This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 04/10/2019 at 07:23:22 (UTC).

ANGELA SHAGOYAN VS ESTATE OF LINIDA TORABIAN ET AL

Case Summary

On 11/19/2014 ANGELA SHAGOYAN filed a Property - Other Property Fraud lawsuit against ESTATE OF LINIDA TORABIAN. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Burbank Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are JOHN P. DOYLE and RALPH C. HOFER. The case status is Disposed - Judgment Entered.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****3136

  • Filing Date:

    11/19/2014

  • Case Status:

    Disposed - Judgment Entered

  • Case Type:

    Property - Other Property Fraud

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Burbank Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

JOHN P. DOYLE

RALPH C. HOFER

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

SHAGOYAN ANGELA

Defendants

AROUTIOUNIAN VARDAN AN INDIVIDUAL

ESTATE OF LINIDA TORABIAN

GABUZYAN ARTAK

KAPLANYAN MARINE AN INDIVIDUAL

KISHMIRYAN ANNA AN INDIVIDUAL

TEAMPLAY INC

TER-POGOSYAN ZARUI

TORABIAN PAULINE INDIVIDUALLY

TORABIAN TALINE AN INDIVIDUAL

TORABIAN YURIK AN INDIVIDUAL

MURPHY JOHN

LAUNDERLAND

AROUTIOUNIAN VARDAN

KAPLANYAN MARINE

TORABIAN YURIK

KISHMIRYAN ANNA

TORABIAN TALINE

TORABIAN PAULINE

2 More Parties Available

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorneys

GLENDALE LAW GROUP

HARTOUNIAN AROUTIN

LOVE FRANKLIN J

JOSHUA P. FRIEDMAN & ASSOCIATES

FRIEDMAN JOSHUA P.

Defendant Attorneys

LAW OFFICES OF MGDESYAN & TAHERIPOUR

TAHMAZIAN JILBERT

ROUBEN VAROZIAN

ALICE MKROYAN PLC LAW OFFICES OF

MKROYAN ALICE

VAROZIAN ROUBEN

 

Court Documents

Request for Entry of Default / Judgment

1/13/2015: Request for Entry of Default / Judgment

Unknown

1/13/2015: Unknown

Minute Order

3/27/2015: Minute Order

Case Management Statement

4/3/2015: Case Management Statement

Minute Order

4/21/2015: Minute Order

Unknown

6/8/2015: Unknown

Unknown

6/8/2015: Unknown

Minute Order

6/12/2015: Minute Order

Minute Order

9/16/2015: Minute Order

Unknown

10/27/2015: Unknown

Unknown

2/18/2016: Unknown

Minute Order

3/11/2016: Minute Order

Unknown

3/2/2017: Unknown

Minute Order

9/22/2017: Minute Order

Unknown

11/1/2018: Unknown

Proof of Service by Mail

11/1/2018: Proof of Service by Mail

Minute Order

12/14/2018: Minute Order

Minute Order

2/28/2019: Minute Order

106 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 04/04/2019
  • Case Management Statement; Filed by ANGELA SHAGOYAN (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/04/2019
  • Motion for Leave to Amend (COMPLAINT; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF FRANKLIN J LOVE; PROPOSED SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT); Filed by ANGELA SHAGOYAN (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/13/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department D; Case Management Conference - Not Held - Continued - Court's Motion

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/13/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department D; Order to Show Cause Re: (name extension) (1) Issue of defendant Pogosyan; and 2) Re Entry of Default Judgment pursuant to Section 585 CCP;) - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/13/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Case Management Conference; Order to Show Cause Re: 1) Issue ...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/11/2019
  • Substitution of Attorney; Filed by ANGELA SHAGOYAN (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/06/2019
  • Notice of Ruling; Filed by ZARUI TER-POGOSYAN (Defendant); ANNA, KISHMIRYAN (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/06/2019
  • Case Management Statement; Filed by ZARUI TER-POGOSYAN (Defendant); ANNA, KISHMIRYAN (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/28/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department D; Case Management Conference - Held - Continued

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/28/2019
  • Case Management Statement; Filed by ZARUI TER-POGOSYAN (Defendant); ANNA, KISHMIRYAN (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
207 More Docket Entries
  • 12/15/2014
  • Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by ANGELA SHAGOYAN (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/15/2014
  • Proof of Service; Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/19/2014
  • Complaint filed-Summons Issued; Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/19/2014
  • Notice of Case Assignment - Unlimited Civil Case

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/19/2014
  • Notice of Case Management Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/19/2014
  • Notice (of OSC)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/19/2014
  • Civil Case Cover Sheet

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/19/2014
  • Summons Filed; Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/19/2014
  • Complaint filed-Summons Issued

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/19/2014
  • Summons; Filed by Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: EC063136    Hearing Date: October 25, 2019    Dept: NCD

TENTATIVE RULING

Calendar: 23

Date: 10/25/19

Case No: EC 063136 Trial Date: None

Case Name: Shagoyan v. Estate of Linida Torabian, et al.

MOTION TO VACATE ORDER

(CCP §473(d))

Moving Party: Plaintiff Alice Shagoyan

Responding Party: Defendants Xarui Ter-Pogosyan and Anna Kishmiryan

RELIEF REQUESTED:

Vacate Court’s Order of July 23, 2019 vacating the dismissal of this action on June 5, 2019

RULING:

Motion to Vacate and/or Clarify Order Vacating Dismissal is DENIED.

Request for sanctions in the opposition is DENIED. Defendants have failed to provide the safe harbor required under CCP Section 128.5(f)(l)(B)

FACTUAL BACKGROUND:

Plaintiff Angela Shagoyan alleges that during the months of July through September of 2014 now deceased Linida Torabian represented to plaintiff that she was a licensed real estate agent and offered to perform loan modification or foreclosure forbearance services to plaintiff to refinance plaintiff’s property in Tujunga at a new, lower interest rate. Plaintiff alleges that she paid advance fee payments totaling $170,000 for decedent to negotiate with Chase Mortgage, but that the negotiations were never in fact conducted, and that the various named defendants received and cashed the checks for plaintiff’s payments and used plaintiff’s resources to enrich themselves.

On April 21, 2015, defaults were entered against defendants Zarui Ter-Pogosyan and Anna Kishmiryan. Defaults were entered based on proofs of service showing personal service on Zarui Ter-Pogosyan on March 20, 2015, and substituted service on Anna Kishmiryan by service on Zarui Ter-Pogosyan on March 20, 2015.

On March 3, 2016, Judgment by the Clerk by Default was entered against defendants Zarui Ter-Pogosyan and Anna Kishmiryan in the sum of $237,520.44.

On December 14, 2018, the court heard a motion brought by defendants Ter-Pogosyan and Kishmiryan to set aside the default and default judgment. The motion was granted and the default and default judgment as to defendant Kishmiriyan were “set aside as void pursuant to CCP § 473 (d), as entered prior to the expiration of the time within which defendant was permitted to respond to the operative complaint.” The default and default judgment as to Ter-Pogosyan were set aside “pursuant to § 473(d) as based on improper service.”

On May 17, 2019, the court heard a motion by defendants for an order for immediate return of all funds obtained by plaintiff pursuant to the void judgment, and for leave to file an amended complaint. The court after oral argument from the parties ordered plaintiff to return the $11,000 in payments made to defendants based on the void default judgment and denied a request for attorney fees as well as for leave to amend the complaint.

Evidently, to avoid the court’s order, plaintiff filed a request for dismissal of the action without prejudice, which was entered by the court as requested on May 20, 2019.

On July 23, 2019, the court heard an ex parte application for an order shortening time to hear a motion by defendants to set aside the dismissal and for an order to issue an abstract of judgment and writ of execution with respect to the $11,000 still being retained by plaintiff.

There were no appearances for plaintiff, and the court granted the motion as to the $11,000 payment, denied requests for further fees or sums, inspected the Abstract of Judgment and writ of execution, and found them to be in proper order.

Plaintiff now brings this motion arguing that the order setting aside the dismissal was void.

ANALYSIS:

Plaintiff seeks relief under CCP § 473(d), under which the court may, “on motion of either party after notice to the other party, set aside any void judgment or order.”

Plaintiff does not explain how the order issued by the court was void, but appears to argue that ex parte relief was improperly granted, as there were no exigent circumstances.

It is not clearly explained why there were no exigent circumstances, and the court has already evidently determined that there were such circumstances. This appears to be in the nature of a motion for reconsideration, made without establishing any new or different facts, circumstances or law which could not have been argued at the previous hearing.

Under CCP Under CCP section 1008(a):

“When an application for an order has been made to a judge, or to a court, and refused in whole or in part, or granted...any party affected by the order may, within 10 days after service upon the party of written notice of entry of the order and based upon new or different facts, circumstances, or law, make application to the same judge or court that made the order, to reconsider the matter and modify, amend, or revoke the prior order.”

This subdivision further provides:

“For a failure to comply with this subdivision any order made on a subsequent application may be revoked or set aside on ex parte motion.”

Under CCP section 1008, subdivision (e):

“This section specifies the court's jurisdiction with regard to applications for reconsideration of its orders and renewals of previous motions, and applies to all applications to reconsider any order of a judge or court, or for the renewal of a previous motion, whether the order deciding the previous matter or motion is interim or final. No application to reconsider any order or for the renewal of a previous motion may be considered by any judge or court unless made according to this section.”

The trial court’s determination of a motion for reconsideration is reviewed for abuse of discretion. See Wiz Technology, Inc. v. Coopers & Lybrand (2003, 2nd Dist.) 106 Cal.App.4th 1, 16. To the extent any new facts or circumstances are relied upon, the moving party must present “a satisfactory explanation for failing to provide the evidence earlier, which can only be described as a strict requirement of diligence.” Garcia v. Hejmadi, (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 674, 690.

These procedures have not been followed, and nothing is argued here that could not have been argued at the previous hearing. The motion is denied, even if it can be construed as a motion for reconsideration pursuant to CCP Section 1008.

The argument also appears to be that the court had discretion to deny the motion with respect to vacating the dismissal and order the parties to settle the matter of the funds paid in a new action based on breach of the settlement agreement. Again, it is not clear why this argument could not have been made previously, and the court appears to have been within its discretion to see that its previous order concerning return of everything paid under the void judgment was enforced within this action. Plaintiff cites briefly to Newland v. Superior Court (2010, 2nd Dist.) 40 Cal.App. 4th 608, 615, which involved discussion of the ability to enforce an order for a discovery sanction, not an order to return funds wrongfully obtained through enforcement of judgment procedures based on a judgment later determined to have been void. See Levy v. Drew (1935) 4 Cal.2d 456, 459 (“defendant had no right to retain the money collected under the execution after the judgment upon which it was issued had been vacated.”) The court’s order has not been established as void, the motion accordingly is denied, and the court’s orders concerning this matter permitted to stand.