This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 12/27/2020 at 23:33:43 (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, 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

CURTIS A. KIN

MICHAEL S. MINK

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs and Respondents

MARONYAN ANZHELINA

MARONYAN LYUDMILA

HYDE & SWIGART APC

KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP APC

Defendants and Appellants

MERCEDES-BENZ USA LLC

LEHRMAN LAW GROUP

Not Classified By Court

KRAWIEC NOELLE C.

RODRIGUEZ CESAR

HYDE & SWIGART APC

HICKS KRISTINE M.

PACTRAK

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

Proof of Service by Mail

11/12/2019: Proof of Service by Mail

Appeal - Notice of Default Issued

11/25/2019: Appeal - Notice of Default Issued

Proof of Service by Mail

3/20/2020: Proof of Service by Mail

Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: OPPOSITION

5/18/2016: Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: OPPOSITION

Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: NOTICE

5/24/2016: Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: NOTICE

Minute Order - Minute order entered: 2018-10-02 00:00:00

10/2/2018: Minute Order - Minute order entered: 2018-10-02 00:00:00

Reply - Reply of Plaintiffs to Defendant's Opposition to Plaintiffs' Amended Motion in Limine to Preclude Defendant From Introducing Evidence or Referring to Plaintiffs' Calls to Defendant's Customer

10/5/2018: Reply - Reply of Plaintiffs to Defendant's Opposition to Plaintiffs' Amended Motion in Limine to Preclude Defendant From Introducing Evidence or Referring to Plaintiffs' Calls to Defendant's Customer

Opposition - Opposition of Plaintiff to Defendant's Motion in Limine No. 5 to Exclude Evidence or Argument Regarding Complaints About the Vehicle That Plaintiff (SIC) Never Presented for Repair; Memor

10/5/2018: Opposition - Opposition of Plaintiff to Defendant's Motion in Limine No. 5 to Exclude Evidence or Argument Regarding Complaints About the Vehicle That Plaintiff (SIC) Never Presented for Repair; Memor

Motion in Limine - Motion in Limine No. 6 of Defendant Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC for Order Excluding Evidence or Argument Regarding Complaints Involving Vehicles Other Than the Subject Vehicle; Memorandu

10/5/2018: Motion in Limine - Motion in Limine No. 6 of Defendant Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC for Order Excluding Evidence or Argument Regarding Complaints Involving Vehicles Other Than the Subject Vehicle; Memorandu

Motion to Quash - MOTION TO QUASH DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR PRODUCTION OF BUSINESS RECORDS OF ANZHELINA MARONYAN AND LYUDMILA MARONYAN FROM MERCEDES BENZ FINANCIAL SERVICES AND INTERINSURANCE EXCHANGE O

10/15/2018: Motion to Quash - MOTION TO QUASH DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR PRODUCTION OF BUSINESS RECORDS OF ANZHELINA MARONYAN AND LYUDMILA MARONYAN FROM MERCEDES BENZ FINANCIAL SERVICES AND INTERINSURANCE EXCHANGE O

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT TRIAL)

10/23/2018: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT TRIAL)

Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for Minute Order (Issuance of Court's Tentative Decision) of 10/26/2018

10/26/2018: Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for Minute Order (Issuance of Court's Tentative Decision) of 10/26/2018

Other - - OTHER - TENTATIVE DECISION

10/26/2018: Other - - OTHER - TENTATIVE DECISION

Declaration - Declaration of Ellen Turnage In Support of Lyudmila Maronyan's Motion for Equitable Relief to Set Aside Judgment

12/21/2018: Declaration - Declaration of Ellen Turnage In Support of Lyudmila Maronyan's Motion for Equitable Relief to Set Aside Judgment

Memorandum of Costs (Summary)

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

Declaration - Declaration of Mohammad Kazerouni in Support to Plaintiff's Motion for Fees & Costs

12/28/2018: Declaration - Declaration of Mohammad Kazerouni in Support to Plaintiff's Motion for Fees & Costs

Declaration re: Attorney's Fees

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

Notice - Notice Notice of Entry of Judgment or Order

2/5/2019: Notice - Notice Notice of Entry of Judgment or Order

202 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 08/07/2020
  • DocketProof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by LYUDMILA MARONYAN (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/07/2020
  • DocketDeclaration (Declaration of Ellen Turnage in Support of Memorandum of Costs on Appeal); Filed by LYUDMILA MARONYAN (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/07/2020
  • DocketMemorandum (Memorandum of Costs on Appeal); Filed by LYUDMILA MARONYAN (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/17/2020
  • DocketAppeal - Remittitur - Appeal Dismissed (B296882); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/23/2020
  • Docketat 10:00 AM in Department E, Curtis A. Kin, Presiding; Hearing on Motion for Reconsideration - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/23/2020
  • DocketCertificate of Mailing for ((Hearing on Motion for Reconsideration) of 06/23/2020); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/23/2020
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Hearing on Motion for Reconsideration)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/05/2020
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department E, Curtis A. Kin, Presiding; Hearing on Motion for Reconsideration - Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/20/2020
  • DocketMemorandum (of Costs on Appeal); Filed by MERCEDES-BENZ USA LLC (Appellant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/20/2020
  • DocketProof of Service by Mail; Filed by MERCEDES-BENZ USA LLC (Appellant)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    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.