Search

Attributes

This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 06/19/2019 at 01:17:28 (UTC).

ALEJANDRA PALMA GALINDO VS HNS & COMPANY LLC ET AL

Case Summary

On 05/17/2017 ALEJANDRA PALMA GALINDO filed a Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury lawsuit against HNS COMPANY LLC. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is DEIRDRE HILL. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****1676

  • Filing Date:

    05/17/2017

  • 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 Judge

DEIRDRE HILL

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs and Petitioners

GALINDO ALEJANDRO PALMA INDIVIDUALLY

SOTO CARLA

GALINDO ALEJANDRA

Defendants and Respondents

MOSS STUDIO

HNS & COMPANY LLC

SINANIAN HOVANNES

DOES 1 TO 25

SINANIAN HOVIK

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

LEBE JONATHAN M. ESQ.

MESRIANI RODNEY ESQ.

NEAL-LOPEZ TRACY

Defendant and Respondent Attorneys

KESHISHIAN AMO H.

KESHISHIAN ARNO HILL

 

Court Documents

Notice of Case Reassignment and Order for Plaintiff to Give Notice

12/20/2018: Notice of Case Reassignment and Order for Plaintiff to Give Notice

Substitution of Attorney

3/6/2019: Substitution of Attorney

Motion in Limine

4/24/2019: Motion in Limine

Motion in Limine

4/24/2019: Motion in Limine

Motion in Limine

4/24/2019: Motion in Limine

Motion in Limine

4/24/2019: Motion in Limine

Jury Instructions

4/25/2019: Jury Instructions

Statement of the Case

4/25/2019: Statement of the Case

Witness List

4/29/2019: Witness List

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR: 1. RACE DISCRIMINATION, ETC

3/27/2018: SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR: 1. RACE DISCRIMINATION, ETC

NOTICE OF COURT ORDERS AT STATUS CONFERENCE

7/25/2018: NOTICE OF COURT ORDERS AT STATUS CONFERENCE

COMPLAINT FOR: 1. RACE DISCRIMINATION; ETC

5/17/2017: COMPLAINT FOR: 1. RACE DISCRIMINATION; ETC

NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

5/24/2017: NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR: 1. RACE DISCRIMINATION; ETC

8/3/2017: FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR: 1. RACE DISCRIMINATION; ETC

Unknown

8/11/2017: Unknown

PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

8/23/2017: PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

Minute Order

8/29/2017: Minute Order

Unknown

10/2/2017: Unknown

35 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 05/16/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 49; Jury Trial - Not Held - Advanced and Vacated

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/08/2019
  • Notice (of Trial Setting Conference); Filed by Alejandra Galindo (Plaintiff); Carla Soto (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/02/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 49; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Advanced and Vacated

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/02/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Final Status Conference)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/29/2019
  • Witness List (JOINT WITNESS LIST); Filed by Alejandra Galindo (Plaintiff); Carla Soto (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/29/2019
  • Proof of Service by Mail; Filed by Alejandra Galindo (Plaintiff); Carla Soto (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/25/2019
  • Statement of the Case (JOINT STATEMENT OF THE CASE TO BE READ TO THE JURY); Filed by Alejandra Galindo (Plaintiff); Carla Soto (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/25/2019
  • Jury Instructions (JOINT AGREED TO JURY INSTRUCTIONS); Filed by Alejandra Galindo (Plaintiff); Carla Soto (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/25/2019
  • Exhibit List (JOINT EXHIBIT LIST); Filed by Alejandra Galindo (Plaintiff); Carla Soto (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/25/2019
  • Jury Instructions; Filed by Alejandra Galindo (Plaintiff); Carla Soto (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
69 More Docket Entries
  • 08/03/2017
  • FIRST ON AMENDED COMPLAINT SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/24/2017
  • OSC-RE Other (Miscellaneous); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/24/2017
  • NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/24/2017
  • NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/24/2017
  • ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE HEARING

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/24/2017
  • Notice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/24/2017
  • ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE HEARING

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/17/2017
  • Complaint; Filed by Alejandro Galindo (Plaintiff); Carla Soto (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/17/2017
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/17/2017
  • COMPLAINT FOR: 1. RACE DISCRIMINATION; ETC

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC661676    Hearing Date: November 12, 2020    Dept: 49

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Alejandra Palma-Galindo,

Plaintiff,

Case No.

BC661676

v.

[Tentative] Ruling

HNS & Company, LLC, et al.,

Defendants.

Hearing Date: November 12, 2020

Department 49, Judge Stuart M. Rice

(1) Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Responses to Requests for Production, Set Two;

(2) Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set Two;

(3) Plaintiff’s Motion to Deem True the Matters Specified in Requests for Admission, Set Two.

Moving Party: Plaintiff Alejandra Palma-Galindo

Responding Party: M&K Attorneys, APC, former counsel for Defendant HNS & Company, LLC

Ruling: Plaintiff’s Motions to Compel Responses to Plaintiff’s second sets of Requests for Production, Special Interrogatories, and to deem true the matters specified in her Requests for Admission, Set Two are granted.

Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is granted against Defendant HNS only, in the amount of $2,309.95.

Motions to Compel Discovery Responses

Plaintiff’s counsel caused to be served on Defendant HNS & Company, LLC (“HNS”) a second set of SROG, RFP, and RFA on May 18, 2020. (Neal-Lopez Decls. ¶ 11.) Two extensions to respond were granted: the first to June 26, 2020, and the second to July 5, 2020. (Id. ¶¶ 12-13.) Despite said continuances, HNS failed to provide responses to the propounded discovery, prompting Plaintiff to file the present motions. (Id. ¶ 14.)

As HNS has failed to respond to the authorized methods of discovery, the motions should be granted.

HNS has offered no substantive opposition to this motion. However, HNS’s former counsel, M&K Attorneys, APC (“M&K”), has opposed Plaintiff’s request for sanctions made in conjunction therewith, and argues that the discovery was untimely. While now longer counsel for HNS, M&K remain counsel of record for Defendants Hovannes Sinanian and Hovik Sinanian in this action.

First, as to timeliness, M&K argues that the subject discovery was untimely because the Court held a Case Management Conference on September 29, 2017, during which it set the date for trial, and consequently discovery and motion cut-offs. On July 10, 2018, the Court reset the trial date, but ordered that “Discovery/motion cut off dates are NOT extended.” (7/10/2018 Minute Order.) On this basis, M&K argues that the discovery is untimely, and cannot form the basis for the present motions.

This argument is unavailing. As reflected in the Court calendar, a trial setting conference is set concurrently with this hearing. No trial date is currently set. Between May 14, 2018, and August 2019, the parties engaged in various discussion pertaining to an attempted settlement of the case, including informing the Court on May 2, 2019, of the parties’ desire to partake in another MSC. Settlement failed to occur, and litigation proceeded in this matter. Necessarily, the Court vacated the trial date, and continued the trial setting conference. (12/10/2019 Minute Order; 4/14/2020 Minute Order; 7/1/2020 Minute Order; 9/8/2020 Minute Order.)

Second, M&K argues that independently of the merits of Plaintiff’s motions to compel discovery responses, sanctions should be not imposed against M&K because it acted with substantial justification in failing to respond, or that imposition of sanctions would be unjust. M&K’s opposition relies a substantial breakdown in communications with its client HNS, and M&K’s subsequent relief from its role as counsel of record. To note, M&K, or specifically, Arno Keshishian, was relieved as counsel of record for HNS by this Court on September 8, 2020, conditional upon service of the order upon HNS. A Proof of Service was filed on October 27, 2020, reflecting service of the order by mail on September 29, 2020.

Former counsel for HNS, Arno Keshishian (“Keshishian”), declares that on August 16, 2019, he informed Plaintiff’s counsel of the difficulties arising between M&K and their client HNS, and of the possibility of needing to be relieved as counsel. (Keshishian Decls. ¶ 9.) Keshishian declares that while preparing for a Mandatory Settlement Conference on March 18, 2020, the “attorney client representation was irreparably harmed, and [M&K] were instructed to cease any and all work on this matter until further notice.” (Id. ¶ 13.) However, due to Covid-19 related emergency orders, the MSC was taken off calendar. (Id.) On May 12, 2020, prior to service of the subject discovery, M&K informed Plaintiff’s counsel that it did not have authority to act on behalf of HNS and would be seeking to be relieved as counsel when possible. (Id. ¶ 14.) On June 17, 2020, following service of the discovery on M&K, the latter reminded Plaintiff’s counsel that it did not have authority to reply to discovery. (Id. ¶ 15, Exh. D.) M&K has expressed to Plaintiff and to the Court that HNS explicitly instructed that M&K cease representation. Plaintiff’s argument that sanctions should be awarded in favor of Plaintiff and against M&K because Keshishian cannot establish that he acted with substantial justification is thus unpersuasive.

Based on the foregoing, it cannot be said that M&K did not have substantial justification in failing to provide responses to Plaintiff’s discovery, or that imposition of sanctions would not be unjust.

However, HNS failed to respond to Plaintiff’s three methods of discovery, and has offered no opposition to the instant motions. Furthermore, sanctions are mandatory against any party whose failure to serve a timely response to requests for admission necessitated the filing of a motion to deem the matters specified therein admitted. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.280(c).) Plaintiff’s counsel requests $1,336.65 in sanctions for preparation of each of the motions, and for their respective filing fees. (Neal-Lopez Decls. ¶ 15.) Counsel declares spending one hour in preparation of each motion and accompanying declaration, and anticipated spending two hours reviewing opposition papers, drafting replies, and attending the hearing in this matter. (Id.)

The Court finds an hourly rate of $425 reasonable despite the routine nature of these discovery motions. However, Plaintiff shall recover only one hour for attendance of the concurrent hearing on these three motions.

Accordingly, sanctions are imposed against Defendant HNS only, in the total reduced amount of $2,309.95 for four (4) hours spent on the preparation of motions and reply papers, one (1) hour for attendance of the hearing, and the filing costs.

Conclusion

Plaintiff Alejandra Palma-Galindo’s Motions to Compel Responses to her second set of Special Interrogatories and Requests for Production, and to deem as true the matters specified in her Requests for Admission, Set Two, are granted. Defendant HNS shall provide responses within twenty (20) days of this order.

Sanctions are imposed against Defendant HNS only, in the amount of $2,309.95. This amount is enforceable in 30 days.

Date: November 12, 2020

Honorable Stuart M. Rice

Judge of the Superior Court

Case Number: BC661676    Hearing Date: September 08, 2020    Dept: 49

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Alejandra Palma Galindo,

Plaintiff,

Case No.

BC661676

v.

[Tentative] Ruling

HNS & Company LLC, et al.

Defendants.

Hearing Date: September 8, 2020

Department 49, Judge Stuart M. Rice

(1) Motion to be Relieved as Counsel

Moving Party:  Attorney Arno Keshishian  

Responding Party:      none

Ruling: Keshishian’s motion to be relieved as counsel is granted.

Attorney Arno Keshishian moves to be relieved as counsel of record for defendant HNS & Company, LLC. Keshishian has complied with the requirements set forth in California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1362. Therefore, the motion to be relieved as counsel is granted. The proposed order, which is included in the same filing as the motion itself, will be signed and filed forthwith. Keshishian is ordered to give notice of this ruling, to serve the order on his client, and to file the proof of said service. Keshishian is reminded that the signed order is not effective until it is served on the client.  

Date: September 8, 2020

Honorable Stuart M. Rice

Judge of the Superior Court

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases represented by Lawyer MESRIANI RODNEY

Latest cases represented by Lawyer LEBE JONATHAN MICHAEL