This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 04/09/2020 at 00:23:32 (UTC).

ABRAHAM AKHOIAN ET AL VS NIGOL MANUKIAN ET AL

Case Summary

On 11/21/2017 ABRAHAM AKHOIAN filed a Contract - Professional Negligence lawsuit against NIGOL MANUKIAN. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are HOLLY E. KENDIG and ELAINE LU. The case status is Other.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****4607

  • Filing Date:

    11/21/2017

  • Case Status:

    Other

  • Case Type:

    Contract - Professional Negligence

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

HOLLY E. KENDIG

ELAINE LU

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs and Petitioners

AKHOIAN ABRAHAM

AKHOIAN ANNA

ROOTER MASTER PLUMBING SERVICES

ROOTER MASTER PLUMBING SERVICES INC.

Defendants and Respondents

GLENDALE LAW CENTER

TAKVORYAN LAW GROUP APC

TAKVORYAN OVSANNA

SHAKHGULYAN SILVA

DOES 1 TO 20

MANUKIAN NIGOL

MANUKIAN AND ASSOCIATES

MANOUKIAN NIGOL

MANOUKIAN & ASSOCIATES

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

PERLMAN DEBORAH

PERLMAN LAW INC.

PERLMAN DEBORAH KATE

Defendant Attorneys

TAKVORYAN LAW GROUP

TONY FORBERG LAW OFFICES OF

FORBERG TONY

TAKVORYAN OVSANNA

 

Court Documents

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL)

11/4/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL)

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION TO QUASH AND/OR MODIFY SUBPOENA)

10/31/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION TO QUASH AND/OR MODIFY SUBPOENA)

Motion to Quash

5/16/2019: Motion to Quash

Separate Statement

5/16/2019: Separate Statement

Case Management Order

4/5/2019: Case Management Order

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE; HEARING ON MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON...)

4/4/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE; HEARING ON MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON...)

Notice of Ruling

2/13/2019: Notice of Ruling

Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses; Case...)

11/27/2018: Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses; Case...)

Minute Order - Minute Order (Plaintiff Ex-Parte Application for Order Continuing Hearing o...)

11/8/2018: Minute Order - Minute Order (Plaintiff Ex-Parte Application for Order Continuing Hearing o...)

DEFENDANT NIGOIL MANOUKIAN'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR AN ORDER TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF IABRAHAM AKHOIAN TO PROVIDE VERIFIED OBJECTION FREE FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS S

8/13/2018: DEFENDANT NIGOIL MANOUKIAN'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR AN ORDER TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF IABRAHAM AKHOIAN TO PROVIDE VERIFIED OBJECTION FREE FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS S

Minute Order -

7/27/2018: Minute Order -

Minute Order -

7/31/2018: Minute Order -

REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL -

3/23/2018: REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL -

Minute Order -

4/4/2018: Minute Order -

CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT -

5/31/2018: CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT -

DECLARATION -

1/24/2018: DECLARATION -

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS -

1/24/2018: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS -

SUMMONS -

11/28/2017: SUMMONS -

78 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 04/07/2020
  • Docketat 09:00 AM in Department 26, Elaine Lu, Presiding; Final Status Conference ((JT 04/20/20)) - Not Held - Vacated by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/05/2020
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 26, Elaine Lu, Presiding; Hearing on Motion for Summary Adjudication - Not Held - Vacated by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/09/2020
  • DocketRequest for Dismissal; Filed by Rooter Master Plumbing Services Inc. (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/09/2020
  • DocketRequest for Dismissal; Filed by Abraham Akhoian (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/09/2020
  • DocketRequest for Dismissal; Filed by Anna Akhoian (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/05/2019
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 26, Elaine Lu, Presiding; Order to Show Cause Re: (why Rooter Master Plumbing Services Inc?s complaint should not be dismissed) - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/05/2019
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 26, Elaine Lu, Presiding; Order to Show Cause Re: (Status of Rooter Master Plumbing Services's representation) - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/05/2019
  • DocketCertificate of Mailing for ((Order to Show Cause Re: Status of Rooter Master Plumbing Serv...) of 12/05/2019); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/05/2019
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Order to Show Cause Re: Status of Rooter Master Plumbing Serv...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/06/2019
  • Docketat 4:07 PM in Department 26, Elaine Lu, Presiding; Court Order

    Read MoreRead Less
141 More Docket Entries
  • 01/24/2018
  • DocketDECLARATION

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/24/2018
  • DocketDECLARATION

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/24/2018
  • DocketPROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/24/2018
  • DocketPROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/06/2017
  • DocketNotice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/06/2017
  • DocketNOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE & OSC RE PROOF OF SERVICE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/28/2017
  • DocketSUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/28/2017
  • DocketSummons; Filed by Abraham Akhoian (Plaintiff); Anna Akhoian (Plaintiff); Rooter Master Plumbing Services Inc. (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/21/2017
  • DocketCOMPLAINT FOR: 1) LEGAL MALPRACTICE;ETC

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/21/2017
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Abraham Akhoian (Plaintiff); Anna Akhoian (Plaintiff); Rooter Master Plumbing Services Inc. (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC684607    Hearing Date: November 04, 2019    Dept: 26

Plaintiffs’ counsel, Deborah Perlman (“Counsel”), moves to be relieved as counsel for Plaintiffs Abraham Akhoian, Anna Akhoian, and Rooter Master Plumbing Services (“Plaintiffs”). Counsel filed the instant motion to be relieved as counsel on September 30, 2019.

Counsel has filed forms MC-051 and MC-052 and has lodged with the Court a copy of the proposed order on form MC-053 pursuant to CRC Rule 3.1362.

The MC-052 form states that Counsel served Plaintiffs at their last known mailing addresses, which Counsel states she has confirmed within 30 days of the motion by telephone.

Counsel states that the clients are in default of their obligations under the Retaining Agreement and have not agreed to sign a Substitution of Counsel or made any effort to find other counsel despite request.

Based on the notice of motion and the declaration filed by Counsel, the Court is inclined to grant the motion. However, Counsel is ordered to appear at the hearing for this instant motion and submit a corrected proposed order on form MC-053 and corrected MC-052.

The proposed order and form must list the address of the Court in all items and must provide the motion for summary adjudication hearing date set for February 5, 2020. The Court’s records show the following upcoming hearings, which must all be listed in the revised proposed order (MC-053):

Counsel is responsible for determining if there are any other hearings scheduled or due dates for discovery for this case, including any motions hearings, which must all be listed in the proposed order. For each hearing, Counsel must state the date, time, and location of the hearing (“111 N. Hill Street, Dept. 26, Los Angeles, CA 90012”). For each due date for discovery, Counsel must identify the nature of the discovery responses that are outstanding, the due date, and the address where verified responses must be sent.

Provided that Counsel presents the corrected forms at or before the hearing on this motion, the motion to be relieved as counsel will be granted. Otherwise, the motion will be denied without prejudice.

As to Plaintiff Rooter Master Plumbing Services, Inc. (“Rooter”), the Court notes that while a corporation has the capacity to bring a lawsuit because it has all the powers of a natural person in carrying out its business, under a long-standing common law rule of procedure, a corporation, unlike a natural person, cannot represent itself before courts of record in propria persona, nor can it represent itself through a corporate officer, director or other employee who is not an attorney. (CLD Const., Inc. v. City of San Ramon (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 1141, 1145.) “[A Corporation] must be represented by licensed counsel in proceedings before courts of record. (Id.)

In light of these authorities, the Court orders that Rooter Master Plumbing Services Inc. timely retain new counsel and file a substitution of counsel within 14 days of service of the signed order so that new counsel will be prepared for trial by the current trial date. The court sets an OSC regarding status of Rooter Master Plumbing Services Inc.’s representation for ­December 5, 2019 at 8:30 am in Department 26. Rooter Master Plumbing Services Inc. is ordered to appear on December 5, 2019 with its new counsel, who should be prepared to address counsel’s readiness for trial by the current trial date.

Counsel should note that after the order is signed, the order will only become effective upon the filing of a proof of service of a signed copy of the order on Plaintiffs. Counsel will remain the attorney of record until Counsel files with the Court proof of service of the signed order. Counsel will be ordered to serve a copy of the signed order (MC-053) on all parties, including Plaintiffs, within 3 days.

If Rooter Master Plumbing Services Inc. fails to file a substitution of counsel within 14 days of service of the signed order, Rooter Master Plumbing Services Inc. is ordered to appear on December 5, 2019 at 8:30 am in Department 26 and show cause why Rooter Master Plumbing Services Inc’s complaint should not be dismissed. Rooter Master Plumbing Services Inc.’s failure to appear on December 5, 2019 at 8:30 am in Department 26 shall be deemed consent to dismissal of the complaint.

Case Number: BC684607    Hearing Date: October 31, 2019    Dept: 26

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 26

ABRAHAM AKHOIAN, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

NIGOL MANUKIAN, et al

Defendants.

Case No.: BC684607

Hearing Date: October 31, 2019

[TENTATIVE] order RE:

Plaintiffs’ MOTION to quash/modify subpoena and/or protective order

BACKGROUND

This is a legal malpractice action.

On November 21, 2017, Plaintiffs Abraham Akhoian (“Mr. Akhoian”), Anna Akhoian (“Ms. Akhoian”) and Rooter Master Plumbing Services Inc (“Rooter”) (collectively “Plaintiffs”) commenced this action against Defendants[1] Nigol Manukian (“Manukian”) and Manukian and Associates (“Manukian and Associates”) (collectively “Defendants”), for (1) legal malpractice, (2) breach of fiduciary duty, (3) negligent misrepresentation, (4) negligence, (5) Business and Professions Code section 6450 and (6) Code of Civil Procedure section 1029.8.

Plaintiffs allege that they made a bad financial agreement, after which they sought legal advice from Defendants who provided poor advice to protect their personal assets from seizure. (Complaint ¶¶ 5-7.)

On April 24, 2019, Defendants issued a Deposition Subpoena for Production of Business Records to non-party JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. (the “Subpoena”) seeking financial records, namely Plaintiffs’ bank statements, cancelled checks, loan or credit card applications, financial statements, and signature cards.

On May 16, 2019, Plaintiffs served and filed this motion seeking to quash/modify the subpoena. Plaintiffs also seek $4,300 in monetary sanctions against Defendants and their counsel jointly and severally.

Defendants do not oppose.

PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS

The Court notes that CCP §1987.1, pursuant to which the instant motion is made, does not require that a party meet and confer prior to moving to quash or modify a subpoena. Nevertheless, Plaintiffs’ counsel sent a letter trying to confer on the issues raised in this motion. (Perlman Decl. ¶ 6.) This effort was not fruitful. (Id. ¶ 7.)

A motion to quash production of documents at a deposition must be accompanied by a separate statement setting forth the particular documents or demands at issue and the factual and legal reasons why production should not be compelled. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1345(a)(5).) Here, Plaintiffs filed a separate statement that satisfies this requirement.

LEGAL STANDARD

If a subpoena requires the attendance of a witness or the production of documents, the court may, upon motion reasonably made, make an order quashing the subpoena entirely, modifying it, or directing compliance with it upon those terms or conditions as the court shall declare, including protective orders. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1987.1, subd. (a).)

In making an order pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1987.1, “the court may in its discretion award the amount of the reasonable expenses incurred in making or opposing the motion, including reasonable attorney's fees, if the court finds the motion was made or opposed in bad faith or without substantial justification or that one or more of the requirements of the subpoena was oppressive.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1987.2, subd. (a).)

DISCUSSION

The Subpoena seeks the following:

1. All Bank Statements from January 1, 2012 through December 31, 2016 belonging to Abraham Akhoian, or any bank account Abraham Akohoian is a signatory thereto, Social Security Number ending in 8424.

2. All cancelled checks in excess of $200 from any bank account held by Abraham Akhoian, Social Security Number ending in 8424.

3. All Bank Statement from January 1, 2012 through December 31, 2016 belonging to Anna Akhoian, Social Security Number ending in 8162.

4. All loan, or credit card applications submitted by Abraham Akhoian or Anna Akohoian from January 1, 2012 through December 31, 2016.

5. All financial statements submitted by Abraham Akhoian or Anna Akhoian from January 1, 2012 through December 31, 2016.

6. All Bank Statements from January 1, 2012 through December 31, 2016, including but not limited to account number 973446198, belonging to Anna Enterprises Inc.

7. All cancelled checks in excess of $200 from any bank account held by Abraham Akhoian, Social Security Number ending in 8424.

8. All signature cards belonging to Abraham Akhoian or Anna Akhoian.

(Perlman Decl. Ex. A.)

The Subpoena is a consumer subpoena governed by Code of Civil Procedure section 1985.3 because they involve records maintained by a bank.

Where personal records of a “consumer” are subpoenaed, the “deposition” (or records turnover) cannot take place until at least 20 days after the subpoena is “issued.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.270, subd. (c).)

Service of Defendants’ Subpoena must be completed: at least 10 days before the date set for production of the records; and at least 5 days before service on the records custodian. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1985.3, subd. (b)(2), (3).) Code of Civil Procedure section 1985.3 subdivision (b) states:

(b) Prior to the date called for in the subpoena duces tecum for the production of personal records, the subpoenaing party shall serve or cause to be served on the consumer whose records are being sought a copy of the subpoena duces tecum, of the affidavit supporting the issuance of the subpoena, if any, and of the notice described in subdivision (e), and proof of service as indicated in paragraph (1) of subdivision (c). This service shall be made as follows:

(1) To the consumer personally, or at his or her last known address, or in accordance with Chapter 5 (commencing with Section 1010) of Title 14 of Part 3, or, if he or she is a party, to his or her attorney of record. If the consumer is a minor, service shall be made on the minor’s parent, guardian, conservator, or similar fiduciary, or if one of them cannot be located with reasonable diligence, then service shall be made on any person having the care or control of the minor or with whom the minor resides or by whom the minor is employed, and on the minor if the minor is at least 12 years of age.

(2) Not less than 10 days prior to the date for production specified in the subpoena duces tecum, plus the additional time provided by Section 1013 if service is by mail.

(3) At least five days prior to service upon the custodian of the records, plus the additional time provided by Section 1013 if service is by mail.

(emphasis added.)

As a practical matter, this means Defendants’ Subpoena and privacy notice must be served on the consumer at least 20 days before the date set for production because Defendants’ Subpoena must be served on the records custodian at least 15 days before that date. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2020.410, subd. (c).)

Here, Defendants served their Subpoena by mail and email on the custodian and Plaintiffs on the same day, i.e., April 24, 2019. (Perlman Decl. Ex. A.) The Subpoena ordered production of documents by May 20, 2019. Defendants have not otherwise obtained an order shortening time or waiving the notice requirement altogether. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1985.3, subd. (h).)

Therefore, the Court grants Plaintiffs’ motion.

MONETARY SANCTIONS

Plaintiffs seek $4,300 in monetary sanctions against Defendants and their counsel jointly and severally.

The Court awards monetary sanctions. However, the Court reduces the sought amount for three reasons. First, Plaintiffs seek attorney fees for time not preparing the motion, specifically reviewing the Subpoena and attempting meet and confer efforts. (Perlman Decl. ¶ 1.) Plaintiffs do not cite justification for this. Second, there was no opposition, and thus, the Court does not award time for reviewing the opposition and preparing the reply. Finally, the Court finds the 4.5 hours preparing this motion to be unreasonable for this simple motion. Accordingly, the Court finds 3.5 hours reasonable for preparing the motion and appearance.

The Court finds the $400 hourly rate reasonable based on Plaintiffs’ counsel’s experience. (Perlman Decl. ¶ 2.)

Defendants’ counsel is ordered to pay monetary sanctions in the amount of $1,460 ($1400 in attorney fees and $60 in filing fee) to Plaintiffs by and through counsel, within thirty (30) days of notice of this order.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

The Court grants Plaintiffs’ motion and quashes Defendants’ Subpoena.

Plaintiffs are ordered to provide notice of this order and file proof of service of such.

DATED: October 31, 2019 ___________________________

Elaine Lu

Judge of the Superior Court


[1] Plaintiffs filed the complaint against additional defendants (Ovsanna Takvoriayan, Takvoryan Law Group APC, Silva Shakgulyan and Glendale Law Center) but later dismissed their claims as to them.