This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 05/06/2019 at 13:18:33 (UTC).

SIAMAK ETEHAD M.D. VS. ARNO MELIKYAN

Case Summary

On 06/01/2016 SIAMAK ETEHAD M D filed a Contract - Other Contract lawsuit against ARNO MELIKYAN. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Chatsworth Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The case status is Other.

Case Details Parties Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****7087

  • Filing Date:

    06/01/2016

  • Case Status:

    Other

  • Case Type:

    Contract - Other Contract

  • Courthouse:

    Chatsworth Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

ETEHAD M.D. SIAMAK

Defendants and Cross Plaintiffs

AGAKHANYAN ARSHAK

REGENCY TRANSPORT INC

BRAND DONALD

MELIKYAN ARNO

REGENCY CAR RENTALS LLC

MELIKYAN EDVIN

LAW OFFICES OF HENRIK MOSESI

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

ROSENBERG ERIC I.

Other Attorneys

MGDESYAN & TAHERIPOUR

BROWN & CHARBONNEAU LLP

THE SHIRVANIAN LAW FIRM APLC

BENNETT ERIC D.

Court Documents

Court documents are not available for this case.

 

Docket Entries

  • 05/07/2018
  • at 10:00 AM in Department F47; Unknown Event Type - Not Held - Taken Off Calendar by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/07/2018
  • Request for Dismissal; Filed by SIAMAK ETEHAD M.D. (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/07/2018
  • Order Appointing Court Approved Reporter as Official Reporter Pro Tempore; Filed by SIAMAK ETEHAD M.D. (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/03/2018
  • Miscellaneous-Other; Filed by ARNO MELIKYAN (Legacy Party)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/30/2018
  • at 08:30 AM in Department F47; Ex-Parte Proceedings (Ex Parte Application; Denied) -

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/30/2018
  • Opposition; Filed by SIAMAK ETEHAD M.D. (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/30/2018
  • Order Appointing Court Approved Reporter as Official Reporter Pro Tempore; Filed by Defendant

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/30/2018
  • Ex-Parte Application; Filed by ARNO MELIKYAN (Legacy Party)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/30/2018
  • Order Appointing Court Approved Reporter as Official Reporter Pro Tempore; Filed by Defendant

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/27/2018
  • at 08:30 AM in Department F47; Final Status Conference (Final Status Conference; Held, Not Settled - Conference Set) -

    Read MoreRead Less
74 More Docket Entries
  • 09/28/2016
  • Answer to Cross-Complaint; Filed by Cross-Defendant

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/16/2016
  • Demurrer; Filed by SIAMAK ETEHAD M.D. (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/24/2016
  • Answer; Filed by DONALD BRAND (Legacy Party)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/24/2016
  • Cross-Compl fld- No Summons Issued; Filed by DONALD BRAND (Legacy Party)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/08/2016
  • Answer; Filed by ARNO MELIKYAN (Legacy Party); REGENCY CAR RENTALS, LLC (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/24/2016
  • Notice of Ruling; Filed by SIAMAK ETEHAD M.D. (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/23/2016
  • at 1:30 PM in Department F47; (Case Ordered Reassigned; Case Reassigned for all purposes) -

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/17/2016
  • at 08:30 AM in Department F49; (Affidavit of Prejudice; Transferred to Diff. Department) -

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/01/2016
  • Complaint filed-Summons Issued; Filed by null

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/01/2016
  • Summons; Filed by null

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: PC057087    Hearing Date: April 13, 2021    Dept: F47

Dept. F-47

Date: 4/13/21

Case #PC057087

MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

Motion filed on 3/11/21.

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Siamak Etehad, M.D.

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant Arno Melikyan

NOTICE: ok

RELIEF REQUESTED: An order enforcing the settlement reached by the parties in this case by entering judgment against Defendant Arno Melikyan in the amount of $158,000.

RULING: The motion is granted.

Plaintiff is reminded to review the 5/3/19 First Amended General Order Re Mandatory Electronic Filing for Civil. When e-filing documents, parties must comply with the “TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS” which are set forth at page 4, line 4 through page 5, line 12 of the Court’s 5/3/19 First Amended General Order Re Mandatory Electronic Filing for Civil (specifically, bookmarking declarations and exhibits). See also CRC 3.1110(f)(4). Failure to comply with these requirements in the future may result in papers being rejected, matters being placed off calendar, matters being continued so documents can be resubmitted in compliance with these requirements, documents not being considered and/or the imposition of sanctions.

After the 5/7/18 Settlement Conference, the parties entered a Stipulation for Entry of Judgment which provided that Plaintiff was entitled to recover $188,000.00 with a reduction and credit of $18,000.00 upon the initial payment of $10,000.00 from Defendant Arno Melikyan. (Comer Decl., Ex.A; Ethad Decl., Ex.A). Thereafter, Defendant was to pay the $160,000.00 balance in monthly installments of $1,000.00. Id. The Court was to retain jurisdiction pursuant to CCP 664.6. Id.

Plaintiff provides a declaration stating that Defendant timely made the $10,000.00 down payment and two monthly installment payments, but then defaulted by not making any further payments. (Etehad Decl. ¶3). The declaration of Plaintiff’s prior attorney submitted in support of a prior application/motion to enforce the settlement agreement and enter judgment set forth a lesser amount purportedly owed by Defendant. (See Boyadzhyan Decl., Ex.A). Additionally, the notice of default sent by Plaintiff’s current attorney in November 2020 does not make clear the amount owed by Defendant. (Comer Decl., Ex.F; Boyadzhyan Decl., Ex.B). Further, the proposed judgment submitted with the instant motion sets forth judgment should be entered in the amount of $156,000.00. (See proposed Judgment attached to Motion after reservation receipt and proof of service).

The opposition is based on two arguments both of which are without merit. First, Defendant argues that the motion fails because the amounts sought by Plaintiff in relation to the prior motion, the instant motion and the proposed Judgment are inconsistent. However, as noted above, Plaintiff has supported his claim that he is entitled to have judgment entered in his favor in the amount of $158,000.00 with his declaration signed under penalty of perjury. (See Etehad Decl.). In contrast, neither Defendant nor his attorneys have submitted declarations or any other evidence indicating Defendant has paid Plaintiff more than the $12,000.00 Plaintiff admits to receiving from Defendant. Therefore, the Court accepts Plaintiff’s statement that $158,000.00 is still owed by Defendant.

Second, Defendant argues that Plaintiff has waived his right to enforce the settlement agreement and have judgment entered thereon because the instant motion was filed more than two years after Defendant’s default. Plaintiff made his first effort to enforce the settlement agreement in August 2019 when the first notice of default was sent to Defendant’s counsel. Thereafter, Plaintiff made further efforts to have judgment entered thereon. Considering the pandemic occurred shortly after Plaintiff’s prior motion to enforce the settlement agreement and enter judgment was taken off calendar by the Court, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s delay in bringing the instant motion does not amount to a waiver of Plaintiff’s right to enforce the settlement agreement and have judgment entered thereon.

Based on the foregoing, the motion is granted. Plaintiff is ordered to submit a separate proposed Judgment which sets forth the correct amount of $158,000.00.

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where Regency Car Rentals, LLC is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer BENNETT ERIC D. ESQ.