Search

Attributes

This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 04/03/2021 at 00:21:21 (UTC).

YERVAND TITIZYAN VS LOS ANGELES COUNTY METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY

Case Summary

On 10/02/2019 YERVAND TITIZYAN filed a Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle lawsuit against LOS ANGELES COUNTY METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Spring Street Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is JAMES E. BLANCARTE. The case status is Other.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *******9052

  • Filing Date:

    10/02/2019

  • Case Status:

    Other

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Spring Street Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Judge

JAMES E. BLANCARTE

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

TITIZYAN YERVAND

Defendant

LOS ANGELES COUNTY METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

ZAKARYAN KARAPET

Defendant Attorney

THOMAS ALLEN

 

Court Documents

Motion to Compel (name extension) - Motion to Compel Notice and Motion to Compel Demand to Produce

6/23/2020: Motion to Compel (name extension) - Motion to Compel Notice and Motion to Compel Demand to Produce

Minute Order - Minute Order (Court Order Re: Motions to Compel)

7/9/2020: Minute Order - Minute Order (Court Order Re: Motions to Compel)

Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for (Court Order Re: Motions to Compel) of 07/09/2020

7/9/2020: Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for (Court Order Re: Motions to Compel) of 07/09/2020

Reply (name extension) - Reply to Plaintiff's Opposition to Form Interrogatories

9/14/2020: Reply (name extension) - Reply to Plaintiff's Opposition to Form Interrogatories

Reply (name extension) - Reply to Plaintiff's Opposition to Deft's MTC Responses to a Demand For Production of Documents

9/14/2020: Reply (name extension) - Reply to Plaintiff's Opposition to Deft's MTC Responses to a Demand For Production of Documents

Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion to Compel Production; Hearing on Motion to ...)

9/24/2020: Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion to Compel Production; Hearing on Motion to ...)

Notice of Ruling - Notice of Ruling

10/2/2020: Notice of Ruling - Notice of Ruling

Supplemental Declaration (name extension) - Supplemental Declaration to Motion To Compel

10/29/2020: Supplemental Declaration (name extension) - Supplemental Declaration to Motion To Compel

Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for (Court Order) of 11/06/2020

11/6/2020: Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for (Court Order) of 11/06/2020

Request for Dismissal - Request for Dismissal

2/23/2021: Request for Dismissal - Request for Dismissal

Proof of Service (Sister State Judgment) - Proof of Service (Sister State Judgment)

1/31/2020: Proof of Service (Sister State Judgment) - Proof of Service (Sister State Judgment)

Summons - Summons on Complaint

11/21/2019: Summons - Summons on Complaint

Order on Court Fee Waiver (Superior Court) - Order on Court Fee Waiver (Superior Court)

10/2/2019: Order on Court Fee Waiver (Superior Court) - Order on Court Fee Waiver (Superior Court)

Complaint - Complaint

10/2/2019: Complaint - Complaint

Civil Case Cover Sheet - Civil Case Cover Sheet

10/2/2019: Civil Case Cover Sheet - Civil Case Cover Sheet

Summons - Summons on Complaint

10/2/2019: Summons - Summons on Complaint

First Amended Standing Order - First Amended Standing Order

10/2/2019: First Amended Standing Order - First Amended Standing Order

Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case - Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case

10/2/2019: Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case - Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case

14 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 02/24/2021
  • DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 04/01/2021 at 08:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25 Not Held - Vacated by Court on 02/24/2021

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/24/2021
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service scheduled for 10/05/2022 at 08:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25 Not Held - Vacated by Court on 02/24/2021

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/23/2021
  • DocketOn the Complaint filed by Yervand Titizyan on 10/02/2019, entered Request for Dismissal with prejudice filed by Yervand Titizyan as to the entire action

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/03/2020
  • DocketNotice of Ruling; Filed by: Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/03/2020
  • DocketMinute Order (Hearing on Motion to Compel Interrogatories; Hearing on Motio...)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/03/2020
  • DocketHearing on Motion to Compel Interrogatories scheduled for 12/03/2020 at 10:00 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25 updated: Result Date to 12/03/2020; Result Type to Held - Motion Granted

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/03/2020
  • DocketHearing on Motion to Compel Production scheduled for 12/03/2020 at 10:00 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25 updated: Result Date to 12/03/2020; Result Type to Held - Motion Granted

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/06/2020
  • DocketHearing on Motion to Compel Interrogatories scheduled for 12/03/2020 at 10:00 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/06/2020
  • DocketHearing on Motion to Compel Production scheduled for 12/03/2020 at 10:00 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/06/2020
  • DocketMinute Order (Court Order)

    Read MoreRead Less
26 More Docket Entries
  • 10/02/2019
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by: Yervand Titizyan (Plaintiff); As to: Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/02/2019
  • DocketCase assigned to Hon. James E. Blancarte in Department 94 Stanley Mosk Courthouse

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/02/2019
  • DocketSummons on Complaint; Issued and Filed by: Yervand Titizyan (Plaintiff); As to: Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/02/2019
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by: Yervand Titizyan (Plaintiff); As to: Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/02/2019
  • DocketRequest to Waive Court Fees; Filed by: Yervand Titizyan (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/02/2019
  • DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/02/2019
  • DocketFirst Amended Standing Order; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/02/2019
  • DocketOrder on Court Fee Waiver (Superior Court); Signed and Filed by: Clerk; As to: Yervand Titizyan (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/02/2019
  • DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 04/01/2021 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/02/2019
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service scheduled for 10/05/2022 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: 19STLC09052    Hearing Date: December 03, 2020    Dept: 25

HEARING DATE: Thu., December 3, 2020 JUDGE /DEPT: Blancarte/25

CASE NAME: Titizyan v. Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority

CASE NUMBER: 19STLC09052 COMPL. FILED: 10-02-19

NOTICE: OK DISC. C/O: 03-02-21 DISC. MOT. C/O: 03-17-21

TRIAL DATE: 04-01-21

PROCEEDINGS: (1) MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF TO RESPOND TO DEMAND FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE, AND REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS

(2) MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF TO RESPOND TO FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE, AND REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS

MOVING PARTY: Defendant Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority

RESP. PARTY: Plaintiff Yervand Titizyan

MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

(CCP §§ 2030.290; 2031.300)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendant’s requests for sanctions against Plaintiff are GRANTED in the amount of $1,828.00 to be paid within thirty (30) days of notice of this order.

SERVICE:

[X] Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC, rule 3.1300) OK

[X] Correct Address (CCP §§ 1013, 1013a) OK

[X] 16/21 Court Days Lapsed (CCP §§ 12c, 1005(b)) OK

OPPOSITION: Filed on September 11, 2020 [ ] Late [ ] None

REPLY: Filed on September 14, 2020 [ ] Late [ ] None

ANALYSIS:

  1. Background

On October 2, 2019, Plaintiff Yervand Titizyan (“Plaintiff”) filed an action for motor vehicle negligence and general negligence against Defendant Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (“Defendant”). On February 3, 2020, Defendant filed an Answer.

On June 23, 2020, Defendant filed the instant (1) Motion to Compel Plaintiff to Respond to Demand for Production of Documents, Set One, and Request for Monetary Sanctions and (2) Motion to Compel Plaintiff to Respond to Form Interrogatories, Set One, and Request for Monetary Sanctions (collectively, the “Motions”). Plaintiff filed Oppositions on September 11, 2020 and Defendant filed Reply briefs on September 14, 2020.

At the initial September 24, 2020 hearing, the Court denied Defendant’s request to compel responses to Form Interrogatories and Demand for Production of Documents as moot. (9/24/20 Minute Order.) However, the Court continued the matter as to the request for sanctions and ordered Defendant’s counsel to file a supplemental declaration to address the specific expenses and fees incurred at least ten days before the next scheduled hearing. (Id.) Any reply filed by Plaintiff was to be filed at least three days prior to the next hearing. (Id.)

On October 29, 2020, Defendant’s counsel filed a supplemental declaration. To date, Plaintiff has not filed a reply to this declaration.

  1. Legal Standard & Discussion

Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030, subdivision (a) provides, in pertinent part, that the court may impose a monetary sanction on a party engaging in the misuse of the discovery process to pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct. A misuse of the discovery process includes failing to respond or submit to an authorized method of discovery. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.010, subd. (d).) In addition, a court may award sanctions even if the requested discovery was provided to the moving party after a motion is filed. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1348, subd. (a).)

The Court finds Plaintiff’s failure to provide timely responses to Defendant’s discovery requests a misuse of the discovery process.

In her supplemental declaration, Defendant’s counsel requests a total of $2,278.00 in sanctions based on 4.4 hours of attorney time billed at $450.00 per hour for Allen R. Thomas, 1 hour of attorney time billed at $275.00 per hour for Caley K. McGaffigan, and costs of $23.00 incurred for a remote video appearance. (10/29/20 McGaffigan Decl., pp. 4:11-6:7.) However, the amount requested is excessive given the simplicity of these nearly identical Motions. The Court finds $1,828.00, based on 3.4 hours for attorney Thomas, 1 hour for attorney McGaffigan, and one remote appearance fee, to be reasonable. Sanctions are to be paid to Defendant’s counsel within thirty days (30) notice of this order.

  1. Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reasons, Defendant’s requests for sanctions against Plaintiff are GRANTED in the amount of $1,828.00 to be paid within thirty (30) days of notice of this order.

Moving party is ordered to give noti

Case Number: 19STLC09052    Hearing Date: September 24, 2020    Dept: 25

HEARING DATE: Thu., September 24, 2020 JUDGE /DEPT: Blancarte/25

CASE NAME: Titizyan v. Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority

CASE NUMBER: 19STLC09052 COMPL. FILED: 10-02-19

NOTICE: OK DISC. C/O: 03-02-21 DISC. MOT. C/O: 03-17-21

TRIAL DATE: 04-01-21

PROCEEDINGS: (1) MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF TO RESPOND TO DEMAND FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE, AND REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS

(2) MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF TO RESPOND TO FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE, AND REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS

MOVING PARTY: Defendant Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority

RESP. PARTY: Plaintiff Yervand Titizyan

MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

(CCP §§ 2030.290; 2031.300)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendant’s motions to compel responses to Form Interrogatories and Demand to Produce Certain Documents and Items are DENIED AS MOOT. Defendant’s requests for sanctions are also DENIED ON THE CONDITION THAT, at the hearing, Plaintiff provides additional satisfactory details regarding his inability to provide timely discovery responses due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

SERVICE:

[X] Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC, rule 3.1300) OK

[X] Correct Address (CCP §§ 1013, 1013a) OK

[X] 16/21 Court Days Lapsed (CCP §§ 12c, 1005(b)) OK

OPPOSITION: Filed on September 11, 2020 [ ] Late [ ] None

REPLY: Filed on September 14, 2020 [ ] Late [ ] None

ANALYSIS:

  1. Background

On October 2, 2019, Plaintiff Yervand Titizyan (“Plaintiff”) filed an action for motor vehicle negligence and general negligence against Defendant Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (“Defendant”). On February 3, 2020, Defendant filed an Answer.

On June 23, 2020, Defendant filed the instant (1) Motion to Compel Plaintiff to Respond to Demand for Production of Documents, Set One, and Request for Monetary Sanctions and (2) Motion to Compel Plaintiff to Respond to Form Interrogatories, Set One, and Request for Monetary Sanctions (collectively, the “Motions”). Plaintiff filed Oppositions on September 11, 2020 and Defendant filed Reply briefs on September 14, 2020.

  1. Legal Standard

A. Request for Production & Interrogatories

A party must respond to interrogatories and requests for production of documents within 30 days after service. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.260, subd. (a); Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.260, subd. (a).) If a party to whom interrogatories or requests for production of documents are directed does not provide timely responses, the requesting party may move for an order compelling responses to the discovery. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (b); Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (c).) The party also waives the right to make any objections, including one based on privilege or work-product protection. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (a); Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (a).) There is no time limit for a motion to compel responses to interrogatories or production of documents other than the cut-off on hearing discovery motions 15 days before trial. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2024.020, subd. (a), 2030.290; Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300.) No meet and confer efforts are required before filing a motion to compel responses to the discovery. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290; Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300; Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 411.)

Defendant initially moved to compel Plaintiff’s responses to Form Interrogatories and Demand for Production of Documents. In Opposition, Plaintiff argues Defendant’s Motions are moot as verified responses were produced via mail and email on September 8, 2020. (Oppositions, pp. 2:9-13, Zakaryan Decl., ¶¶ 4, Exhs. A.) Defendant does not dispute it was served with responses in its Reply briefs.

Thus, Defendant’s Motions to compel responses are DENIED AS MOOT.

B. Sanctions

Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030, subdivision (a) provides, in pertinent part, that the court may impose a monetary sanction on a party engaging in the misuse of the discovery process to pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct. A misuse of the discovery process includes failing to respond or submit to an authorized method of discovery. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.010, subd. (d).)

In Opposition, Plaintiff’s counsel argues Plaintiff was unable to provide timely discovery responses due to a number of family issues related to the COVID-19 pandemic. (Oppositions, p. 2:21-23; Zakaryan Decl., ¶ 4.) No further details are provided. In Reply, Defendant argues sanctions should be imposed as it waited over six months to receive responses. (Replies, pp. 2:15-19.) It also argues Plaintiff’s claim he was unavailable due to the pandemic is unsubstantiated.

The Court agrees that Plaintiff’s claim he was unable to provide responses is vague. However, the Court understands the COVID-19 pandemic has been difficult on parties and their attorneys. For this reason, Defendant’s request for sanctions is DENIED ON THE CONDITION THAT Plaintiff provides additional details regarding his unavailability to the Court at the hearing. OTHERWISE, the Court will consider imposing sanctions.

  1. Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reasons, Defendant’s motions to compel responses to Form Interrogatories and Demand to Produce Certain Documents and Items are DENIED AS MOOT. Defendant’s requests for sanctions are also DENIED ON THE CONDITION THAT, at the hearing, Plaintiff provides additional satisfactory details regarding his inability to provide timely discovery responses due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where LOS ANGELES COUNTY METROPOLITAN TRANSIT is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer THOMAS ALLEN