Search

Attributes

This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 01/19/2021 at 02:22:54 (UTC).

ALL FOR HEALTH ET AL VS ANAHIT NSHANYAN ET AL

Case Summary

On 07/19/2013 ALL FOR HEALTH filed a Contract - Other Contract lawsuit against ANAHIT NSHANYAN. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are SUZANNE G. BRUGUERA, MONICA BACHNER and RUTH ANN KWAN. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****5780

  • Filing Date:

    07/19/2013

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Contract - Other Contract

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

SUZANNE G. BRUGUERA

MONICA BACHNER

RUTH ANN KWAN

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs and Petitioners

ALL FOR HEALTH

HEALTH FOR ALL INC.

ALL FOR HEALTH HEALTH FOR ALL INC.

Defendants, Respondents and Cross Plaintiffs

DOES 1 TO 5

NSHANYAN ANAHIT

NSHANYAN GABRIEL

JANOIAN NOUBAR

KISTORIAN SONA

Cross Plaintiffs and Cross Defendants

JANOIAN NOUBAR

KISTORIAN SONA

ALL FOR HEALTH HEALTH FOR ALL INC.

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

GORDON & REES LLP

BLOCK DENNIS P. ESQ.

SHAO ERIKA L.

Defendant Attorneys

SHENIAN DATEV K. ESQ.

SHENIAN DATEV KRIKOR

Cross Defendant Attorney

SHAO ERIKA LYNN

 

Court Documents

EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO DECLARATIONS OF RICHARD JACOBS IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO RELEASE TO PLAINTIFF OR STAY RELEASE OF FUNDS TO DEFENDANTS

1/22/2018: EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO DECLARATIONS OF RICHARD JACOBS IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO RELEASE TO PLAINTIFF OR STAY RELEASE OF FUNDS TO DEFENDANTS

CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT -

2/28/2018: CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT -

Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

6/14/2019: Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (POST-MEDIATION STATUS CONFERENCE)

6/26/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (POST-MEDIATION STATUS CONFERENCE)

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (EX PARTE APPLICATION OF DEFENDANTS/CROSS-COMPLAINANTS, ANAHIT...)

12/4/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (EX PARTE APPLICATION OF DEFENDANTS/CROSS-COMPLAINANTS, ANAHIT...)

Reply - REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION

1/23/2020: Reply - REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION

Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order

7/8/2020: Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE REGARDING DISMISSAL (SETTLEMENT))

1/15/2021: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE REGARDING DISMISSAL (SETTLEMENT))

DECLARATION OF SONIA KISTORIAN IN SUPPORT OF CROSS-DEFENDANTS' NOTICE OF MOTION AND SPECIAL MOTION TO STRIKE THE CROSS- COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE ? 425.16; ETC.

6/11/2018: DECLARATION OF SONIA KISTORIAN IN SUPPORT OF CROSS-DEFENDANTS' NOTICE OF MOTION AND SPECIAL MOTION TO STRIKE THE CROSS- COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE ? 425.16; ETC.

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS -

9/27/2013: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS -

Minute Order -

6/16/2014: Minute Order -

REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF COURT JUDGMENT AGAINST DEFENDANTS ANAHTT NSHANYAN AND GABRIEL NSHANYAN

7/28/2014: REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF COURT JUDGMENT AGAINST DEFENDANTS ANAHTT NSHANYAN AND GABRIEL NSHANYAN

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER SHORTENING TIME FOR NOTICE OF MOTION TO VACATE THE DEFAULT AND DEFAULT JUDGMENT AND FOR STAY OF JUDGMENT ENFORCEMENT

11/22/2017: ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER SHORTENING TIME FOR NOTICE OF MOTION TO VACATE THE DEFAULT AND DEFAULT JUDGMENT AND FOR STAY OF JUDGMENT ENFORCEMENT

PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS MOTION TO SET ASIDE ENTRY OF DEFAULT AND DEFAULT JUDGMENT; DECLARATION OF DENNIS P. BLOCK; ETC.

12/4/2017: PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS MOTION TO SET ASIDE ENTRY OF DEFAULT AND DEFAULT JUDGMENT; DECLARATION OF DENNIS P. BLOCK; ETC.

RULING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO SET ASIDE ENTRY OF DEFAULT AND DEFAULT JUDGMENT IS GRANTED, ORDER IS STAYED UNTIL 12/15/17; DEFENDANTS SHALL FILE A RESPONSIVE PLEADING WITHIN 20 DAYS.

12/11/2017: RULING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO SET ASIDE ENTRY OF DEFAULT AND DEFAULT JUDGMENT IS GRANTED, ORDER IS STAYED UNTIL 12/15/17; DEFENDANTS SHALL FILE A RESPONSIVE PLEADING WITHIN 20 DAYS.

205 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 02/05/2021
  • Hearing02/05/2021 at 08:30 AM in Department 71 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal (Settlement)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/15/2021
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 71, Monica Bachner, Presiding; Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal (Settlement) - Held - Continued

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/15/2021
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Order to Show Cause Regarding Dismissal (Settlement))); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/10/2020
  • Docketat 09:30 AM in Department 71, Monica Bachner, Presiding; Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment - Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/10/2020
  • Docketat 09:30 AM in Department 71, Monica Bachner, Presiding; Hearing on Motion for Summary Adjudication - Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/19/2020
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 71, Monica Bachner, Presiding; Status Conference (Regarding Successor-in-Intrest to Noubar Janoian) - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/19/2020
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 71, Monica Bachner, Presiding; Post-Mediation Status Conference - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/19/2020
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Status Conference Regarding Successor-in-Interest to Noubar J...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/17/2020
  • Docketat 10:30 AM in Department 71, Monica Bachner, Presiding; Post-Mediation Status Conference - Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/17/2020
  • Docketat 10:30 AM in Department 71, Monica Bachner, Presiding; Hearing on Motion for Summary Adjudication - Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
374 More Docket Entries
  • 09/27/2013
  • DocketProof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/27/2013
  • DocketProof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by All For Health, Health For All, Inc. (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/27/2013
  • DocketMinute Order

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/27/2013
  • DocketPROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/27/2013
  • DocketMinute order entered: 2013-09-27 00:00:00; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/07/2013
  • DocketNOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/07/2013
  • DocketNotice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/19/2013
  • DocketCOMPLAINT-CONTRACT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/19/2013
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by All For Health, Health For All, Inc. (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/19/2013
  • DocketSUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC515780    Hearing Date: July 28, 2020    Dept: 71

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

DEPARTMENT 71

TENTATIVE RULING

ALL FOR HEALTH, HEALTH FOR ALL, INC.,

vs.

ANAHIT NSHANYAN, et al.

Case No.: BC515780

Hearing Date: July 28, 2020

Defendants’ motion for terminating sanctions is denied. Defendants’ alternative motion for issue and evidentiary sanctions is denied.

Defendants’ request for monetary sanctions is denied.

Defendants and Cross-Complainants Anahit Nshanyan (“Anahit”) and Gabriel Nshanyan (“Gabriel”) (collectively “Defendants”) move for terminating sanctions against Plaintiff and Cross-Defendant All for Health, Health for All, Inc. (“All for Health” or “Plaintiff”), Cross-Defendant Sonia Kistorian (“Kistorian”), and Cross-Defendant Noobar Janoian (“Janoian”) (collectively, “Cross-Defendants”). (Notice of Motion, pg. 1; C.C.P. §§.) Specifically, Defendants move to have Plaintiff’s Complaint and Cross-Defendants’ Answer to the Cross-Complaint stricken and have judgment entered against them. In the alternative, Defendants seek issue sanctions against Cross-Defendants for 11 separate issues. (Notice of Motion, pgs. 2-3.) Alternatively or concurrently, Defendants move for evidentiary sanctions to prohibit Cross-Defendants from introducing certain matters into evidence. (Notice of Motion, pg. 3.) In addition, Defendants request the imposition of monetary sanctions in the amount of $5,1555 against Cross-Defendants and their counsel of record. (Notice of Motion, pg. 4.)

Defendants’ 7/21/20 request for judicial notice is denied. (Reply-Decl. of Shenian ¶¶3-6, Exhs. A, B, C, D.) The documents are not properly subject to judicial notice. In addition, the documents for which Defendants seek judicial notice are not relevant to its ruling on the motion.

On January 30, 2020, the Court granted Defendants’ motion to compel depositions of Kistorian and Janoian, ordering Kistorian and Janoian to appear for deposition at least one month prior to the hearing on Cross-Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, which at the time was scheduled to occur on November 9, 2020. (1/30/20 Ruling; 12/4/19 Minute Order [The Court notes its 1/30/20 Ruling & Minute Order incorrectly refer to the date of Cross-Defendants’ motion for summary judgment as March 3, 2019.].) The Court notes that the depositions of Plaintiff’s custodian of records (“Plaintiff’s Custodian”) and Plaintiff’s president Adrineh Ebrahimian (“Ebrahimian”) were not at issue in Defendants’ previous motion to compel deposition. The Court found an order compelling the depositions of Kistorian and Janoian was warranted given their failure to appear at noticed depositions and the lack of supporting evidence for their arguments in opposition. The Court scheduled an OSC for April 6, 2020, for Cross-Defendants to provide the Court with updates pertaining to Janoian’s ability to be deposed given his health. The Court also granted Defendants’ motion to compel Cross-Defendants to produce responsive documents to the requests for production set forth in the Amended Notice of Deposition Nos. 1-60. As such, Cross-Defendants were ordered to produce documents set forth in the requests at the depositions, when scheduled and held. The Court notes that Defendants’ assertion that Cross-Defendants were ordered to produce responsive documents “forthwith” is unsupported by the ruling. (Decl. of Shenian ¶2(2).) Finally, the Court ordered sanctions imposed at the reduced rate of $3,772.50.

Defendants submitted evidence that on February 4, 2020, they noticed the depositions of Plaintiff’s Custodian and Ebrahimian for Febraury 18, 2020 and February 21, 2020, respectively. (Decl. of Shenian ¶3, Exhs. B, C.) On February 13, 2020, Plaintiff and Ebrahimian served objections to the Deposition Notices. (Decl. of Shenian ¶4, Exhs. D, E.) Defendants submitted evidence that Cross-Defendants’ counsel sent an email on February 26, 2020 advising that she was checking on dates for the depositions of Kistorian and Ebrahimian for March, and that “two and a half weeks later”, which would have been between March 13, 2020 and March 16, 2020, counsel referenced the current circumstances surrounding COVID-19 to excuse further coordinating of depositions, to which counsel advised that depositions could move forward remotely via videoconference. (Decl. of Shenian ¶¶7-8, Exh. H.) Defendants submitted evidence that their counsel provided written notice to Cross-Defendants on March 16, 2020 of their intent to file the instant motion. (Decl. of Shenian ¶9, Exh. I.) Defendants filed the instant motion on April 3, 2020. Defendants submitted evidence that as of the filing of the instant motion, they have received neither documents responsive to the Requests for Production, nor dates for holding the deposition of Kistorian, Plaintiff’s Custodian, or Ebrahimian. (Decl. of Shenian ¶9.)

Cross-Defendants submitted evidence that in April 2020, Janoian passed away, and given his declining heath, he was unable to sit for deposition prior to his passing. (Decl. of Shao ¶3.) Cross-Defendants submitted evidence that Kistoiran’s deposition has not been completed, but Cross-Defendants remain open to discussions about timing depositions in light of the COVID-19 pandemic. (Decl. of Shao ¶3.)

Terminating Sanctions

On motion, if a party “fails to obey an order compelling attendance, testimony, and production, the court may make those orders that are just, including the imposition of an issue sanction, an evidence sanction, or a terminating sanction” as provided in Section 2030.010, et seq. (C.C.P. §2025.450(h).) The “court, after notice to any affected party, person, or attorney, and after an opportunity for hearing, may impose” monetary, issue, evidence, or terminating sanctions “against anyone engaging in conduct that is a misuse of the discovery process[.]” (C.C.P. §2023.030(a)-(d).) Failing to respond or submit to an authorized method of discovery and disobeying a court order to provide discovery are misuses of the discovery process. (C.C.P. §2033.010(d) and (g).)

Defendants are not entitled to an order granting terminating sanctions. Defendants have not submitted evidence suggesting any failure by Janoian or Kistorian failed to obey the Court’s order compelling attendance at a deposition in a manner that warrants terminating sanctions. In addition, while the Court granted Defendants’ motion to compel production of documents set forth in the Notices of Deposition, the Court did not set a deadline for such production, and as such, production would be at the scheduled depositions, which have yet to occur or be scheduled. Moreover, the evidence submitted suggests any failure to comply with the Court ordered deposition was not willful. The Court finds that the circumstances surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic, which resulted in a full closure of the Court just over one month after the Court’s January 30, 2020 ruling on the motion to compel deposition, and the April 2020 death of Janoian demonstrate that Cross-Defendants’ failure to comply with the Court’s January 30, 2020 order was not willful. In addition, in opposition, Kistorian submitted responses to the at-issue Requests for Production included in the Deposition Notice in which she asserts the requested documents are not in her possession or control. To the extent Defendants find Kistorian’s responses to the discovery requests insufficient, they are entitled to pursue a motion to compel further responses. The Court notes Defendants submit evidence relating to their attempts to schedule depositions for Plaintiff’s Custodian and/or Ebrahimian, which is irrelevant to the instant motion. No evidence suggests Plaintiff’s Custodian and Ebrahimian have failed to obey a Court order compelling attendance at a deposition to warrant terminating sanctions.

In addition, even assuming arguendo, the failure to schedule a Kistorian’s deposition constitutes a failure to comply with the Court’s order, the imposition of terminating sanctions is unwarranted and/or premature. (See Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771, 793-784 [“The sanction of dismissal or the rendition of a default judgment against the disobedient party is ordinarily a drastic measure which should be employed with caution. [Citation] However, there is no question that a court is empowered to apply the ultimate sanction against a litigant who persists in the outright refusal to comply with his discovery obligations. [Citation] The refusal to reveal material evidence is deemed to be an admission that the claim or defense is without merit. [Citations]”].) As discussed above, the submitted evidence suggests any failure by Cross-Defendants to comply with the Court order was not willful.

For the reasons discussed above, the Court also finds evidence sanctions, issue sanctions, and monetary sanctions are not warranted.

Based on the foregoing, Defendants’ motion for terminating sanctions is denied.

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where HEALTH FOR ALL is a litigant

Latest cases where ALL FOR HEALTH HEALTH FOR ALL INC is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer SHAO ERIKA