This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 04/05/2019 at 23:08:07 (UTC).

DAVIT GASPARYAN VS MARINA DEMIRCHYAN ET AL

Case Summary

On 08/08/2014 DAVIT GASPARYAN filed a Contract - Other Contract lawsuit against MARINA DEMIRCHYAN. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are ROBERT H. O'BRIEN, DEIRDRE HILL, FREDERICK C. SHALLER and EDWARD B. MORETON. The case status is Disposed - Judgment Entered.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****4306

  • Filing Date:

    08/08/2014

  • Case Status:

    Disposed - Judgment Entered

  • Case Type:

    Contract - Other Contract

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

ROBERT H. O'BRIEN

DEIRDRE HILL

FREDERICK C. SHALLER

EDWARD B. MORETON

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs and Petitioners

GASPARYAN DAVIT

WELLS FARGO BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION

ASV LAW INTERNATIONAL

Defendants and Respondents

DEMIRCHAYAN MARINA

DEMIRCHIAN GRIGOR

DEMIRCHIAN MARINA

DEMIRCHYAN GRIGOR

DOES 1-30

D AND D MARKETING INC.

FOMICHEV DMITRY

Cross Defendant

ZERO PARALLEL LLC

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

BARTON KLUGMAN & OETTING LAW OFFICES OF

FRIEDMAN STEVEN R. ESQ

LEAGO GINA A. ESQ.

FRIEDMAN STEVEN RICHARD ESQ

YOUNG PAUL PHILIP

Defendant and Respondent Attorneys

BAKER PHILLIP A. ESQ.

LIBERTYBELL LAW GROUP

SOLTMAN STEVEN B. ESQ.

SOLTMAN LEVITT FLAHERTY & WATTLES LLP

 

Court Documents

PLAINTIFF'S PROPOSED JOINT WITNESS LIST

1/18/2018: PLAINTIFF'S PROPOSED JOINT WITNESS LIST

DEFENDANTS AND CROSS-COMPLAINANTS' [PROPOSED] STATEMENT OF THE CASE

1/18/2018: DEFENDANTS AND CROSS-COMPLAINANTS' [PROPOSED] STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Minute Order

2/8/2018: Minute Order

DECLARATIONS OF MICHAEL E. FRIEDMAN IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION SUPPLEMENTING PLAINTIFF'S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER MANDATING IMMEDIATE PRODUCTION, SETTING AN ORDER T

2/23/2018: DECLARATIONS OF MICHAEL E. FRIEDMAN IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION SUPPLEMENTING PLAINTIFF'S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER MANDATING IMMEDIATE PRODUCTION, SETTING AN ORDER T

Special Verdict

8/22/2018: Special Verdict

Declaration in Support of Attorney's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel-Civil

11/7/2018: Declaration in Support of Attorney's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel-Civil

Brief

11/9/2018: Brief

Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel

12/13/2018: Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel

PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' UNSERVED AND IMPROPER EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER DISTRIBUTING MONEY TO DEFENDANTS WHICH IS NOT OWNED BY DEFENDANTS; DECLARATION OF MICHAEL E. FRIEDMAN IN S

5/11/2015: PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' UNSERVED AND IMPROPER EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER DISTRIBUTING MONEY TO DEFENDANTS WHICH IS NOT OWNED BY DEFENDANTS; DECLARATION OF MICHAEL E. FRIEDMAN IN S

Minute Order

5/12/2015: Minute Order

NOTICE OF CONTINUANCE RE MOTION AND MOTION TO QUASH PRODUCTION SUBPOENAS BY PLAINTIFF DAVIT GASPARYAN TO THIRD-PARTIES PURSUANT TO CCP ? 1987.1

9/11/2015: NOTICE OF CONTINUANCE RE MOTION AND MOTION TO QUASH PRODUCTION SUBPOENAS BY PLAINTIFF DAVIT GASPARYAN TO THIRD-PARTIES PURSUANT TO CCP ? 1987.1

PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR AN ORDER RELIEVING DEFENDANTS OF THEIR WAIVER OF OBJECTIONS FOR FAILURE TO TIMELY SERVE DISCOVERY RESPONSES; ETC.

10/22/2015: PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR AN ORDER RELIEVING DEFENDANTS OF THEIR WAIVER OF OBJECTIONS FOR FAILURE TO TIMELY SERVE DISCOVERY RESPONSES; ETC.

SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES

12/2/2015: SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES

PROOFS OF SERVICE ON BRIANNA L. ABRAMS

12/9/2015: PROOFS OF SERVICE ON BRIANNA L. ABRAMS

DECLARATION OF PLAINTIFF DAVIT GASPARYAN IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF DAVIT GASPARYAN'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION

10/19/2016: DECLARATION OF PLAINTIFF DAVIT GASPARYAN IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF DAVIT GASPARYAN'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION

DEFENDANTS D AND D MARKETING, INC. AND GRIGOR DERMICHYAN'S VERIFIED ANSWER TO VERIFIED FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

11/1/2016: DEFENDANTS D AND D MARKETING, INC. AND GRIGOR DERMICHYAN'S VERIFIED ANSWER TO VERIFIED FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

CROSS-DEFENDANTS ZERO PARALLEL, LLC.'S AND DAVIT GASPARYAN'S NOTICE OF DEMURRER AND ETC.

11/4/2016: CROSS-DEFENDANTS ZERO PARALLEL, LLC.'S AND DAVIT GASPARYAN'S NOTICE OF DEMURRER AND ETC.

Minute Order

6/21/2017: Minute Order

336 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 04/03/2019
  • at 09:30 AM in Department 44, Edward B. Moreton, Presiding; Hearing on Motion for Order (name extension) (Notice of Motion and Motion of Plaintiff Davit Gasparyan for Contempt reDefendants' failure to comply with the Judgment and Post Judgment Orders) - Not Held - Rescheduled by Party

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/28/2019
  • Writ of Execution; Filed by Davit Gasparyan (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/27/2019
  • Memorandum of Costs After Judgment, Acknowledgment of Credit, and Declaration of Accrued Interest; Filed by Davit Gasparyan (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/15/2019
  • Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by Davit Gasparyan (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/15/2019
  • Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by Davit Gasparyan (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/05/2019
  • at 08:31 AM in Department 49; Hearing on Motion for Attorney Fees

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/01/2019
  • Motion re: (Notice of Motion and Motion of Plaintiff Davit Gasparyan for contempt Re: Defendants' failure to comply with the Judgment and Post Judgment orders); Filed by Davit Gasparyan (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/07/2019
  • Abstract of Judgment - Civil and Small Claims; Filed by Davit Gasparyan (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/07/2019
  • Abstract of Judgment - Civil and Small Claims; Filed by Davit Gasparyan (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/23/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 49; Hearing on Motion for Attorney Fees - Not Held - Rescheduled by Party

    Read MoreRead Less
679 More Docket Entries
  • 09/11/2014
  • Answer; Filed by Marina Demirchayan (Defendant); Grigor Demirchyan (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/14/2014
  • PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/14/2014
  • Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by Davit Gasparyan (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/14/2014
  • Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by Davit Gasparyan (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/14/2014
  • PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/08/2014
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/08/2014
  • COMPLAINT FOR: 1) BREACH OF CONTRACT, ETC

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/08/2014
  • Complaint; Filed by Davit Gasparyan (Plaintiff); Wells Fargo Bank, National Association (Plaintiff); ASV Law International (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/11/2013
  • DEFENDANTST ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/11/2013
  • DEFENDANTS ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

b'

Case Number: BC554306 Hearing Date: August 12, 2021 Dept: 49

Superior Court of\r\nCalifornia

\r\n\r\n

County of Los\r\nAngeles

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Davit\r\nGasparyan ) Case\r\nNo. BC554306

\r\n\r\n

Plaintiff, )

\r\n\r\n

)

\r\n\r\n

)

\r\n\r\n

)

\r\n\r\n

v. )_______________________________

\r\n\r\n

) [Tentative]\r\nRuling

\r\n\r\n

)

\r\n\r\n

Marina\r\nDemirchyan et al. )

\r\n\r\n

Defendants. )

\r\n\r\n

AND\r\nALL RELATED ACTIONS )

\r\n\r\n

_______________________________)________________________________

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Hearing\r\nDate: August 12, 2021

\r\n\r\n

Department\r\n49, Judge Stuart M. Rice

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Moving Parties: Defendants\r\nMarina Demirchyan and Grigor Demirchyan

\r\n\r\n

Responding Party: Plaintiff Davit Gasparyan

\r\n\r\n

Ruling: Motion\r\ngranted in part. The stay of the\r\nFebruary 6, 2020 sentencing order is extended to January 24, 2022. The request to purge the contempt and the\r\nrequest to modify or purge the sentencing order are denied.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Defendants and Judgment Debtors Marina Demirchyan and\r\nGrigor Demirchyan (“Defendants”) move alternatively to 1) purge the civil\r\ncontempt order dated December 17, 2019; or 2) purge the sentencing order issued\r\nin February, 2020; or 3) maintain the current stay on the sentencing order\r\nuntil January 24, 2022 or until such time as the Court deems reasonable. Plaintiff and judgment creditor Davit\r\nGasparyan (“Plaintiff”) opposes.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Background

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

This case revolves around claims by Plaintiff against Defendants,\r\nhis accountants, concerning their fraud and breaches of fiduciary duty in\r\nconnection with Plaintiff’s company D and D Marketing (“DADM”). On November 18, 2018, following a jury trial,\r\nthe Court entered judgment in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendants in the\r\namount of $50,825,750, expressly finding that Defendants had defrauded\r\nPlaintiff and breached their fiduciary duties to him.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

On December 5, 2018, the Court issued a post-judgment\r\norder finding that DADM had been looted by Defendants and was insolvent and\r\nneeded to be wound up. The December 5,\r\n2018 order authorized Plaintiff to assume exclusive control of DADM, and\r\nfurther provided:

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

The Defendants Marina Demirchyan\r\nand Grigor Demirchyan and all persons, entities, partnerships, trusts, webmasters,\r\ntelephone companies, banks, accountants, or landholders of whatever kind are,\r\nupon service of this order, directed and ordered to immediately identify all\r\nproperty of D and D Marketing, Inc. or T3 Leads and to transfer control of said\r\nproperty and all records related to D and D Marketing, Inc. to Davit Gasparyan\r\nor any person or entity designated by Davit Gasparyan. This shall include\r\nidentifying and providing all information regarding all bank accounts, stock\r\naccounts, bonds, negotiable instruments, real property, personal property, all\r\nsoftware, all web sites, all trade names, all contracts, all accounting records\r\nwithout withholding any accounting records of any kind or for any reason, all\r\npasswords and account access, all lists of information, all servers, email\r\nrecords, tax records, financial records, internet domains, phone numbers,\r\nemployment records, contracts as well as any and all other documents or items\r\nof information related to D and D Marketing, Inc.’s conducting of any business.\r\nAll current and former employees, agents, officers, and contractors of D and D\r\nMarketing, Inc. are also hereby ordered to cease taking any direction from\r\nMarina Demirchyan or Grigor Demirchyan and are instead ordered to follow the\r\nexclusive direction of Davit Gasparyan or any person or entity designated by\r\nDavit Gasparyan. All current and former employees, agents, officers, and\r\ncontractors of D and D Marketing, Inc. are further ordered to disclose and\r\nprovide forthwith the above enumerated information and all other information in\r\ntheir possession regarding D and D Marketing, Inc. to Davit Gasparyan or his\r\ndesignee without limitation and without requiring any further Court Order.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

On December 17, 2019, the Court found Defendants in\r\ncontempt of the December 5, 2018 order. \r\nOn February 6, 2020, the Court sentenced Defendants to 5 days in jail as\r\npunishment for the contempt, and additionally, to spend weekends in jail until\r\nsuch time as they had complied with the December 5, 2018 order.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

On March 20, 2020, the Court stayed the sentencing\r\norder due to the COVID-19. Further\r\napplications and stipulations extended the stay to June 18, 2021, and then to\r\nthe hearing date of the instant motion. \r\nThe instant motion to purge civil contempt was filed May 28, 2021.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Discussion

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

In opposition to Defendants’ motion\r\nto purge their contempt, Plaintiff contends that since the February 6, 2020\r\nsentencing order, Defendants have done nothing to comply with the December 5,\r\n2018 order other than turn over two domain names. (See Friedman Decl., ¶¶ 35, 37, 49.) Defendants’ own papers indicate this to be so,\r\nsubsequent to the finding of contempt. \r\nDefendants state that they have produced “the following pertaining to D\r\nand D Marketing, (1) QuickBooks Financial Documents …; Seventeen (17) Bankers\r\nBoxes of Records, in excess of 65,000 pages …; Two (2) Computer Towers in April\r\n2019 …; and Transferred Two Domains….” Defendants identify no other\r\ncompliance.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Except for the turnover of the\r\ndomain names, this appears to have all been before the Court in finding\r\nDefendants in contempt in the first place. \r\n(Friedman Decl., Ex. 17, p. 3.) \r\nMeanwhile, Plaintiff’s attempts to digitally image Defendants’ devices\r\nwere apparently frustrated by Defendants’ noncompliance. (Friedman Decl., ¶ 26; Ex. 10-14.) Defendants have also apparently not produced\r\nthe data underlying the Quickbooks summaries they have produced. (Friedman Decl., ¶¶ 52-56.) Plaintiff contends that Defendants have\r\nrefused to provide a list of employees of DADM, e-mails between them and the\r\nother employees of DADM, or a name of the law firms retained by DADM who might\r\nhave records of DADM. It is\r\ninconceivable that Defendants, who controlled DADM for years, do not possess\r\nthese records or the means of obtaining them. \r\nDefendants were apparently able to hire an attorney, Bradley Lebow, to\r\nobject to the production of certain DADM records by attorney Phil Baker (see\r\nFriedman Decl., Ex. 26), but it is unclear whether this was brought before the\r\nCourt for resolution. Where Defendants\r\ncontend that some objection relieves them of an obligation to comply with the\r\nCourt’s orders, it is Defendants’ responsibility to bring the matter before the\r\nCourt for resolution, as compliance with the orders is on Defendants.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Defendants contend that the contempt\r\nhas become punitive. As set forth above,\r\nDefendants have the apparent ability to comply with the matters Plaintiffs have\r\nidentified in their opposition as outstanding (such as providing their devices\r\nfor imaging). The contempt therefore\r\nremains coercive, not punitive. \r\nMoreover, the contempt sentencing has been stayed (and as set forth\r\nbelow will remain stayed for the foreseeable future). It cannot be said that the contempt has lost\r\nits coercive effect when in fact, it has temporarily lost all effect due\r\nto the pandemic.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Defendants contend that the Court’s\r\nFebruary 11, 2020 order memorializing the sentencing was submitted to the Court\r\nand signed without Plaintiff complying with Rule 3.1312 of the Rules of\r\nCourt. While the Court is concerned\r\nabout the contended noncompliance with the Rules of Court, the February 11,\r\n2020 order plays no part in the Court’s analysis here.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Pursuant to the sentencing, the\r\nparties were ordered to meet and confer on the items outstanding. On February 20, 2020, Plaintiff’s counsel\r\nsent Defendants’ counsel a letter identifying 129 items still outstanding. Defendants express an understandable concern\r\nthat once the COVID-19 pandemic abates, they will be obligated to report to\r\njail until they have complied with the December 5, 2018 order, and that because\r\nthey may never be able to fulfill every one of the 129 demands, they may never\r\nbe free of their coercive sentence.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Plaintiff’s opposition does not\r\nsuggest that compliance with all 129 items would be necessary to purge the\r\ncontempt. Obviously, the inability to do\r\nthe impossible is not a violation of the contempt ruling. (Code Civ. Proc. § 1219(a).) However, Plaintiff identifies pertinent\r\nissues in his opposition which are apparently within Defendants’ power to\r\nperform, such as permitting their devices to be imaged and the like. The list of 129 items was not ordered by the\r\nCourt, and the Court does not now rule that all 129 of these items must be\r\ncomplied with for Defendants’ contempt to be purged. However, Defendants must do more than they\r\nhave done.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

There does not appear to be any\r\nground for purging the contempt or modifying or purging the sentencing\r\norder. However, Plaintiff does not\r\nappear to oppose the request to extend the current stay of the sentencing order\r\nto January 24, 2022. The COVID-19\r\npandemic is ongoing, and the Court has no reservations about granting this\r\nunopposed request. Should a further\r\nextension be necessary at that time, the parties are encouraged to meet and\r\nconfer on another stipulation to extend the stay as they have done in the past.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Conclusion

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

For the foregoing reasons, the\r\nmotion is granted as to the request for an extension of the stay of the\r\nsentencing order to January 24, 2022 and denied as to all other\r\nrequests. Plaintiff to give notice.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n
\r\n

Date: August\r\n 12, 2021

\r\n

\r\n

\r\n
\r\n

\r\n
\r\n

\r\n
\r\n

Honorable Stuart M. Rice

\r\n

Judge of the Superior Court

\r\n

\r\n

\r\n

\r\n

\r\n

\r\n
'
related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where D AND D MARKETING INC. is a litigant

Latest cases where Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer BAKER PHILLIP