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: 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.