This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 06/28/2019 at 00:32:33 (UTC).

ANZHELINA MARONYAN VS MERCEDES-BENZ USA LLC

Case Summary

On 05/08/2015 ANZHELINA MARONYAN filed a Contract - Other Contract lawsuit against MERCEDES-BENZ USA LLC. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Burbank Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are LAURA A. MATZ, OTHER DISTRICT JUDGE, CURTIS A. KIN and MICHAEL S. MINK. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****3837

  • Filing Date:

    05/08/2015

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Contract - Other Contract

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Burbank Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

LAURA A. MATZ

OTHER DISTRICT JUDGE

CURTIS A. KIN

MICHAEL S. MINK

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs and Respondents

MARONYAN ANZHELINA

MARONYAN LYUDMILA

Defendant and Appellant

MERCEDES-BENZ USA LLC

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorneys

TURNAGE ELLEN E

KAZEROUNI MOHAMMAD REZA

TURNAGE ELLEN EZELLE

KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP APC

Defendant Attorneys

SHARON SHIN LEHRMAN LAW GROUP

LEHRMAN KATE

 

Court Documents

Notice

5/8/2015: Notice

Legacy Document

5/18/2016: Legacy Document

Legacy Document

5/23/2016: Legacy Document

Legacy Document

5/24/2016: Legacy Document

Minute Order

4/26/2017: Minute Order

Minute Order

10/2/2018: Minute Order

Reply

10/5/2018: Reply

Opposition

10/5/2018: Opposition

Motion in Limine

10/5/2018: Motion in Limine

Motion to Quash

10/15/2018: Motion to Quash

Minute Order

10/23/2018: Minute Order

Certificate of Mailing for

10/26/2018: Certificate of Mailing for

Other -

10/26/2018: Other -

Declaration

12/21/2018: Declaration

Memorandum of Costs (Summary)

12/28/2018: Memorandum of Costs (Summary)

Declaration

12/28/2018: Declaration

Declaration re: Attorney's Fees

1/28/2019: Declaration re: Attorney's Fees

Notice

2/5/2019: Notice

172 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 06/20/2019
  • Appeal - Notice of Default Issued; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/21/2019
  • Respondent's Ntc Designating Record of Appeal; Filed by ANZHELINA MARONYAN (Respondent)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/17/2019
  • Notice of Lodging (of Plaintiff's Trial Exhibits Requested by Defendant and Stipulated to by Plaintiff); Filed by ANZHELINA MARONYAN (Respondent)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/17/2019
  • Proof of Service by Mail; Filed by ANZHELINA MARONYAN (Respondent)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/13/2019
  • Appeal - Reporter Appeal Transcripts Deposit Paid (Appellant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/13/2019
  • Appeal - Reporter Appeal Transcript Process Fee Paid; Filed by MERCEDES-BENZ USA LLC (Appellant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/13/2019
  • Appeal - Ntc Designating Record of Appeal APP-003/010/103; Filed by MERCEDES-BENZ USA LLC (Appellant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/24/2019
  • Appeal - Notice of Default Issued; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/16/2019
  • at 09:00 AM in Department E, Curtis A. Kin, Presiding; Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/11/2019
  • Appeal - Notice of Filing of Notice of Appeal; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
283 More Docket Entries
  • 06/08/2015
  • Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by ANZHELINA MARONYAN (Plaintiff); LYUDMILA MARONYAN (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/08/2015
  • Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/08/2015
  • Notice of Case Assignment - Unlimited Civil Case

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/08/2015
  • Notice of Case Management Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/08/2015
  • Notice (of OSC)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/08/2015
  • Summons; Filed by null

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/08/2015
  • Complaint filed-Summons Issued; Filed by null

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/08/2015
  • Civil Case Cover Sheet

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/08/2015
  • Summons Filed

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/08/2015
  • Complaint filed-Summons Issued

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: EC063837    Hearing Date: June 23, 2020    Dept: E

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND

TO SET ASIDE JUDGMENT

[CCP § 1008(a)]

Date: 6/23/20 (10:00 AM)

Case: Anzhelina Maronyan et al. v. Mercedes-Benz USA LLC (EC063837)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff Lyudmila Maronyan’s “Motion Pursuant to C.C.P. § 1008(B) for Subsequent Application to Set Aside Judgment as to Lyudmila Maronyan Based on New Law” is DENIED.

“A court may reconsider its order granting or denying a motion and may even reconsider or alter its judgment so long as judgment has not yet been entered. Once judgment has been entered, however, the court may not reconsider it and loses its unrestricted power to change the judgment. It may correct judicial error only through certain limited procedures such as motions for new trial and motions to vacate the judgment.” (Passavanti v. Williams (1990) 225 Cal.App.3d 1602, 1606.) Here, judgment was entered on January 30, 2019. The Court has no jurisdiction to reconsider the judgment. (APRI Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 176, 180.)

Plaintiff contends the Court should construe this motion as a motion to vacate the judgment under CCP § 663, arguing that the legal basis upon which judgment was entered against Lyudmila Maronyan was erroneous. However, plaintiff never moved to vacate the judgment within 180 days after entry of the judgment, which is the outermost time limit provided for by CCP § 663a(a)(2). Moreover, although plaintiff asserts in Reply that the Court possesses “the power to vacate the judgment when it is the right thing to do” (Reply at 3), plaintiff cites no relevant authority indicating the Court may consider a motion to vacate judgment outside the jurisdictional time limits based on new law. (Cf. County of Inyo v. City of Los Angeles (1984) 160 Cal.App.3d 1178, 1183–84 [“Even ... a consent that [the] motion be granted ... could not give the court power to act after the time had elapsed within which proceedings by motion could be instituted.”].)

In any event, even if the Court were to consider Patel v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC (2019) 43 Cal.App.5th 1007, that case does not mandate vacating the judgment here. The issue before the Court of Appeal in Patel was “whether attorney fees should be limited because Patel—the lessee and party to the express warranty—initiated the case, but the jury ultimately awarded damages to Fayaz rather than Patel.” (Id. at p. 1016.) The Court of Appeal found, “The trial court erred by finding that Patel was not a prevailing party, and by limiting the attorney fee award to fees incurred only after Fayaz was added as a party.” (Id. at p. 1018.) The question of whether Fayaz (not a signatory to the lease) was a proper plaintiff was neither presented to nor addressed by the Court of Appeal. Thus, the Court of Appeal did not determine whether and/or under what circumstances a plaintiff must be a party to the lease agreement to recover under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act. Because “[c]ases are not authority for propositions not considered therein” (State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Pietak (2001) 90 Cal.App.4th 600, 614), Patel v. Mercedez-Benz would not constitute new law upon which a timely brought motion to vacate judgment might rest.