Search

Attributes

This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 07/07/2019 at 13:05:23 (UTC).

ANIL SHARMA VS. ZAMINDARI TRUST, ET AL

Case Summary

On 02/13/2015 ANIL SHARMA filed a Contract - Other Contract lawsuit against ZAMINDARI TRUST. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Van Nuys Courthouse East located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are FRANK J. JOHNSON and SHIRLEY K. WATKINS. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****2618

  • Filing Date:

    02/13/2015

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Contract - Other Contract

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Van Nuys Courthouse East

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

FRANK J. JOHNSON

SHIRLEY K. WATKINS

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs and Cross Defendants

SHARMA ANIL

TEROGANESIAN ARMEN

YOUSSEFIAN-TEROGANESIAN ARCHETECTURE PLANNING-URBAN DEVELOPMENT LLC AKA ART-TECH L.L.C.

ART TECH LLC AND/OR ART TECH

ART TECH

ART-TECH LLC

ABKARIAN RAFFI DBA RAFFI ABKARIAN & ASSOCIATES

Defendants and Cross Plaintiffs

ALL PERSONS UNKNOWN CLAIMING ANY LEGAL OR

ARVAYO SILVIA

ARVAYO SILVIA AND JAISINGHANI GUL AS

DOES 1-25

JAISINGHANI GUL

ZAMINDARI TRUST

SILVIA ARVAYO AND GUL JAISINGHANI AS TRUSTEES

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Cross Defendant Attorneys

CUTLER MARTIN IAN

ABKARIAN SONA

AKWO GEORGE ELONGE

Defendant and Cross Plaintiff Attorneys

AZRIN DAVID T.

HALIMI GEORGE MAYER

 

Court Documents

Proof of Service by Mail

2/24/2015: Proof of Service by Mail

Legacy Document

3/7/2015: Legacy Document

Minute Order

6/24/2015: Minute Order

Minute Order

7/28/2015: Minute Order

Minute Order

11/16/2015: Minute Order

Minute Order

1/28/2016: Minute Order

Demand for Jury Trial

7/11/2016: Demand for Jury Trial

Legacy Document

8/1/2016: Legacy Document

Legacy Document

10/27/2016: Legacy Document

Stipulation and Order to use Certified Shorthand Reporter

3/22/2017: Stipulation and Order to use Certified Shorthand Reporter

Declaration

10/15/2018: Declaration

Reply

10/22/2018: Reply

Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order

2/28/2019: Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order

Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order

2/28/2019: Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order

Witness List

3/8/2019: Witness List

Exhibit List

3/8/2019: Exhibit List

Reply

3/8/2019: Reply

Special Verdict

3/13/2019: Special Verdict

140 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 03/21/2019
  • Opposition (TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION IN LIMINE); Filed by Anil Sharma (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/21/2019
  • Notice of Ruling ((Amended)); Filed by Anil Sharma (Plaintiff); Armen Teroganesian (Cross-Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/19/2019
  • at 10:00 AM in Department T, Shirley K. Watkins, Presiding; Jury Trial - Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/19/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department T, Shirley K. Watkins, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Quash ((In Limine) to Exclude Evidence at Trial) - Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/19/2019
  • Notice of Ruling; Filed by Armen Teroganesyan (Cross-Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/18/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department T, Shirley K. Watkins, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Quash ((In Limine) to Exclude Evidence at Trial) - Not Held - Continued - Court's Motion

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/14/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department T, Shirley K. Watkins, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Sever - Not Held - Continued - Court's Motion

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/14/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department T, Shirley K. Watkins, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Continued - Stipulation

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/14/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Final Status Conference; Hearing on Motion to Sever)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/14/2019
  • Stipulation and Order to use Certified Shorthand Reporter (- Erika A. Sjoquist,, #12350)

    Read MoreRead Less
189 More Docket Entries
  • 02/24/2015
  • Declaration re: Due Diligence; Filed by Anil Sharma (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/24/2015
  • Proof of Service of Summons and Complaint; Filed by Anil Sharma (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/24/2015
  • Proof of Service of Summons and Complaint; Filed by Anil Sharma (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/24/2015
  • Proof of Service of Summons and Complaint; Filed by Anil Sharma (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/24/2015
  • Proof of Service by Mail; Filed by Anil Sharma (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/24/2015
  • Proof of Service of Summons and Complaint; Filed by Anil Sharma (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/13/2015
  • Civil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by Anil Sharma (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/13/2015
  • Complaint; Filed by Anil Sharma (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/13/2015
  • Summons; Filed by Anil Sharma (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/13/2015
  • Notice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: LC102618    Hearing Date: January 14, 2021    Dept: T

TENTATIVE RULING 1/14/2021

LC102618

SHARMA V ZAMINDARI TRUST

MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY

DENY WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO FILING A MOTION TO REOPEN DISCOVERY.

Cross-Defendant, Raffi Abkarian an Individual dba Raffi Abkarian & Associates moves the court for an order compelling Silvia Arvayo, Gul Jaisinghani and the Zamindari Trust to answer discovery.

Trial was set 9/9/2019. It was continued by stipulation and order to 11/4/2019. The stipulation did not continue the discovery cutoff.

On 11/9/2019, on the court’s own motion, the trial was continued to 1/6/2020. That matter was reported by a certified shorthand reporter. If the parties can point out in the official transcript where the court ordered continuance of the discovery cutoff or there was a stipulation to continue the discovery cutoff, they are requested to do so forthwith. Otherwise, the minutes do not reflect that the discovery cutoff was continued.

On 12/17/2019, the court issued an order on stipulation continuing the trial to 4/20/2020. There is no mention of the discovery cutoff.

On 4/3/2020, the court issued an order on stipulation continuing the trial to 11/30/2020. There is no mention of the discovery cutoff.

On 9/4/2020, on the court’s own motion, the court vacated the 11/30/2020 trial date and set the matter for trial on 1/13/2021. There is no mention of the discovery cutoff in the minutes. There was no court reporter for this hearing. To the court’s knowledge, while there had been previous administrative orders continuing the discovery cutoff for trials that were continued by the court due to COVID, those orders only covered trials set up to 11/6/2020, but not beyond. The court is unaware of any administrative order extending the discovery cutoff for a trial set 11/20/2020. Counsel for moving party states that the court extended the discovery cutoff by comments on 9/4/2020. However, this was not recorded in the minutes of the court by the clerk. There is no other record of the court’s decision to extend the discovery cutoff on that date. The court notes that as the court had been continuing trials pursuant to months of administrative orders extending the discovery cutoff, this may have been stated at the hearing. But with the lack of a record and no statement to that effect having been noted by the clerk in the minutes and no administrative order which covers the date of this trial, the court cannot find that the discovery cutoff was extended.

The general rules is that a continuance or postponement of the trial date does not operate to reopen discovery proceedings [CCP section 2024.020(b)] unless there is a court order or stipulation. The original trial date was in 2019.

While certain administrative orders continued the discovery cutoff, there is no known order that applies to this case.

Newly enacted CCP section 599 continues the discovery cutoff as long as the deadline had not already passed by 3/19/2020:

(a) Notwithstanding any other law and unless ordered otherwise by a court or otherwise agreed to by the parties, a continuance or postponement of a trial date extends any deadlines that have not already passed as of March 19, 2020, applicable to discovery, including the exchange of expert witness information, mandatory settlement conferences, and summary judgment motions in the same matter. The deadlines are extended for the same length of time as the continuance or postponement of the trial date.

The last administrative order applicable to the discovery cutoff is from 10/9/2020 but does not cover this case.

ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER OF THE PRESIDING JUDGE RE COVID-19 PANDEMIC ENTERED 10/9/2020

8. Trial Continuances:

a. Except as noted below, all non-jury and jury trials, except Small Claims and Traffic

trials, unless statutorily required, including in Limited and General Civil, Mental

Health, and Probate scheduled from October 9, 2020 to November 6, 2020, inclusive,

are continued until further notice. All pre-trial dates for trials that are continued pursuant to this paragraph are also continued consistent with the new trial date.

Therefore, the court finds that the discovery cutoff had passed prior to the service of the discovery subject to the motion and the motion is DENIED. No sanctions as there was a good faith belief that discovery had been reopened.

This decision is without prejudice for any party to seek to reopen discovery on a showing of good cause and no prejudice. The court notes that there is no pending trial date. By the Supreme Court’s Emergency Rule 10, the 5 year time limitation has been automatically extended by 6 months. As the last stipulation was to extend the 5 year time limit to 11/30/2020, Emergency Rule 10 adds 6 months to that date. Because of ongoing COVID issues, it is likely this case will be set for trial toward the end of that 6 month period.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases represented by Lawyer AZRIN DAVID T.

Latest cases represented by Lawyer HALIMI GEORGE MAYER