This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 05/17/2022 at 07:03:15 (UTC).

AIMCO VENEZIA LLC VS YAVUZ CANSIZ, ET AL.

Case Summary

On 03/24/2020 AIMCO VENEZIA LLC filed a Contract - Other Contract lawsuit against YAVUZ CANSIZ,. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Santa Monica Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is MARC D. GROSS. The case status is Other.
Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *******0472

  • Filing Date:

    03/24/2020

  • Case Status:

    Other

  • Case Type:

    Contract - Other Contract

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

MARC D. GROSS

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

AIMCO VENEZIA LLC

Defendants

CANSIZ YAVUZ

ISIDAN MANSUR

SIMSEK KAGAN

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

RIGALI PAUL A.

Defendant Attorney

PARTIYELI JACOB O.

 

Court Documents

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (STATUS CONFERENCE RE: ADR)

10/6/2021: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (STATUS CONFERENCE RE: ADR)

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (MANDATORY SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE INSTRUCTIONS)

10/27/2021: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (MANDATORY SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE INSTRUCTIONS)

Clerks Certificate of Service By Electronic Service

10/27/2021: Clerks Certificate of Service By Electronic Service

Stipulation - No Order - STIPULATION - NO ORDER STIPULATION TO POLICIES AND PROCEDURES FOR JUDICIAL MANDATORY SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE

2/17/2022: Stipulation - No Order - STIPULATION - NO ORDER STIPULATION TO POLICIES AND PROCEDURES FOR JUDICIAL MANDATORY SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE

Notice of OSC - NOTICE OF OSC (NAME EXTENSION) RE ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE DISMISSAL (SETTLEMENT)

2/28/2022: Notice of OSC - NOTICE OF OSC (NAME EXTENSION) RE ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE DISMISSAL (SETTLEMENT)

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (STATUS CONFERENCE RE: ADR)

2/28/2022: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (STATUS CONFERENCE RE: ADR)

Request for Dismissal

3/11/2022: Request for Dismissal

Stipulation - No Order - STIPULATION - NO ORDER OF ALL PARTIES FOR THE COURT TO RETAIN JURISDICTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT PURSUANT TO CAL. CIV. PROC. CODE 664.6

3/11/2022: Stipulation - No Order - STIPULATION - NO ORDER OF ALL PARTIES FOR THE COURT TO RETAIN JURISDICTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT PURSUANT TO CAL. CIV. PROC. CODE 664.6

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (STATUS CONFERENCE RE: ADR)

7/30/2021: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (STATUS CONFERENCE RE: ADR)

Notice - NOTICE NOTICE OF CONTINUANCE OF STATUS CONFERENCE RE ADR AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE MONETARY SANCTIONS FOR DEFENSE COUNSELS FAILURE TO APPEAR AT STATUS CONFERENCE

5/7/2021: Notice - NOTICE NOTICE OF CONTINUANCE OF STATUS CONFERENCE RE ADR AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE MONETARY SANCTIONS FOR DEFENSE COUNSELS FAILURE TO APPEAR AT STATUS CONFERENCE

Declaration - DECLARATION OLF JACOB O PARTIYELI RE ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE MONETARY SANCTIONS FOR DEFENSE COUNSEL'S FAILURE TO APPEAR AT STATUS CONFERENCE

6/3/2021: Declaration - DECLARATION OLF JACOB O PARTIYELI RE ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE MONETARY SANCTIONS FOR DEFENSE COUNSEL'S FAILURE TO APPEAR AT STATUS CONFERENCE

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (STATUS CONFERENCE RE: ADR; ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: MONETARY S...)

6/4/2021: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (STATUS CONFERENCE RE: ADR; ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: MONETARY S...)

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (STATUS CONFERENCE RE: ADR)

4/14/2021: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (STATUS CONFERENCE RE: ADR)

Notice - NOTICE OF STATUS CONFERENCE RE ADR, FINAL STATUS CONFERENCE, AND TRIAL

10/1/2020: Notice - NOTICE OF STATUS CONFERENCE RE ADR, FINAL STATUS CONFERENCE, AND TRIAL

Notice - NOTICE OF STATUS CONFERENCE RE ADR, FINAL STATUS CONFERENCE AND TRIAL

10/1/2020: Notice - NOTICE OF STATUS CONFERENCE RE ADR, FINAL STATUS CONFERENCE AND TRIAL

Opposition - OPPOSITION OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS MOTION TO QUASH

10/21/2020: Opposition - OPPOSITION OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS MOTION TO QUASH

Declaration - DECLARATION DECLARATION OF TROY S. TESSEM ISO PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS MOTION TO QUASH

10/21/2020: Declaration - DECLARATION DECLARATION OF TROY S. TESSEM ISO PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS MOTION TO QUASH

Reply - REPLY DEFENDANTS' REBUTTAL TO PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO QUASH

10/29/2020: Reply - REPLY DEFENDANTS' REBUTTAL TO PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO QUASH

28 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 04/28/2022
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department O; Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal (Settlement) - Not Held - Vacated by Court

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 04/28/2022
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department O; Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal (Settlement) - Not Held - Vacated by Court

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 03/21/2022
  • Docketat 10:00 AM in Department O; Jury Trial - Not Held - Advanced and Vacated

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 03/21/2022
  • Docketat 10:00 AM in Department O; Jury Trial - Not Held - Advanced and Vacated

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 03/11/2022
  • Docketat 09:30 AM in Department O; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Advanced and Vacated

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 03/11/2022
  • Docketat 09:30 AM in Department O; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Advanced and Vacated

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 03/11/2022
  • DocketStipulation - No Order (OF ALL PARTIES FOR THE COURT TO RETAIN JURISDICTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT PURSUANT TO CAL. CIV. PROC. CODE 664.6); Filed by AIMCO Venezia LLC (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 03/11/2022
  • DocketRequest for Dismissal; Filed by AIMCO Venezia LLC (Plaintiff); Yavuz Cansiz (Defendant); Mansur Isidan (Defendant) et al.

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 03/11/2022
  • DocketStipulation - No Order (OF ALL PARTIES FOR THE COURT TO RETAIN JURISDICTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT PURSUANT TO CAL. CIV. PROC. CODE 664.6); Filed by AIMCO Venezia LLC (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 03/11/2022
  • DocketRequest for Dismissal; Filed by AIMCO Venezia LLC (Plaintiff); Yavuz Cansiz (Defendant); Mansur Isidan (Defendant) et al.

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
92 More Docket Entries
  • 03/25/2020
  • DocketNotice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 03/25/2020
  • DocketNotice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 03/24/2020
  • DocketSummons (on Complaint); Filed by AIMCO Venezia LLC (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 03/24/2020
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by AIMCO Venezia LLC (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 03/24/2020
  • DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Unlimited Civil Case; Filed by Clerk

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 03/24/2020
  • DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Unlimited Civil Case; Filed by Clerk

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 03/24/2020
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by AIMCO Venezia LLC (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 03/24/2020
  • DocketSummons (on Complaint); Filed by AIMCO Venezia LLC (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 03/24/2020
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by AIMCO Venezia LLC (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 03/24/2020
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by AIMCO Venezia LLC (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: *******0472    Hearing Date: November 03, 2020    Dept: O

Case Name: Aimco Venezia LLC v. Yavuz Cansiz

Case No.: 20smcv00472

Complaint Filed: 7-10-19

Hearing Date: 11-3-20

Discovery C/O: 2-21-22

Calendar No.: 4

Discover Motion C/O: 3-7-22

POS: OK

Trial Date: 3-21-22

SUBJECT: MOTION TO QUASH DEPOSITION SUBPOENA

MOVING PARTY:  Defendant Yavuz Cansiz

RESP. PARTY: Plaintiff Aimco Venezia LLC  

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendant Cansiz’s Motion to Quash Deposition Subpoena is DENIED. Defendant’s request for sanction is DENIED.  Plaintiff’s request for sanctions in opposition to this motion is DENIED.  Plaintiff did not submit a requested amount of sanctions under CCP ;1987.2, nor does Plaintiff’s counsel’s declaration indicate an amount of sanctions. 

Defendant Cansiz’s objections to the motion to quash are overruled.  The deposition subpoena in question was served on AirBnB on May 4, 2020.  The subpoena seeks (1) any and all communications and documents between AirBnB and Defendant Canisz for the period between January 20, 2017 and September 30, 2018; (2) any and all current or past communications and documents pertaining to the property during that same period; and (3) all documents and communications, which refer, in whole or in part to the property and/or Cansiz during that same time period.  These categories overlap, but their overlap does not justify quashing the subpoena.

Defendant Cansiz’s affirmative defenses based on laches, waiver and estoppel are irrelevant to the motion to quash.  Affirmative defenses are to the complaint, not to a request for discovery. 

The requests are not overly broad or insufficiently specific.  AirBnB’s relevance to this action is solely as the organization through which Defendant advertised and leased his unit to AirBnB users.  This fact alone narrows the scope of the requests at issue.  There are also only three requests, which overlap.  The requests are also narrow in scope, limited to the specific time period during which Defendant leased the property from Plaintiff and communications and documents pertaining to Defendant Cansiz and the property.  The requests are not impermissibly overbroad or vague.

Finally, Defendant Cansiz’s privacy objection is overruled. Defendant is correct that financial information is clearly protected by the right of privacy and there is a reasonable expectation of privacy over one’s financial records.  “There is a right to privacy in confidential customer information whatever form it takes, whether that form be tax returns, checks, statements, or other account information.”  Fortunato v. Sup.Ct. (Ingrassia) (2003) 114 Cal.App.4th 475, 481.  Plaintiff concedes that the deposition subpoena is intended to obtain AirBnb’s records regarding the amount earned by Defendant from leasing the unit through it.  As such, the records sought will likely include Defendant’s financial earnings from AirBnB rentals.  However, while the request intrudes on Defendant’s privacy interest, there is no showing of a serious intrusion on Defendant’s privacy.  Any privacy objection could easily be addressed by a protective order.  The records sought are directly relevant to questions at the heart of the litigation.  Plaintiff is seeking to disgorge any profits Defendant earned by renting the unit through AirBnB.  Plaintiff is entitled to seek records reflecting Defendant’s earnings from AirBnB to establish both breach and damages.  The documents requested are directly relevant to these essential elements of Plaintiff’s causes of action. 



related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where AIMCO VENEZIA LLC is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer RIGALI PAUL A.