Search

Attributes

This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 07/08/2019 at 15:12:21 (UTC).

YESAI SANOYAN VS LUSINE GAMBARYAN

Case Summary

On 03/26/2015 YESAI SANOYAN filed a Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury lawsuit against LUSINE GAMBARYAN. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are ELIA WEINBACH and LAURA A. SEIGLE. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****6938

  • Filing Date:

    03/26/2015

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

ELIA WEINBACH

LAURA A. SEIGLE

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner

SANOYAN YESAI

Defendants and Respondents

DOES 1 TO 25

GAMBARYAN LUSINE

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

LAW OFFICES OF SHAWNA S. NAZARI ESQ.

NAZARI SHAWNA SHAHNAZ ESQ.

Defendant Attorney

ISSAKHANIAN ASBET ALAN ESQ.

 

Court Documents

SUBSTITUTION OF ATTORNEY

2/21/2018: SUBSTITUTION OF ATTORNEY

NOTICE OF NON-AVAILABILITY OF ATTORNEY ASBET A ISSAKKANIAN

4/12/2018: NOTICE OF NON-AVAILABILITY OF ATTORNEY ASBET A ISSAKKANIAN

[Proposed Order] and Stipulation to Continue Trial, FSC (and Related Motion/Discovery Dates) Person

9/26/2018: [Proposed Order] and Stipulation to Continue Trial, FSC (and Related Motion/Discovery Dates) Person

Minute Order

2/13/2019: Minute Order

Minute Order

3/14/2019: Minute Order

SUMMONS

3/26/2015: SUMMONS

CLERK?S NOTICE OF VOIDING OF FILING

7/22/2015: CLERK?S NOTICE OF VOIDING OF FILING

CLERK?S NOTICE OF VOIDING OF FILING (AMENDED)

7/28/2015: CLERK?S NOTICE OF VOIDING OF FILING (AMENDED)

STATEMENT OF DAMAGES (PERSONAL INJURY OR WRONGFUL DEATH)

10/1/2015: STATEMENT OF DAMAGES (PERSONAL INJURY OR WRONGFUL DEATH)

REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT

10/26/2015: REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT

Supplemental Declaration

11/15/2016: Supplemental Declaration

REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT

12/13/2016: REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT

SUBSTITUTION OF ATTORNEY

6/13/2017: SUBSTITUTION OF ATTORNEY

NOTICE OF CONTINUANCE OF THE MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE DEFAULT AND DEFAULT JUDGMENT

7/12/2017: NOTICE OF CONTINUANCE OF THE MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE DEFAULT AND DEFAULT JUDGMENT

EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE DEFAULT AND DEFAULT JUDGMENT

9/8/2017: EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE DEFAULT AND DEFAULT JUDGMENT

PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE DEFAULT AND THE DEFAULT JUDGMENT; ETC.

9/20/2017: PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE DEFAULT AND THE DEFAULT JUDGMENT; ETC.

REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE DEFAULT AND DEFAULT JUDGMENT

9/25/2017: REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE DEFAULT AND DEFAULT JUDGMENT

Minute Order

10/3/2017: Minute Order

37 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 03/14/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 4B, Laura A. Seigle, Presiding; Non-Jury Trial - Not Held - Vacated by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/14/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 4B, Laura A. Seigle, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Vacated by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/14/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Non-Jury Trial; Final Status Conference)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/14/2019
  • Stipulation and Order (STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO SUBMIT TO BINDING ARBITRATION AND TO VACATE THE FSC AND TRIAL DATES); Filed by Yesai Sanoyan (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/13/2019
  • at 10:00 AM in Department 4B, Laura A. Seigle, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Held - Continued

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/13/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Final Status Conference)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/26/2018
  • at 10:00 AM in Department 7; Final Status Conference (Final Status Conference; Matter continued) -

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/26/2018
  • [Proposed Order] and Stipulation to Continue Trial, FSC (and Related Motion/Discovery Dates) Personal Injury Courts Only (Central District); Filed by Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/12/2018
  • Notice; Filed by Lusine Gambaryan (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/12/2018
  • NOTICE OF NON-AVAILABILITY OF ATTORNEY ASBET A ISSAKKANIAN

    Read MoreRead Less
92 More Docket Entries
  • 05/13/2015
  • Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/13/2015
  • PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/10/2015
  • at 5:00 PM in Department 92; (Affidavit of Prejudice; Case is reassigned) -

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/10/2015
  • Minute Order

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/10/2015
  • Minute order entered: 2015-04-10 00:00:00; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/07/2015
  • Challenge To Judicial Officer - Peremptory (170.6); Filed by Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/07/2015
  • PEREMPTORY CHALLENGE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/26/2015
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/26/2015
  • Complaint; Filed by Yesai Sanoyan (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/26/2015
  • COMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC576938    Hearing Date: February 04, 2021    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

YESAI SANOYAN,

Plaintiff(s),

vs.

LUSINE GAMBARYAN,

Defendant(s).

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

BC576938

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO VACATE PER CALIFORNIA RULE OF COURT 3.828

Dept. 27

1:30 p.m.

February 4, 2021

This is Plaintiff Yesai Sanoyan’s (“Plaintiff”) second request for the court to vacate the arbitration award.  The first petition to vacate was heard on August 12, 2020 and denied.  This renewed petition seeks to vacate the arbitration award on the grounds that arbitrator Harry Lippman failed to disclose that he has been routinely hired by major insurance companies and which medical malpractice insurance carriers he worked for in the past.  Plaintiff states Mr. Lippman “simply claimed ‘NO cases to Disclose.’”  (Motion: 4, 21-24.)  

California Rule of Court 3.828 allows a party against whom a judgement is entered under an arbitration award to, within six months of its entry, move to vacate the judgment on the ground that the arbitrator was subject to a disqualification not disclosed before the hearing and of which the arbitrator was then aware.  (CRC 3.828(a).)  The motion may only be granted upon “clear and convincing evidence that the grounds alleged are true, and that the motion was made as soon as practicable after the moving party learned of the existence of those grounds.”  (CRC 3.828 (b).)  

Plaintiff submits no authority suggesting that this second motion to vacate arbitration award is proper after the first one was denied on August 12, 2020.  But, even setting aside the issue of procedure, Plaintiff’s Motion is unsupported by any evidence and must be denied. 

Plaintiff’s Motion is only accompanied by the attorney declaration of Shawna S. Nazari, who states Mr. Lippman never disclosed any personal or professional relationships before the arbitration.  (Nazari Decl., ¶ 9.)  She further states that he never disclosed he was routinely hired by major insurance companies as “Cumis Counsel” and only stated he had no cases to disclose.  (Nazari Decl., ¶ 10.)  

Plaintiff does not offer clear and convincing evidence showing that Mr. Lippman has, in fact, been routinely hired by major insurance companies or medical malpractice insurance carriers.  Counsel only states that Mr. Lippman’s bias in favor of defense firms and insurance carriers is “apparent by the language of the award.”  (Nazari Decl., ¶ 15.)  Plaintiff also does not offer evidence that the motion was made as soon as practicable after learning of the grounds for disqualification, as there is no evidence showing when or how counsel became aware of those grounds.  

Plaintiff’s Motion is DENIED.  

Moving party to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SSCDEPT27@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  

4th day of February 2021

Hon. Edward B. Moreton, Jr.

Judge of the Superior Court

Case Number: BC576938    Hearing Date: August 12, 2020    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

YESAI SANOYAN,

Plaintiff(s),

vs.

LUSINE GAMBARYAN, et al.,

Defendant(s).

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

.BC576938

[TENTATIVE] ORDER PLAINTIFF’S PETITION

Dept. 27

1:30 p.m.

August 12, 2020

On March 26, 2015, plaintiff and petitioner Yesai Sanoyan Lusine Gambaryan arising from a May 1, 2014 slip and fall.   The parties agreed to arbitrate so that Defendant would refrain from filing bankruptcy.  (Declaration of Shawna S. Nazari, Court set the date arbitration was to be completed by for January 7, 2020.  (Id., ¶ 8.)  According to Ms. Nazari, Harry Lippman emailed the arbitration award in favor of Defendant to the parties on December 26, 2019.  (Id., ¶ 12.)  

Plaintiff petitions to vacate the arbitration award on the grounds that the arbitrator: (1) failed to allow sufficient time for rebuttal evidence, (2) failed to ask for clarification of evidence presented by declaration if needed, and (3) failed to accept uncontested expert medical testimony of Plaintiff’s treating physician. Plaintiff cites Code of Civil Procedure section 1286.2, subdivision (a)(5) in support of his motion.  

“Any party to an arbitration in which an award has been made may petition the court to confirm, correct or vacate the award.”¿ (Code of Civ. Proc., § 1285.)¿¿A petition may not be¿served and filed until at least 10 days after service of the signed copy of the award upon the petitioner.¿ (Code of Civ. Proc., § 1288.4.)¿

As a procedural matter, Plaintiff does not attach a copy of the arbitration award, much less a signed copy of the award and the Court cannot determine if this Petition is appropriately served and filed per Code.  

Upon petition to vacate an arbitration award, the court shall vacate the award if the court determines¿(1) the award was procured by corruption, fraud or other undue means; (2) there was corruption in any of the arbitrators; (3) the rights of the party were substantially prejudiced by misconduct of a neutral arbitrator; (4) the arbitrators exceeded their powers and the award cannot be corrected without affecting the merits of the decision; (5) the rights of the party were substantially prejudiced by the refusal of the arbitrators to postpone the hearing upon sufficient cause being shown therefor or by the refusal of the arbitrators to hear evidence material to the controversy; or (6)¿an arbitrator making the award failed to disclose a ground for disqualification or failed to disqualify himself or herself.¿ (Code of Civ. Proc., § 1286.2,¿subd. (a).)¿

Plaintiff bases her motion on subdivision 5 failing to give Plaintiff an opportunity to submit rebuttal testimony.  Plaintiff states that the arbitrator indicated that opening briefs were to be submitted no later than December 17, 2019.  Plaintiff also states, without evidence, that the parties “agreed .  

Plaintiff also argues that the arbitrator ignored medical expert testimony by Plaintiff’s physician and “unfairly determined that medical providers who documented how Petitioner injured equated to a lack of credibility.”  Plaintiff cites no authority supporting the proposition that an arbitrator is required to take expert testimony at face value.  Also, there is no evidence that the arbitrator refused to allow Plaintiff to present expert testimonyin fact, Plaintiff states such evidence was presented.  

On reply, Plaintiff contends the arbitrator failed to make the necessary disclosures.  This new argument on reply will not be considered.  The purpose of a reply brief is to address arguments made in the Opposition; it may not be used to raise new arguments, present new authorities, or introduce new evidence. Points raised for the first time in a reply brief ordinarily will not be considered because such consideration would either deprive respondent of an opportunity to counter the argument or require the effort and delay of additional brief by permission. (See, e.g., Marriage of Khera .)

The Petition is DENIED.   Moving party to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SSCDEPT27@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  

Dated this12thday ofAugust2020

Hon. Edward B. Moreton, Jr. 

Judge of the Superior Court

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases represented by Lawyer ISSAKHANIAN ASBET ALAN