Search

Attributes

This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 06/07/2019 at 00:40:28 (UTC).

GERARDO GUZMAN ET AL VS SHAHEN CHALYAN ET AL

Case Summary

On 05/23/2016 GERARDO GUZMAN filed a Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle lawsuit against SHAHEN CHALYAN. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is GEORGINA T. RIZK. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****1510

  • Filing Date:

    05/23/2016

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

GEORGINA T. RIZK

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs and Petitioners

GUZMAN GERARDO

GONZALEZ MAURICIO

Defendants and Respondents

L.A. CHECKER CAB COMPANY INC.

CHALYAN SHAHEN

DOES 1 TO 50

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

LAW OFFICES OF ALEX NARAYAN APC

CHESNEY STEPHEN LOUIS ESQ.

Defendant Attorney

EVANS NEIL C. ESQ.

 

Court Documents

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR ORDER COMPELLING RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND THINGS FOR INSPECTION AND COPYING AND FOR AN ORDER IMPOSING MONETARY SANCTIONS; ETC.

1/24/2018: NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR ORDER COMPELLING RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND THINGS FOR INSPECTION AND COPYING AND FOR AN ORDER IMPOSING MONETARY SANCTIONS; ETC.

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR ORDER COMPELLING RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES AND FOR AN ORDER IMPOSING MONETARY SANCTIONS; ETC.

1/24/2018: NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR ORDER COMPELLING RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES AND FOR AN ORDER IMPOSING MONETARY SANCTIONS; ETC.

Minute Order

3/5/2018: Minute Order

ORDER AND STIPULATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL FSC AND RELATED MOTION/DISCOVERY DATES PERSONAL INJURY COURTS ONLY CENTRAL DISTRICT

4/4/2018: ORDER AND STIPULATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL FSC AND RELATED MOTION/DISCOVERY DATES PERSONAL INJURY COURTS ONLY CENTRAL DISTRICT

Notice of Motion

1/14/2019: Notice of Motion

Ex Parte Application

1/31/2019: Ex Parte Application

Minute Order

2/6/2019: Minute Order

COMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)

5/23/2016: COMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)

SUMMONS

5/23/2016: SUMMONS

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

7/5/2016: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

7/6/2016: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

PLAINTIFF MAURICIO GONZALEZ'S STATEMENT OF DAMAGES

10/27/2016: PLAINTIFF MAURICIO GONZALEZ'S STATEMENT OF DAMAGES

PLAINTIFF GERARDO GUZMAN'S STATEMENT OF DAMAGES

10/27/2016: PLAINTIFF GERARDO GUZMAN'S STATEMENT OF DAMAGES

PLAINTIFF MAURICIO GONZALEZ'S STATEMENT OF DAMAGES

10/27/2016: PLAINTIFF MAURICIO GONZALEZ'S STATEMENT OF DAMAGES

ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

10/31/2016: ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

Minute Order

10/10/2017: Minute Order

NOTICE OF EX PARTE AND EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER TO CONTINUE TRIAL AND RELATED DISCOVERY/MOTION DATES, DECLARATION OF MANAL J. SANSOUR IN SUPPORT; PROPOSED ORDER

10/10/2017: NOTICE OF EX PARTE AND EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER TO CONTINUE TRIAL AND RELATED DISCOVERY/MOTION DATES, DECLARATION OF MANAL J. SANSOUR IN SUPPORT; PROPOSED ORDER

NOTICE OF RULING

10/12/2017: NOTICE OF RULING

28 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 05/23/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 2, Georgina T. Rizk, Presiding; Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal - Not Held - Vacated by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/26/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 2, Georgina T. Rizk, Presiding; Jury Trial - Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/11/2019
  • at 10:00 AM in Department 2, Georgina T. Rizk, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/06/2019
  • at 1:30 PM in Department 2, Georgina T. Rizk, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Sever

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/06/2019
  • at 1:30 PM in Department 2, Georgina T. Rizk, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Compel (Compelling Responses to Request for Production of Documents and Things for Inspection and Copying and for an Order Imposing Monetary Sanctions;) - Not Held - Taken Off Calendar by Party

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/06/2019
  • at 1:30 PM in Department 2, Georgina T. Rizk, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Compel (Responses to Form Interrogatories and for an Order Imposing Monetary Sanctions;) - Not Held - Taken Off Calendar by Party

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/06/2019
  • at 1:30 PM in Department 2, Georgina T. Rizk, Presiding; Hearing on Motion for Order (Deeming Requests for Admissions Admitted and for an Order Imposing Monetary Sanctions;) - Not Held - Taken Off Calendar by Party

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/06/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Hearing on Motion for Order Deeming Requests for Admissions A...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/05/2019
  • Notice of Ruling; Filed by Gerardo Guzman (Plaintiff); Mauricio Gonzalez (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/04/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 2, Georgina T. Rizk, Presiding; Hearing on Ex Parte Application ( for an Order to Continue Trial and Related Discovery/Motion Dates) - Held - Motion Granted

    Read MoreRead Less
53 More Docket Entries
  • 10/27/2016
  • REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/06/2016
  • Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by Gerardo Guzman (Plaintiff); Mauricio Gonzalez (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/06/2016
  • PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/05/2016
  • Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by Gerardo Guzman (Plaintiff); Mauricio Gonzalez (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/05/2016
  • PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/28/2016
  • PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/28/2016
  • Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by Gerardo Guzman (Plaintiff); Mauricio Gonzalez (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/23/2016
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/23/2016
  • COMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/23/2016
  • Complaint; Filed by Gerardo Guzman (Plaintiff); Mauricio Gonzalez (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC621510    Hearing Date: April 15, 2021    Dept: 29

Guzman, et. al.  vs.  Chalyan, et. al.

TENTATIVE

The Court should GRANT Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel the Deposition of Defendant’s Person Most Knowledgeable.

Legal Standard

A party can move to compel a party’s deposition where the deponent fails to proceed with the examination without having served a valid objection or to produce for inspection any document described in the deposition notice. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.450(a).) 

California Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.450, subdivision (b) provides: 

A motion under subdivision (a) shall comply with both of the following:

1. The motion shall set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the production for inspection of any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing described in the deposition notice. 

2. The motion shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040, or, when the deponent fails to attend the deposition and produce the documents, electronically stored information, or things described in the deposition notice, by a declaration stating that the petitioner has contacted the deponent to inquire about the nonappearance. 

Discussion

Here, Plaintiff seeks to compel the deposition of Defendant’s PMK.

First, Plaintiff has shown good cause justifying the production for documents, etc. Notice of Deposition for Defendant’s PMK was timely served on the Defendant on February 5, 2021. Deposition testimony of the PMK was relevant for Defendant’s RPD, which generally called for discovery that was relevant to the instant action and/or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. In addition, the deposition was scheduled for February 18, 2021, which was before the discovery cut-off date. Although Defendant’s counsel corresponded with Plaintiff’s counsel by e-mail, informing Plaintiff that Defendant was now a defunct entity, the deponent failed to attend the deposition and produce any documents. 

Under CCP section 2025.450, when a party fails to appear for a properly noticed deposition, the Court may order the party to appear for the deposition. Here, the Defendant failed to comply with a properly noticed deposition for its PMK on the topics in the Plaintiff’s notice of deposition. Moreover, the Defendant does not oppose the instant motion. As a result, there are grounds under CCP section 2025.450 to order the Defendant to produce its witness and to produce the requested documents. 

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel the Deposition of Defendant’s Person Most Knowledgeable with respect to Plaintiff’s “Request for Production of Documents and Things for Inspection and Copying, Set No. Two,” is GRANTED. 

Conclusion

Therefore, Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Deposition of Defendant L.A. Checker Cab Company, Inc.’s, Person Most Knowledgeable is GRANTED. 

Moving party is ordered to give notice.

Case Number: BC621510    Hearing Date: April 8, 2021    Dept: 29

Guzman, et. al.  vs.  Chalyan, et. al.

Tentative

Plaintiff Gerardo Guzman’s Motion to Compel Defendant L.A. Checker Cab Company Inc.’s Response to Request for Production of Documents and Things for Inspection and Copying (Set Two) is GRANTED. 

Defendant failed to provide any response to Plaintiff’s request for production, set two. Declaration of Stephen L. Chesney, ¶ 4. Defendant L.A. Checker Cab Company Inc. is therefore ordered to serve verified responses within 10 days and without objection to Request for Production of Documents and Things for Inspection and Copying, Set Two served on Plaintiff on 1/22/21. Cal. Code Civ. Proc, § 2031.300. 

In Plaintiff’s Memorandum in support of the motion, Plaintiff requests for monetary sanctions in the sum of $1,100.00 against Defendant L.A. Checker Cab Company Inc. and Defendant’s counsel. However, Plaintiff’s request is improper because Plaintiff did not request for a sanction in the Notice of Motion, and Plaintiff fails to support the amount of the monetary sanction sought through counsel’s declaration. “A request for a sanction shall, in the notice of motion, identify every person, party, and attorney against whom the sanction is sought, and specify the type of sanction sought. The notice of motion shall be supported by a memorandum of points and authorities, and accompanied by a declaration setting forth facts supporting the amount of any monetary sanction sought.” Cal. Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.040.

Accordingly, Plaintiff Gerardo Guzman’s Motion to Compel Defendant L.A. Checker Cab Company Inc.’s Response to Request for Production of Documents and Things for Inspection and Copying (Set Two) is GRANTED.  However, Plaintiff's request for monetary sanctions is DENIED.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.

Case Number: BC621510    Hearing Date: December 12, 2019    Dept: 2

Guzman et al. v. Chalyan

Plaintiffs’ Motion for Order to (1) Take the Deposition of Prisoner Mauricio Gonzalez; (2) Continue the FSC and Trial; and (3) Sever Mauricio Gonzalez’s Claims and Continue The Trial Until After His Release Is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

The request for an order permitting the deposition of Plaintiffs Mauricio Gonzalez to proceed in state prison is GRANTED pursuant to California Penal Code section 2623. Plaintiffs are ordered to prepare a proposed order for the Court’s signature forthwith and to deliver a courtesy copy of the proposed order to the courtroom in Department 2. Counsel must make arrangements for the deposition immediately; further delays will not be tolerated.

The request for a continuance of the trial and final status conference dates is GRANTED. The papers are not clear as to how long of a continuance is requested. At one point in the papers, Plaintiffs request a continuance to March 26, 2020; in another portion, Plaintiffs seek a six-month continuance; and in yet another portion Plaintiff seeks a continuance to 2021. Good cause having been shown, the Court continues the trial to May 19, 2020 at 8:30 a.m. in Dept. 2 and the final status conference to May 6, 2020 at 10:00 a.m. in Dept. 2. The discovery and motion cut off dates are to be calculated by reference to the new trial dates. The Court is mindful of the age of the case. The parties are admonished that the trial date is firm and that further continuances should not be expected.

The request to sever the claims of Mauricio Gonzalez is DENIED. Guzman and Gonzalez’s claims arise out of the same motor vehicle collision. Severing the claims could result in inconsistent verdicts and judgments. Although counsel has represented that Mr. Gonzalez is presently incarcerated and will be incarcerated until at least February 2021, Mr. Gonzalez’s testimony can be presented at trial through his deposition. The Court concludes, in the exercise of its discretion, that allowing Mr. Gonzalez to testify through deposition in lieu of personal appearance is sufficient to ensure access his access to the Courts. See Wantuch v. Davis (1995) 32 Cal. App. 4th 786, 793-94. Therefore, severing Mr. Gonzalez’s claims and continuing the trial as to his claims until after February 2019 is not necessary.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where L.A. CHECKER CAB COOPERATIVE INC. is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer EVANS NEIL C.