong type oftransmission fluid for Beck’s hybrid vehicle. One wonders why Plaintiff purchased the vehicle from Beck if it had the problems in 201 8 that Beck reported, unless Beck failed to disclose those issues or unless Plaintiff knowingly bought the car “as is”. As a result of the B.A.R. findings, Defendant agreed to treat Plaintiff as covered by Beck’s warranty and Defendant installed a gently used transmission (less than 10,000 miles) in March, 2019. Defendant charged Plaintiff $0.00 for parts and labor, but charged $1 10.11 in taxes. Plaintiff believes he should not have been charged taxes. He also points to Defendant’s repair bill from 20 1 9 and contends that Defendant, once again, used the wrong transmission fluid. Defendant counters that the correct fluid was used, and it’s just a typo on the bill that was later corrected. Before the warranty expired, Plaintiff‘s father then let Defendant know that the car was experiencing similar problems. Defendant could not replicate those problems and so concluded, to Plaintiff’s dissatisfaction, the problems did not exist and no new transmission was needed. Plaintiff has paid $ 1 70.00 to have Dublin Honda diagnose that he needs a new transmission “as V first step of repair”, and that that step will cost about $6100.00. Plaintiff has not done the repairs, so it remains to be seen what the costs will be, and if another transmission will fix the problems Plaintiff believes were caused in 201 6 and not cured by Defendant’s 2019 repairs. Plaintiff is owed Defendant is owed Demand $1710.11 $ COStS $Plaintiffwill absorb on his own $ Total $1710.11 Xx Dated: 9/15/20