Search

Attributes

This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 06/18/2019 at 14:19:07 (UTC).

MAROOT SAHAKIAN VS SARKIS KHACHMANIAN ET AL

Case Summary

On 12/22/2016 MAROOT SAHAKIAN filed a Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury lawsuit against SARKIS KHACHMANIAN. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Burbank Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is JON R. TAKASUGI. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****4772

  • Filing Date:

    12/22/2016

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Burbank Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

JON R. TAKASUGI

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

SAHAKIAN MAROOT

Defendants and Respondents

DOES 1-10

JAVADYAN ARTUR

KHACHMANIAN SARKIS

QUINTANILLA GUILLERMO R

MINASOVA CARMEN

MINASOVA A. JAVADYAN/CARMEN

CHERCHYAN CAGO

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Defendant Attorneys

STAR LINDA ESQ.

STAR LINDA

 

Court Documents

Order on Court Fee Waiver (Superior Court)

12/22/2016: Order on Court Fee Waiver (Superior Court)

Civil Case Cover Sheet

12/22/2016: Civil Case Cover Sheet

Unknown

8/1/2018: Unknown

Request for Judicial Notice

8/30/2018: Request for Judicial Notice

Unknown

8/30/2018: Unknown

Unknown

9/24/2018: Unknown

Order on Court Fee Waiver (Superior Court)

9/24/2018: Order on Court Fee Waiver (Superior Court)

Order on Court Fee Waiver (Superior Court)

9/24/2018: Order on Court Fee Waiver (Superior Court)

ANSWER-PERSONAL INJURY PROPERTY DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH

9/24/2018: ANSWER-PERSONAL INJURY PROPERTY DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH

Notice

10/16/2018: Notice

Request for Judicial Notice

11/19/2018: Request for Judicial Notice

Demurrer

11/19/2018: Demurrer

Minute Order

1/2/2019: Minute Order

Notice of Ruling

1/2/2019: Notice of Ruling

Unknown

5/8/2019: Unknown

Demurrer - with Motion to Strike

5/29/2019: Demurrer - with Motion to Strike

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

12/22/2016: COMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)

SUMMONS

12/22/2016: SUMMONS

28 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 05/29/2019
  • Demurrer - with Motion to Strike (CCP 430.10); Filed by Sarkis Khachmanian (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/29/2019
  • Motion to Strike (not initial pleading); Filed by Sarkis Khachmanian (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/08/2019
  • Amended Complaint; Filed by Maroot Sahakian (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/08/2019
  • Notice of Change of Address or Other Contact Information; Filed by Maroot Sahakian (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/02/2019
  • Notice of Ruling; Filed by Sarkis Khachmanian (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/29/2019
  • at 09:00 AM in Department D; Status Conference (reMediation and Discovery) - Held - Continued

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/29/2019
  • at 09:00 AM in Department D; Hearing on Demurrer - with Motion to Strike (CCP 430.10) (Plaintiff's Complaint filed on behalf of Defendant Sarkis Khachmanian) - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/29/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Hearing on Demurrer - with Motion to Strike (CCP 430.10) Plai...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/02/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department D; Status Conference (Case Transferred from Spring Street Courthouse) - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/02/2019
  • Notice of Ruling; Filed by Sarkis Khachmanian (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
47 More Docket Entries
  • 06/07/2018
  • at 10:00 AM in Department 3; Final Status Conference (Final Status Conference; Off Calendar) -

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/07/2018
  • Minute order entered: 2018-06-07 00:00:00; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/07/2018
  • Minute Order

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/22/2016
  • COMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/22/2016
  • Order on Court Fee Waiver (Superior Court) (Maroot Sahakian)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/22/2016
  • Summons (on Complaint)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/22/2016
  • Civil Case Cover Sheet

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/22/2016
  • ORDER ON COURT FEE WAIVER

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/22/2016
  • Complaint; Filed by Maroot Sahakian (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/22/2016
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC644772    Hearing Date: December 04, 2020    Dept: D

TENTATIVE RULING

Calendar: 17

Date: 12/4/20

Case No: BC 644772 Trial Date: August 16, 2021

Case Name: Sahakian v. Khachmanian, et al.

MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO SUPPLEMENTAL INTERROGATORIES AND SUPPLEMENTAL DEMAND FOR PRODUCTION

Moving Party: Defendant Sarkis Khachmanian

Responding Party: Plaintiff Maroot Sahakian

RELIEF REQUESTED:

Responses to Supplemental Interrogatories, Set Number One

Responses to Supplemental Demand for Production, Set Number One

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND:

This matter was originally heard on October 30, 2020. The Court published its tentative ruling on the evening of Thursday, October 29, 2020, which was to grant the unopposed motion and to award sanctions in favor of moving party in the sum of $375 in fees and costs of $60.

The court also noted that it had agreed to hear two motions combined into one motion, but that its order would not be effective until moving party paid an additional $60 in filing fees.

The matter was argued, and the minute order indicates that counsel for defendant represented that fees had been paid for two motions. Evidently, plaintiff had filed an opposition which had not been considered by the court, and a reply had also been filed, which indicated that the copies of documents purportedly attached to the opposition were not attached to the copy served on defendant. The matter was continued to this date.

ANALYSIS:

Interrogatories and Documents

Under CCP section 2030.070, a party “may propound a supplemental interrogatory to elicit any later acquired information bearing on all answers previously made by any party in response to interrogatories.” Such a supplemental interrogatory may be propounded “twice before the initial setting of a trial date,” and “once after the initial setting of a trial date.” A similar provision applies to document demands. CCP section 2031.050.

Under CCP § 2030.290, “if a party to whom interrogatories are directed fails to serve a timely response,” that party “waives any legal right to exercise the option to produce...as well as any objection to the interrogatories, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product...” Under subdivision (b), “the party propounding the interrogatories may move for an order compelling response to the interrogatories.” CCP §2031.300 contains similar provisions with respect to requests to produce documents.

In this case, supplemental interrogatories and document production demands have been directed to plaintiff, and plaintiff has failed to serve timely responses. The declaration in opposition to the motion indicates that plaintiff did not receive the Supplemental Interrogatories and Supplemental Demand for Production, which were served on May 15, 2020, but only received a Notice of Taking Deposition and Special Interrogatories. [Sahakian Decl. , paras. 2-4]. Plaintiff then indicates that plaintiff did not receive meet and confer letters dated June 23 and 24, 2020, and served responses to the subject discovery, and produced documents, on July 3, 2020. [Sahakian Decl., para. 7]. The evidence offered of the service of responses are proofs of service. [Sahakian Decl., para. 7, Exs. 4, 5]. The actual discovery responses are not included with the opposition, the declaration stating, “Once more, due to privacy issues, I did not attach the copies Re responses to the defendant’s discovery/production request. However, I will have all responses to defendant’s discovery at the time of the hearing set for Oct. 30, 2020.” [Sahakian Decl., para. 7].

Defendant argues in the reply that the discovery responses have never been served, and were not produced at the hearing, and that if the responses exist, it would be simple to photocopy and provide them, but plaintiff has failed to do so. Defendant also argues that plaintiff’s argument that plaintiff never received the discovery or meet and confer correspondence concerning the discovery appears contradicted by the fact that plaintiff is now claiming to have served responses on July 3, 2020.

It would appear that if the responses were actually served as represented by plaintiff, plaintiff should have produced copies of those verified responses long before now. As far can be ascertained from the papers, responses still have yet to be properly served, or submitted as evidence to the court, and it would appear that defendant is entitled to an order compelling appropriate responses.

Accordingly, the court finds that plaintiff has failed to serve timely responses, and therefore waived the option to produce, as well as all objections, and is ordered to respond.

Sanctions

With respect to interrogatories, under CCP section 2030.290(c), “The court shall impose a monetary sanction… against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a response to interrogatories…” A similar provision applies to document demands. See CCP section 2031.300(c).

CCP § 2023.010 provides that misuse of the discovery process includes, “(d) Failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery.” Where there has been such conduct, under CCP section 2023.030(a), “the court may impose a monetary sanction ordering that one engaging in the misuse of the discovery process, or any attorney advising that conduct, or both pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct....If a monetary sanction is authorized” by the statute, “the court shall impose that sanction unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that the other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” CCP §2023.030(a).

Under CRC Rule 3.1348(a): “The court may award sanctions under the Discovery Act in favor of a party who files a motion to compel, even though no opposition to the motion was filed…”

In this case, plaintiff has failed to timely respond to authorized methods of discovery, and made this motion, and its continued pursuit necessary, and moving party has provided evidence that moving party has incurred expenses as a result of the conduct. Although the opposition argues that responses have in fact been served, no credible evidence of this has been submitted to the court. Sanctions accordingly are awarded. Defendant requests $610 in sanctions. However, the declaration in support of the motion supports only an award of the sum of $510 for the motion. The moving party also requests 2 hours at $150 per hour to attend the hearing for the motion, when the appearance will likely be remote, so that the attorney time for the hearing will be reduced to one-half hour with the court allotting total attorney time at 2.5 hours for sanctions of $375.00.

As noted above, the court had been previously concerned that this motion was brought as one motion, when it is really two motions, without two reservations having been made and two fees paid. The reply indicates, and the file reflects, that two reservations and filing fees were in fact made and paid, and the reply indicates that while defendant originally intended to file two motions, opted to file one motion, but will not make that mistake again. The ruling will accordingly not be conditioned on any payment of an additional filing fee.

RULING:

Defendant’s Motion to Compel Answers to Supplemental Interrogatories and Supplemental Demand for Production:

The Court has now considered the opposition papers, reply and supplemental reply.

Motion is GRANTED.

Plaintiff Maroot Sahakian is ordered to serve responses, without objection, to Supplemental Interrogatory, Set Number One, and Supplemental Demand for Production, Set Number One, and to permit inspection and copying, within ten days.

Monetary sanctions requested by moving party: Utilizing a lodestar approach, and in view of the totality of the circumstances, the Court finds that the total and reasonable amount of attorney’s fees and costs incurred for the work performed in connection with the pending motion is $375.00 (2.5 hours @ $150/hour, [3 hours requested] plus costs of $60.00 [$60 requested]) [Amount Requested $610, amount supported $510], which sum is to be awarded in favor of defendant Sarkis Khachmanian and against plaintiff Maroot Sahakian, payable within 30 days. CCP sections 2030.290(c), 2023.010(d), 2023.030(a).

GIVEN THE CORONAVIRUS CRISIS, AND TO PROMOTE APPROPRIATE SOCIAL DISTANCING, UNTIL FURTHER ORDERED, DEPARTMENT D IS ENCOURAGING AUDIO OR VIDEO APPEARANCES

Please make arrangements in advance if you wish to appear via LACourtConnect by visiting www.lacourt.org, and scheduling a remote appearance. Please note that LACourtConnect offers an audio-only appearance option at a current cost of $15.00 and a video appearance option at a cost of $23.00. Counsel and parties (including self-represented litigants) are encouraged not to personally appear, unless they have obtained advance permission of the Court. Anyone who appears in person for the hearing will be required to comply with strict social distancing measures, including, but not limited to, assigned seating, capacity limitations in the courtroom, designated waiting areas, and strictly enforced spacing in line to communicate with court staff. If no appearance is set up through LACourtConnect, or otherwise, then the Court will assume the parties are submitting on the tentative.

Case Number: BC644772    Hearing Date: October 30, 2020    Dept: NCD

TENTATIVE RULING

Calendar: 19

Date: 10/30/20

Case No: BC 644772 Trial Date: August 16, 2021

Case Name: Sahakian v. Khachmanian, et al.

MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO SUPPLEMENTAL INTERROGATORIES AND SUPPLEMENTAL DEMAND FOR PRODUCTION

Moving Party: Defendant Sarkis Khachmanian

Responding Party: Plaintiff Maroot Sahakian (No Opposition)

RELIEF REQUESTED:

Responses to Supplemental Interrogatories, Set Number One

Responses to Supplemental Demand for Production, Set Number One

OPPOSITION:

No opposition.

ANALYSIS:

Interrogatories and Documents

Under CCP section 2030.070, a party “may propound a supplemental interrogatory to elicit any later acquired information bearing on all answers previously made by any party in response to interrogatories.” Such a supplemental interrogatory may be propounded “twice before the initial setting of a trial date,” and “once after the initial setting of a trial date.” A similar provision applies to document demands. CCP section 2031.050.

Under CCP § 2030.290, “if a party to whom interrogatories are directed fails to serve a timely response,” that party “waives any legal right to exercise the option to produce...as well as any objection to the interrogatories, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product...” Under subdivision (b), “the party propounding the interrogatories may move for an order compelling response to the interrogatories.” CCP §2031.300 contains similar provisions with respect to requests to produce documents.

In this case, supplemental interrogatories and document production demands have been directed to plaintiff, and plaintiff has failed to serve timely responses. Defendant has appropriately moved for an order to compel. Accordingly, plaintiff has waived the option to produce, as well as all objections, and is ordered to respond.

Sanctions

With respect to interrogatories, under CCP section 2030.290(c), “The court shall impose a monetary sanction… against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a response to interrogatories…” A similar provision applies to document demands. See CCP section 2031.300(c).

CCP § 2023.010 provides that misuse of the discovery process includes, “(d) Failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery.” Where there has been such conduct, under CCP section 2023.030(a), “the court may impose a monetary sanction ordering that one engaging in the misuse of the discovery process, or any attorney advising that conduct, or both pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct....If a monetary sanction is authorized” by the statute, “the court shall impose that sanction unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that the other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” CCP §2023.030(a).

Under CRC Rule 3.1348(a): “The court may award sanctions under the Discovery Act in favor of a party who files a motion to compel, even though no opposition to the motion was filed…”

In this case, plaintiff has failed to respond to authorized methods of discovery and moving party has provided evidence that moving party has incurred expenses as a result of the conduct. Since the motion is unopposed, there is no evidence that the imposition of sanctions would be unjust. Sanctions accordingly are awarded. Defendant requests $610 in sanctions. However, the declaration in support of the motion supports only an award of the sum of $510 for the motion. The moving party also requests 2 hours at $150 per hour to attend the hearing for the motion, when the appearance will likely be remote, so that the attorney time for the hearing will be reduced to one-half hour with the court allotting total attorney time at 2.5 hours for sanctions of $375.00.

RULING:

[No opposition].

Defendant’s UNOPPOSED Motion to Compel Answers to Supplemental Interrogatories and Supplemental Demand for Production:

The Motion Reservation was for one motion: a single motion to compel responses to discovery. Contrary to this reservation, defendant has combined two motions into one (1) a motion to compel responses to Supplemental Interrogatory, and (2) a motion to compel responses to Supplemental Demand for Production.

Two separate hearing reservations should have been reserved for these two motions to compel. In the future, defendant is ordered to obtain separate hearing reservations and pay separate filing fees. Combining multiple motions under the guise of one motion with one hearing reservation manipulates the Court Reservation System and unfairly jumps ahead of other litigants. Moreover, combining motions to avoid payment of separate filing fees deprives the Court of filing fees it is otherwise entitled to collect. The Court will proceed to consider both motions, as qualified below.

Motion is GRANTED.

Plaintiff Maroot Sahakian is ordered to serve responses, without objection, to Supplemental Interrogatory, Set Number One, and Supplemental Demand for Production, Set Number One, and to permit inspection and copying, within ten days.

Monetary sanctions requested by moving party: Utilizing a lodestar approach, and in view of the totality of the circumstances, the Court finds that the total and reasonable amount of attorney’s fees and costs incurred for the work performed in connection with the pending motion is $375.00 (2.5 hours @ $150/hour, [3 hours requested] plus costs of $60.00 [$60 requested]) [Amount Requested $610, amount supported $510], which sum is to be awarded in favor of defendant Sarkis Khachmanian and against plaintiff Maroot Sahakian, payable within 30 days. CCP sections 2030.290(c), 2023.010(d), 2023.030(a).

The Court notes it has exercised its discretion to hear two motions (concerning Supplemental Interrogatory and Supplemental Demand for Production), but this order will not become effective until moving party pays an additional $60 in filing fees.

GIVEN THE CORONAVIRUS CRISIS, AND TO PROMOTE APPROPRIATE SOCIAL DISTANCING, UNTIL FURTHER ORDERED, DEPARTMENT D IS ENCOURAGING AUDIO OR VIDEO APPEARANCES

Please make arrangements in advance if you wish to appear via LACourtConnect by visiting www.lacourt.org, and scheduling a remote appearance. Please note that LACourtConnect offers an audio-only appearance option at a current cost of $15.00 and a video appearance option at a cost of $23.00. Counsel and parties (including self-represented litigants) are encouraged not to personally appear, unless they have obtained advance permission of the Court. Anyone who appears in person for the hearing will be required to comply with strict social distancing measures, including, but not limited to, assigned seating, capacity limitations in the courtroom, designated waiting areas, and strictly enforced spacing in line to communicate with court staff. If no appearance is set up through LACourtConnect, or otherwise, then the Court will assume the parties are submitting on the tentative.

Case Number: BC644772    Hearing Date: October 23, 2020    Dept: NCD

TENTATIVE RULING

Calendar: 10

Date: 10/23/2020

Case No: BC 644772 Trial Date: August 16, 2021

Case Name: Sahakian v. Khachmanian, et al.

DISCOVERY MOTIONS (4 Motions)

Moving Party: Defendant and Cross-Complainant Sarkis Khachmanian

Responding Party: Cross-defendant Michael Sahakian (No Opposition)

RELIEF REQUESTED:

Responses to Form and Special Interrogatories, Set No. One

Responses to Request for Production of Documents to Plaintiff, Set Number One

Order Deeming Requests for Admissions deemed admitted

Order compelling to attend deposition

OPPOSITION:

No opposition.

ANALYSIS:

Deposition

Defendant Khachmanian seeks to compel cross-defendant Michael Sahakian to appear for a deposition, which was originally noticed for June 29, 2020, remotely. [Ex. A]. On that date, the deponent failed to appear, and although defense counsel, a court reporter, and counsel for cross-defendant appeared and an affidavit of non-appearance was prepared. [Carter Decl., paras. 4, 5, Ex. B]. Cross-defendant has failed to reschedule the deposition. [Carter Decl., paras. 5, 6].

CCP § 2025.450 (a) provides, in pertinent part:

“(a) If, after service of a deposition notice, a party to the action…, without having served a valid objection under Section 2025.410, fails to appear for examination, or to proceed with it, or to produce for inspection any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing described in the deposition notice, the party giving the notice may move for an order compelling the deponent's attendance and testimony, and the production for inspection of any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing described in the deposition notice.”

The moving papers sufficiently establish here that cross-defendant, a party to the action, evidently did not serve an objection, and failed to appear for an examination. Moving party is accordingly entitled to an order compelling attendance and testimony. The court will enter such an order.

Interrogatories and Documents

Under CCP § 2030.290, “if a party to whom interrogatories are directed fails to serve a timely response,” that party “waives any legal right to exercise the option to produce...as well as any objection to the interrogatories, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product...” Under subdivision (b), “the party propounding the interrogatories may move for an order compelling response to the interrogatories.” CCP §2031.300 contains similar provisions with respect to requests to produce documents.

In this case, interrogatories and document production demands have been directed to cross-defendant Michael Sahakian and cross-defendant has failed to serve timely responses. Defendant has appropriately moved for an order to compel. Accordingly, cross-defendant has waived the option to produce, as well as all objections, and is ordered to respond.

Requests for Admissions

Under CCP § 2033.280, a party who fails to serve a timely response to requests for admissions “waives any objection to the requests.” In addition, the requesting party may move for an order that “the truth of any matters specified in the requests be deemed admitted, as well as for a monetary sanction....” CCP Section 2033.280(b). The code specifies that “The court shall make this order, unless it finds that the party to whom the requests for admissions have been directed has served, before the hearing on the motion, a proposed response to the request for admissions that is in substantial compliance with Section 2033.220.” CCP section 2033.280(c).

In this case, requests for admissions were served on cross-defendant Michael Sahakian on May 15, 2020, and defendant extended a unilateral extension of time to respond to June 30, 2020. Cross-defendant has failed to serve timely responses. Defendant has appropriately moved for an order to have the truth of the matters specified in the discovery deemed admitted. Unless a proposed response in substantial compliance with section 2033.220 is served prior to the hearing, the court must grant the motion.

Sanctions

With respect to Requests for Admissions, CCP section 2033.280(c) provides:

“It is mandatory that the court impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with section 2023.010) on the party or attorney, or both, whose failure to serve a timely response to requests for admissions necessitated this motion.”

With respect to interrogatories, under CCP section 2030.290(c), “The court shall impose a monetary sanction… against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a response to interrogatories…” A similar provision applies to document demands. See CCP section 2031.300(c).

With respect to depositions, under CCP section 2025.450 (c), “if a motion under subdivision (a) is granted, the court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) in favor of that party and against the deponent...unless the court finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.”

CCP § 2023.010 provides that misuse of the discovery process includes, “(d) Failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery.” Where there has been such conduct, under CCP section 2023.030(a), “the court may impose a monetary sanction ordering that one engaging in the misuse of the discovery process, or any attorney advising that conduct, or both pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct....If a monetary sanction is authorized” by the statute, “the court shall impose that sanction unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that the other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” CCP §2023.030(a).

Under CRC Rule 3.1348(a): “The court may award sanctions under the Discovery Act in favor of a party who files a motion to compel, even though no opposition to the motion was filed…”

In this case, cross-defendant has failed to respond to several authorized methods of discovery and moving party has provided evidence that moving party has incurred expenses as a result of the conduct. Since the motion is unopposed, there is no evidence that the imposition of sanctions would be unjust. Sanctions will accordingly be awarded. Defendant requests $660 for the interrogatories motion, and $510 for each of the other three motions. However, the declaration in support of the interrogatories motion supports only an award of the sum of $510 for that motion as well. The moving party requests 2 hours at $150 per hour to attend the hearing for each of the motions, when the motions will be heard together, and appearance will likely be remote. The time to attend the hearing should be awarded only once and will be reduced to one-half hour for the remote appearance for all motions. Otherwise, the sanctions appear reasonable.

RULING:

[No opposition].

Defendant’s UNOPPOSED Motion to Compel Answers to Form and Special Interrogatories is GRANTED.

Cross-defendant Michael Sahakian is ordered to serve responses, without objection, to Form Interrogatories, Set No. One, and Special Interrogatories, Set Number One, within ten days.

Monetary sanctions requested by moving party: Utilizing a lodestar approach, and in view of the totality of the circumstances, the Court finds that the total and reasonable amount of attorney’s fees and costs incurred for the work performed in connection with the pending motion is $600.00 (4 hours @ $150/hour, including one-half hour for the remote court appearance for all the motions, plus costs of $60.00 [$60 requested]) [Amount Requested $660, amount supported $510], which sum is to be awarded in favor of defendant Sarkis Khachmanian and against cross-defendant Michael Sahakian, payable within 30 days. CCP sections 2030.290(c), 2023.010(d), 2023.030(a).

Defendant’s UNOPPOSED Motion to Compel Response to Request for Production of Documents is GRANTED. Cross-defendant Michael Sahakian is ordered to serve responses, without objection, to Demand for Production, Set Number One, and to permit inspection and copying, within ten days.

Monetary sanctions requested by moving party: Utilizing a lodestar approach, and in view of the totality of the circumstances, the Court finds that the total and reasonable amount of attorney’s fees and costs incurred for the work performed in connection with the pending motion is $510.00 (3.4 hours @ $150/hour, plus costs of $ [$60 requested])) [Amount Requested $510], which sum is to be awarded in favor of defendant Sarkis Khachmanian and against cross-defendant Michael Sahakian, payable within 30 days. CCP sections 2031.300(c), 2023.010(d), 2023.030(a).

UNOPPOSED Motion to Deem Request for Admissions to be Admitted is GRANTED.

The Court finds that cross-defendant Michael Sahakian has failed to serve timely responses to Defendant’s Requests for Admission, Set Number One.

The Court finds that proposed responses substantially complying with the provisions of CCP § 2033.220 have not been served prior to the hearing on this matter.

The Court therefore orders that all matters specified in Defendant’s Requests for Admissions, Set Number One, are deemed admitted as truth. (CCP §2033.280 (c)).

Monetary sanctions requested by moving party: Utilizing a lodestar approach, and in view of the totality of the circumstances, the Court finds that the total and reasonable amount of attorney’s fees and costs incurred for the work performed in connection with the pending motion is $510.00 (3.4 hours @ $150/hour, plus costs of $60.00 [$60 requested])) [Amount Requested $510], which sum is to be awarded in favor of defendant Sarkis Khachmanian and against cross-defendant Michael Sahakian, payable within 30 days. CCP §§ 2033.280(c), 2023.010(d), 2023.030(a).

Defendant’s UNOPPOSED Motion to Compel Cross-Defendant’s Attendance at Deposition is GRANTED. Cross-defendant Michael Sahakian is ordered to appear for a remote deposition and give testimony on November 6, 2020 at 9:00 a.m.

Monetary sanctions requested by moving party: Utilizing a lodestar approach, and in view of the

totality of the circumstances, the Court finds that the total and reasonable amount of attorney’s

fees and costs incurred for the work performed in connection with the pending motion is $510.00 (3.4 hours @ $150/hour, plus costs of $60.00 [$60 requested])) [Amount Requested $510], which sum is to be awarded in favor of defendant Sarkis Khachmanian and against cross-defendant Michael Sahakian, payable within 30 days. CCP §§ 2025.450 (g)(1), 2023.010 (d) and 2023.030 (a).

GIVEN THE CORONAVIRUS CRISIS, AND TO PROMOTE APPROPRIATE SOCIAL DISTANCING, UNTIL FURTHER ORDERED, DEPARTMENT D IS ENCOURAGING AUDIO OR VIDEO APPEARANCES

Please make arrangements in advance if you wish to appear via LACourtConnect by visiting www.lacourt.org, and scheduling a remote appearance. Please note that LACourtConnect offers an audio-only appearance option at a current cost of $15.00 and a video appearance option at a cost of $23.00. Counsel and parties (including self-represented litigants) are encouraged not to personally appear, unless they have obtained advance permission of the Court. Anyone who appears in person for the hearing will be required to comply with strict social distancing measures, including, but not limited to, assigned seating, capacity limitations in the courtroom, designated waiting areas, and strictly enforced spacing in line to communicate with court staff. If no appearance is set up through LACourtConnect, or otherwise, then the Court will assume the parties are submitting on the tentative.

Case Number: BC644772    Hearing Date: January 24, 2020    Dept: NCD

TENTATIVE RULING

Calendar: 9

Date: 1/24/20

Case No: BC 644772 Trial Date: April 13, 2020

Case Name: Sahakian v. Khachmanian, et al.

MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

[CCP § 664.6]

Moving Party: Defendant Sarkis Khachmanian

Responding Party: Plaintiff Maroot Sahakian (No Opposition)

Meet and Confer: Yes

RELIEF REQUESTED:

Strike Second Amended Complaint

CAUSES OF ACTION: from Second Amended Cross-Complaint

1) Assault

2) Battery

3) Negligence

SUMMARY OF FACTS:

Plaintiff Maroot Sahakian alleges that he was a paying tenant of defendant Sarkis Khachmanian at premises in Glendale, and that plaintiff was attacked and beaten by other tenants at the property, defendants Minasova, Artur, and a trespasser illegally housing with them, defendant Guillermo, as a result of which plaintiff suffered severe and disabling injuries.

Plaintiff alleges that defendant Khachamanian, and his employee and building manager, defendant Cago Cherchyan, were aware of dangerous violent behaviors or tendencies of the other defendants, and specifically that Minasova, a transgender, was doing hormone replacement therapy without a doctor’s supervision and having violent episodes due to unbalanced testosterone level/intake, and had heard from Minasova directly that Minasova had no recollection or ability to control the violent and bizarre conduct. Plaintiff alleges that defendants had been advised by plaintiff and his son that they were afraid of the co-tenant defendants, that the other defendants had been physically violent, and that defendants witnessed plaintiff being grabbed by his neck and shirt, and choked, and also witnessed Minasova brandishing his gun toward plaintiff and telling plaintiff Minasova was not afraid to use the gun. Plaintiff alleges that he repeatedly requested that defendants Khachmanian and the manager advise the other defendants to stay away from plaintiff or to evict them, but defendants failed and refused to take the requested action, therefore negligently failing to protect plaintiff from the physical attack which forms this lawsuit.

Moving defendant filed a demurrer and motion to strike in response to the original complaint which was heard on March 29, 2019. The unopposed demurrer and motion to strike were sustained with leave to amend and granted with leave to amend.

Moving defendant filed a demurrer and motion to strike in response to the First Amended Complaint, which was heard on September 27, 2019. The unopposed demurrer was overruled. The unopposed motion to strike, directed to the claim for punitive damages, was granted without leave to amend, the court finding:

“The motion was previously granted, in part, on the ground the complaint had failed “to sufficiently allege conduct on the part of moving defendant which would support a finding defendant acted with oppression, fraud or malice.” The only remaining cause of action against the moving defendant, for negligence, again fails to allege conduct beyond negligence, which again would not support a finding that moving defendant acted with oppression, fraud or malice.”

On October 4, 2019, plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint.

ANALYSIS:

Defendant Sarkis Khachmanian argues that the SAC should be stricken because a previous demurrer to the FAC was overruled, and the motion to strike sustained without leave to amend, so there was no order of the court permitting leave to amend, and plaintiff Sahakian failed to obtain leave of court prior to filing the SAC.

Under CCP section 436, the court may, upon motion, or at any time in its discretion:

“(b) Strike out all or any part of any pleading not drawn or filed in conformity with the laws of this state, a court rule, or an order of the court.”

CCP § 472 provides that “any pleading may be amended once by the party of course, and without costs, at any time before the answer or demurrer is filed, or after demurrer and before the trial of the issue of law thereon.”

Defendant’s argument is that the pleading had already been amended, and since the challenge to the FAC was resolved without the court permitting leave to amend, but specifically ordering that punitive damages were stricken without leave to amend, plaintiff was required to obtain leave of court to file an amended pleading.

The pleading was not filed in conformity with this court’s previous order expressly denying leave to amend, and the motion is granted on this ground.

With respect to amendments other than as a matter of course, or permitted by a court order, under CCP § 473(a)(1):

“The court may, in furtherance of justice, and on any terms as may be proper, allow a party to amend any pleading or proceeding by adding or striking out the name of any party, or by correcting a mistake in the name of a party, or a mistake in any other respect; and may, upon like terms, enlarge the time for answer or demurrer. The court may likewise, in its discretion, after notice to the adverse party, allow, upon any terms as may be just, an amendment to any pleading or proceeding in other particulars; and may upon like terms allow an answer to be made after the time limited by this code.”

Any amendment here, which was not authorized or permitted, was required to be requested of the court “after notice to the adverse party,” and in conformity with the Rules of Court governing such a motion. See CRC Rule 3.1324. The Second District has noted that “the authorities have recognized the propriety of a motion to strike an amended complaint filed without requisite leave of court.” Neal v. Bank of America Nat. Trust & Savings Ass’n (1949) 93 Cal.App. 2nd 678, 682.

There is no opposition here, so no argument to the contrary. The motion is granted, and the Second Amended Complaint stricken without prejudice to plaintiff filing an appropriate motion for leave to amend the pleading, if appropriate.

RULING:

[No Opposition]

UNOPPOSED Motion to Strike the Entire Second Amended Complaint As Well As Portions Thereof is GRANTED.

The Second Amended Complaint is stricken as not filed in conformity with the laws of this state, or the order of this court, as the court on September 27, 2019 ordered a motion to strike granted without leave to amend, and the SAC was filed in violation of that order, and without plaintiff having obtained advanced leave of court to file such an amended pleading. See under CCP § 473(a).

Motion is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to plaintiff seeking leave to file an amended pleading on noticed motion, if appropriate.

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases represented by Lawyer STAR LINDA