This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 07/04/2019 at 05:48:50 (UTC).

ANTRANIK KEVORKIAN VS. PUBLIC STORAGE,INC., ET AL

Case Summary

On 10/18/2016 ANTRANIK KEVORKIAN filed a Contract - Professional Negligence lawsuit against PUBLIC STORAGE,INC . This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Burbank Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is WILLIAM D. STEWART. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****5629

  • Filing Date:

    10/18/2016

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Contract - Professional Negligence

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Burbank Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

WILLIAM D. STEWART

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs

KEVORKIAN ANTRANIK AN INDIVIDUAL

KEVORKIAN ANTRANIK

Claimant

HASTINGS LISA ANN

Defendants

PUBLIC STORAGE INC.

DELIRA JUANA EMPLOYEE

DELVALLE AARON EMPLOYEE

BORJA TONY MANAGER

DELIRA JUANA

DELVALLE AARON

BORJA TONY

PUBLIC STORAGE

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Claimant Attorney

JAMISON GUY EVANS

Defendant Attorneys

WOOD CARY LINN

DUNKIN CRAIG LEE

 

Court Documents

Separate Statement

1/5/2018: Separate Statement

Legacy Document

1/5/2018: Legacy Document

Legacy Document

1/5/2018: Legacy Document

Minute Order

1/26/2018: Minute Order

Minute Order

3/27/2018: Minute Order

Legacy Document

4/6/2018: Legacy Document

Legacy Document

8/1/2018: Legacy Document

Other -

7/1/2019: Other -

Summons

10/18/2016: Summons

Legacy Document

10/18/2016: Legacy Document

Notice

11/16/2016: Notice

Minute Order

4/7/2017: Minute Order

Request For Copies

9/13/2018: Request For Copies

Other -

1/11/2019: Other -

Minute Order

2/1/2019: Minute Order

Other -

2/25/2019: Other -

Request For Copies

3/22/2019: Request For Copies

Opposition

4/12/2019: Opposition

230 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 07/01/2019
  • Request for Court Reporting Services by a Party with Fee Waiver for 7/10/19; Filed by Antranik, Kevorkian (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/01/2019
  • Request for Court Reporting Services by a Party with Fee Waiver for 7/9/19; Filed by Antranik, Kevorkian (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/01/2019
  • Request for Court Reporting Services by a Party with Fee Waiver for 7/8/19; Filed by Antranik, Kevorkian (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/01/2019
  • Request for Court Reporting Services by a Party with Fee Waiver for 7/11/19; Filed by Antranik, Kevorkian (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/27/2019
  • at 3:00 PM in Department A, William D. Stewart, Presiding; Court Order

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/27/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Court Order)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/20/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department A, William D. Stewart, Presiding; Non-Appearance Case Review (re Status of Trailing) - Held - Continued

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/20/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Non-Appearance Case Review re Status of Trailing)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/14/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department A, William D. Stewart, Presiding; Non-Appearance Case Review (re Status of Trailing) - Held - Continued

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/14/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Non-Appearance Case Review re Status of Trailing)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
276 More Docket Entries
  • 10/28/2016
  • Proof of Service of Summons and Complaint; Filed by Antranik, Kevorkian (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/28/2016
  • Proof of Service of Summons and Complaint; Filed by Antranik, Kevorkian (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/28/2016
  • Proof of Service of Summons and Complaint; Filed by Antranik, Kevorkian (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/28/2016
  • Proof of Service of Summons and Complaint; Filed by Antranik, Kevorkian (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/18/2016
  • Civil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by Antranik, Kevorkian (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/18/2016
  • Complaint filed-Summons Issued; Filed by null

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/18/2016
  • Summons; Filed by null

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/18/2016
  • Notice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/18/2016
  • Order on Court Fee Waiver (Superior Court); Filed by Antranik, Kevorkian (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/18/2016
  • OSC-Failure to File Proof of Serv; Filed by Court

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: EC065629    Hearing Date: November 01, 2019    Dept: A

Kevorkian v Public Storage

Motion to Set Aside Judgment

Calendar:

10

Case No.:

EC065629

Hearing Date:

November 01, 2019

Action Filed:

October 18, 2016

Jury Verdict:

September 05, 2019

MP:

Plaintiff Antranik Kevorkian

RP:

Defendants Public Storage; Tony Borja; Juana Delira; and Aaron DelValle

ALLEGATIONS:

Plaintiff Antranik Kevorkian (“Plaintiff”) rented a storage unit from the Defendants Public Storage; Tony Borja; Juana Delira; and Aaron DelValle (the “Defendants”). When Plaintiff was visiting his storage unit on May 27, 2016, he discovered that the lock on the door had been cut and that his unit had been ransacked. Defendants had not advised him of this crime. Further, when Plaintiff attempted to investigate the burglary, he discovered that the Defendants’ cameras, alarms, and recording devices were fake and not working.

Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”), filed May 04, 2017, alleged causes of action for: (1) Negligence; (2) Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress (“NIED”); (3) Fraud; (4) Breach of Contract; (5) Violation of Business and Professions Code §17500; and (6) Violation of Business and Professions Code §17200.

PRESENTATION:

The Court granted Defendants’ motion to bifurcate the issues at trial on March 08, 2019, after considering the moving papers of the parties and considering oral arguments. Pursuant to the Court’s granting the motion, Defendants’ affirmative defense of written release was tried before the other issues in the instant action. Following a jury trial on the bifurcated issue of Defendants’ affirmative defense, the Jury returned a verdict in favor of Defendants on July 12, 2019. Notice of Entry of Judgment was filed by Defendants on September 16, 2019, and served the same day by U.S. Mail.

Plaintiff filed the instant motion to set aside the judgment pursuant to Code of Civ. Proc. §§663 & 657 on October 04, 2019. Defendants opposed the motion on October 21, 2019, and a reply brief was filed on October 25, 2019.

RELIEF REQUESTED:

Plaintiff moves to set aside the jury verdict.

DISCUSSION:

Standard of Review – Pursuant to Code of Civ. Proc. §663, the Court may set aside its own judgment on motion of the aggrieved party when the judgement reflects an erroneous legal basis for the decision, or is inconsistent with the facts.

Code of Civil Procedure §657 sets forth the relief available on a motion for new trial, as well as the causes upon which such a motion may be made. “[T]he proceedings on a motion for new trial are strictly statutory, and the procedure for seeking relief must conform strictly to the statutory mandate.” People v. Southern Cal. Edison Co. (1976) 56 Cal. App. 3d 593, 601. “A trial court has broad discretion in ruling on a new trial motion, and the court’s exercise of discretion is accorded great deference on appeal. [Citation.] An abuse of discretion occurs if, in light of the applicable law and considering all of the relevant circumstances, the court’s decision exceeds the bounds of reason and results in a miscarriage of justice. [Citation.]” Fassberg Const. Co. v. Housing Authority of City of Los Angeles, 152 Cal. App. 4th 720, 751-52 (2007).

The grounds for new trial are specifically described in Code of Civ. Proc. §657(1)-(7), which generally permit the trial court to vacate its verdict and order a new trial when matters raised on motion show that irregularities, misconduct, accident or surprise, newly discovered evidence, excessive or inadequate damages, or error in evidence and law have caused the aggrieved party to have their substantial rights materially affected. In granting a motion for a new trial, there is “no standard or test to guide the trial judge, but instead contemplates he will in every case exercise his sound judicial discretion.” Perry v. Fowler (1951) 102 Cal. App. 2d 808, 811. The Court is generally required to “reweigh[] the evidence, and should grant a new trial if the jury's verdict appears to be against the weight of the evidence; the judge may review conflicting evidence, weigh its sufficiency, consider credibility of witnesses and draw reasonable inferences from the evidence presented at trial.” Valdez v. J. D. Diffenbaugh Co. (1975) 51 Cal. App. 3d 494, 512.

---

Timeliness – As an initial matter, Defendants raise the issue of the timeliness of the instant motion on the grounds that Code of Civ. Proc. §663a requires that the motion be made either (1) after the decision but before entry of judgment or (2) within 15 days of the date of mailing notice of the judgment. Code of Civ. Proc. §663a(a)(1)-(2). Further, as stated in Code of Civ. Proc. §663a(c) “[t]he provisions of Section 1013 extending the time for exercising a right or doing an act where service is by mail shall not apply to extend the times specified in paragraphs (1) and (2) of subdivision (a).” Here, argues Defendants, the Plaintiff’s filing the instant motion on October 04, 2019, exceeds the 15-day maximum time to file based on Defendants’ September 16, 2019, Notice. As 15 days after September 16, 2019, is Tuesday, October 01, 2019, Plaintiff’s filing the instant motion is beyond the 15 day cutoff time to file a motion pursuant to Code of Civ. Proc. §663. The time for a new trial motion under Code of Civ. Proc. §657 is similarly prescribed under the filing requirements of Code of Civ. Proc. §659, which restrict the filing to the same 15 days described in Code of Civ. Proc. §663a. See Code of Civ. Proc. §659(a) & (b).

In reply, Plaintiff contends that he did not receive the notice until September 21, 2019, and that the Court should extent the time to file the instant motion to the 180 days described under Code of Civ. Proc. §659(a)(2). These arguments are erroneous.

In reading sections 663a and 659, they refer to the inapplicability of section 1013 in the calculation of the time to file. Code of Civ. Proc. §1013 is the provision of the code that extends the notice period based on the method of service. Ordinarily, service of notice by U.S. Mail – as occurred here with the service of the relevant Notice of Entry of Judgment on September 16, 2019 – would extend the notice period by 5 days. Code of Civ. Proc. §1013(a) (“Service is complete at the time of the deposit, but any period of notice and any right or duty to do any act or make any response within any period or on a date certain after service of the document, which time period or date is prescribed by statute or rule of court, shall be extended five calendar days, upon service by mail, if the place of address and the place of mailing is within the State of California”). Therefore, under ordinary circumstances, Plaintiff would be able to rely on an effective service date of September 21, 2019, for the deadlines to file the instant motion. However, Code of Civ. Proc. §§663a(c) and 659(b) expressly exempt the Notice of Entry of Judgment from the 5-day extension of effective service for the purposes of filing the instant motion pursuant to Code of Civ. Proc. §§657 & 663.

Plaintiff’s other argument related to the portion of the text of Code of Civ. Proc. §659(a)(2) that sets the deadline at “180 days after the entry of judgment” fails to appreciate the full context of the code provision. Fully stated, Code of Civ. Proc. §659(a)(2) provides:

(2) Within 15 days of the date of mailing notice of entry of judgment by the clerk of the court pursuant to Section 664.5, or service upon him or her by any party of written notice of entry of judgment, or within 180 days after the entry of judgment, whichever is earliest; provided, that upon the filing of the first notice of intention to move for a new trial by a party, each other party shall have 15 days after the service of that notice upon him or her to file and serve a notice of intention to move for a new trial.

Code of Civ. Proc. §659(a)(2) (emphasis added). Here, when read in conjunction with subsection (b), which exempts Code of Civ. Proc. §659 from the extensions provided in Code of Civ. Proc. §1013, the earliest time to file – and thus the mandatory filing deadline – was no later than 15-days after September 16, 2019, which is October 01, 2019.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s filing the instant motion is untimely, and will be denied on that basis.

---

Prejudice – While the Court need not address the merits of Plaintiff’s argument, as the motion is untimely, the Court will nevertheless note that Plaintiff’s primary argument – that the bifurcation of the action resulted in prejudice – is flawed. First, the motion to bifurcate was a regularly scheduled motion, was fully briefed by the parties, Plaintiff had the opportunity to make oral arguments prior to the Court’s determination, and that Court made its determination on the merits of the motion to bifurcate. Second, at trial, the Court allowed Plaintiff to present his case in full, in order to present his evidentiary basis for holding Defendants liable in the action under the valid terms of his contract with Defendants. Finally, the Court considers the arguments made in the instant motion a type of collateral attack on its March 08, 2019, order regarding bifurcation, and the arguments related to prejudice should have more appropriately been made in opposition to the underlying motion to bifurcate, by means of a motion for reconsideration under Code of Civ. Proc. §1008, or on an appeal from the order.

Ultimately, the burden of persuasion to convince the Jury that Defendants engaged in conduct that fell outside of the scope of the contract between Plaintiff and Defendants was on Plaintiff. The Court permitted Plaintiff to present such evidence and make such arguments as were allowable under the laws of the State of California. That the Jury was unpersuaded by Plaintiff’s evidence and arguments is a matter well within the scope of the Jury’s role as factfinder, and will not be disturbed by the Court on the grounds described by Plaintiff.

---

RULING: DENY MOTION

In the event the parties submit on this tentative ruling, or a party requests a signed order or the court in its discretion elects to sign a formal order, the following form will be either electronically signed or signed in hard copy and entered into the court’s records.

ORDER

Plaintiff Antranik Kevorkian’s Motion to Set Aside Judgment came on regularly for hearing on November 01, 2019, with appearances/submissions as noted in the minute order for said hearing, and the court, being fully advised in the premises, did then and there rule as follows:

THE MOTION IS DENIED.

DATE: _______________ _______________________________

JUDGE