Protopappas

Protopappas v. Hindin CA2/5

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMay 20, 2025B338311California3,165 words

Opinion

Opinion

I. INTRODUCTION

In 2013, Kosmas Pappas obtained a $31,131.37 stipulated judgment (the judgment) against M. Sadegh Namazikhah (Namazikhah); M.S.Namazikhah D.M.D., a dental corporation (N.Corp. 1); and Namazikhah DMD, Inc. (N.Corp. 2).1 In 2021, plaintiff filed a first amended complaint against N.Corp. 1, N.Corp. 2, Essential Endodontics, Inc. (EE Corp.), and Robert M. Hindin (defendant) asserting various causes of action based on their alleged improper efforts to thwart enforcement of the judgment. The trial court granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment or, alternatively, summary adjudication (summary judgment motion)2 as to the single cause of action against defendant—damages for fraudulent transfer.3 Plaintiff appeals and we affirm.

Pappas died during the pendency of this action. His brother, Tony Protopappas, as personal representative of and successor in interest to Pappas’s estate was substituted in the action as plaintiff. References to “plaintiff” include Pappas and Protopappas.

N.Corp. 1 and EE Corp. separately moved for summary judgment or, alternatively, summary adjudication. The court denied their motion. This appeal concerns only the court’s…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.