Search

Attributes

This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 03/17/2019 at 00:55:36 (UTC).

PRODUCER CAPITAL FUND LLC VS KATHLEEN M ELDON ET AL

Case Summary

On 12/22/2016 PRODUCER CAPITAL FUND LLC filed a Contract - Other Contract lawsuit against KATHLEEN M ELDON. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The case status is Disposed - Dismissed.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****4722

  • Filing Date:

    12/22/2016

  • Case Status:

    Disposed - Dismissed

  • Case Type:

    Contract - Other Contract

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner

PRODUCER CAPITAL FUND LLC

Defendants and Respondents

KATZ MARTIN

JOURNEY FILM PRODUCTIONS LIMITED

PROSPERO PICTURES

KATHY ELDON'S CREATIVE VISIONS INC.

VOLTAGE PICTURES LLC

PLAUSIBLE COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION

KATHLEEN M. ELDON TRUST THE

DOES 1 TO 50

ELDON KATHLEEN M.

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorney

WENZEL WILLIAM S. ESQ.

 

Court Documents

SUMMONS

12/22/2016: SUMMONS

VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR DAM ANGES 1) BREACH OF CONTRACT; ETC

12/22/2016: VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR DAM ANGES 1) BREACH OF CONTRACT; ETC

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

12/28/2016: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

PROOF OF SERVICE?CIVIL

1/9/2017: PROOF OF SERVICE?CIVIL

PROOF OF SERVICE?CIVIL

1/9/2017: PROOF OF SERVICE?CIVIL

PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

1/20/2017: PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

Proof of Service

1/30/2017: Proof of Service

JOINT WITNESS LIST

2/1/2017: JOINT WITNESS LIST

PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

2/27/2017: PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

Minute Order

3/2/2017: Minute Order

DECLARATION OF WILLIAM S. WENZEL SUPPORTING EX PARTE MOTION TO SET ASIDE DISMISSAL

3/2/2017: DECLARATION OF WILLIAM S. WENZEL SUPPORTING EX PARTE MOTION TO SET ASIDE DISMISSAL

ORDER

3/6/2017: ORDER

Minute Order

3/7/2017: Minute Order

Unknown

4/3/2017: Unknown

STIPULATION AND ORDER TO CONTINUE INITIAL STATUS CONFERENCE

4/6/2017: STIPULATION AND ORDER TO CONTINUE INITIAL STATUS CONFERENCE

Minute Order

4/7/2017: Minute Order

CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE ORDER

5/25/2017: CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE ORDER

Minute Order

7/3/2017: Minute Order

21 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 12/11/2017
  • at 10:00 AM in Department 69; Non-Jury Trial (Court Trial - Short Cause; Order of Dismissal) -

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/30/2017
  • at 09:30 AM in Department 69; Final Status Conference (Final Status Conference; Order of Dismissal) -

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/12/2017
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 69; Post-Mediation Status Conference (Conference-Post Mediation Status; Order of Dismissal) -

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/03/2017
  • at 3:20 PM in Department 69; Court Order - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/03/2017
  • Minute Order

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/08/2017
  • Request for Dismissal; Filed by Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/08/2017
  • REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/25/2017
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 69; Case Management Conference (Conference-Case Management; Trial Date Set) -

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/25/2017
  • Minute Order

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/25/2017
  • Case Management Order; Filed by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
51 More Docket Entries
  • 12/28/2016
  • PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/28/2016
  • Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by Producer Capital Fund, LLC (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/27/2016
  • Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by Producer Capital Fund, LLC (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/27/2016
  • OSC-Failure to File Proof of Serv; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/27/2016
  • ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE HEARING

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/27/2016
  • Notice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/27/2016
  • NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/22/2016
  • VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR DAM ANGES 1) BREACH OF CONTRACT; ETC

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/22/2016
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/22/2016
  • Complaint; Filed by Producer Capital Fund, LLC (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC644722    Hearing Date: December 08, 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: BC644722    Hearing Date: December 04, 2020    Dept: D

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where VOLTAGE PICTURES, LLC is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer WENZEL WILLIAM S.