Search

Attributes

This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 06/15/2019 at 13:05:25 (UTC).

ALEXANDER HAROONIAN VS RON A ROSEN JANFAZA

Case Summary

On 03/09/2017 ALEXANDER HAROONIAN filed a Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury lawsuit against RON A ROSEN JANFAZA. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are DENNIS J. LANDIN and CHRISTOPHER K. LUI. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****3182

  • Filing Date:

    03/09/2017

  • 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 Judges

DENNIS J. LANDIN

CHRISTOPHER K. LUI

 

Party Details

Plaintiff, Petitioner and Cross Defendant

HAROONIAN ALEXANDER

Defendants, Respondents and Cross Plaintiffs

DOES 1 TO 10

JANFAZA RON A. ROSEN

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

TAMRAZ JOEL F. ESQ.

PETOYAN MARCUS ARAM

Defendant and Respondent Attorneys

SAHAR MALEK LAW APC

COHAN LAW GROUP

COHAN SABRINA S

JANFAZA RON A. ROSEN

MALEKSAEEDI SAHAR

Cross Defendant Attorney

TAMRAZ JOEL FRANCIS

 

Court Documents

MEMORMDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT

2/1/2018: MEMORMDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT

Minute Order

2/7/2018: Minute Order

DEFENDANT'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT; POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF ALEX HOFFMAN; DECLARATION OF RON A. ROSEN JANFAZA; DECLARATION OF SAHAR MALEK,

4/5/2018: DEFENDANT'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT; POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF ALEX HOFFMAN; DECLARATION OF RON A. ROSEN JANFAZA; DECLARATION OF SAHAR MALEK,

OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT

5/1/2018: OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

8/29/2018: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

Motion to Quash Service of Summons

10/11/2018: Motion to Quash Service of Summons

Minute Order

10/11/2018: Minute Order

Notice

11/14/2018: Notice

Proof of Personal Service

11/27/2018: Proof of Personal Service

Opposition

11/29/2018: Opposition

Motion to Quash Service of Summons

12/3/2018: Motion to Quash Service of Summons

Opposition

12/6/2018: Opposition

Ex Parte Application

12/6/2018: Ex Parte Application

Minute Order

1/23/2019: Minute Order

Cross-Complaint

2/7/2019: Cross-Complaint

Minute Order

3/27/2019: Minute Order

Substitution of Attorney

6/13/2019: Substitution of Attorney

Minute Order

11/30/2017: Minute Order

35 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 06/13/2019
  • Substitution of Attorney; Filed by Alexander Haroonian (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/27/2019
  • at 11:00 AM in Department 4A, Christopher K. Lui, Presiding; Informal Discovery Conference (IDC) - Not Held - Taken Off Calendar by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/27/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Informal Discovery Conference (IDC))); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/25/2019
  • Answer; Filed by Alexander Haroonian (Cross-Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/07/2019
  • Cross-Complaint; Filed by Ron A. Rosen Janfaza (Cross-Complainant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/07/2019
  • Answer; Filed by Ron A. Rosen Janfaza (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/07/2019
  • Summons (on Complaint); Filed by Ron A. Rosen Janfaza (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/06/2019
  • at 1:30 PM in Department 4A, Christopher K. Lui, Presiding; Hearing on Motion - Other

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/24/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 4A, Christopher K. Lui, Presiding; Jury Trial - Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/23/2019
  • at 1:30 PM in Department 4A, Christopher K. Lui, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Held - Continued

    Read MoreRead Less
65 More Docket Entries
  • 11/30/2017
  • Minute Order

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/24/2017
  • Notice; Filed by Alexander Haroonian (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/24/2017
  • NOTICE OF INFORMAL DISCOVERY CONFERENCE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/23/2017
  • OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION THERETO

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/23/2017
  • Opposition Document; Filed by Alexander Haroonian (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/11/2017
  • NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT; ETC

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/11/2017
  • Motion to Quash; Filed by Ron A. Rosen Janfaza (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/09/2017
  • Complaint; Filed by Alexander Haroonian (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/09/2017
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/09/2017
  • COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES: 1. ASSAULT AND BATTERY; ETC.

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC653182    Hearing Date: November 26, 2019    Dept: 4A

Motion to Reopen Discovery

Having considered the moving, opposing, and reply papers, the Court rules as follows.

BACKGROUND

On March 9, 2017, Plaintiff Alexander Haroonian filed a complaint against Defendant Ron A. Rosen Janfaza alleging assault, battery, and intentional infliction of emotional distress arising from an altercation that took place on March 12, 2015.

On February 7, 2019, Defendant/Cross-Complainant Ron A. Rosen Janfaza filed a cross-complaint against Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant Alexander Haroonian alleging assault, battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent hiring, training, supervision and retention, negligence, false imprisonment, and a violation of the Bane Civil Rights Act.

On October 23, 2015, Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant Alexander Haroonian filed a motion to re-open discovery and related motion cut-off dates pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 2024.050.

Trial is set for February 14, 2020.

PARTIES’ REQUESTS

Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant Alexander Haroonian (“Moving Party”) asks the Court for an order reopening discovery to because Defendant/Cross-Complainant Ron A. Rosen Janfaza (“Opposing Party”) has not provided discovery responses or sat for a deposition.

LEGAL STANDARD

California Code of Civil Procedure section 2024.050 states: “(a) On motion of any party, the court may grant leave to reopen discovery after a new trial date has been set.  This motion shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040.

“(b) In exercising its discretion to grant or deny this motion, the court shall take into consideration any matter relevant to the leave requested, including, but not limited to, the following:  (1) The necessity and the reasons for the discovery.  (2) The diligence or lack of diligence of the party seeking the discovery or the hearing of a discovery motion, and the reasons that the discovery was not completed or that the discovery motion was not heard earlier.  (3) Any likelihood that permitting the discovery or hearing the discovery motion will prevent the case from going to trial on the date set, or otherwise interfere with the trial calendar, or result in prejudice to any other party.  (4) The length of time that has elapsed between any date previously set, and the date presently set, for the trial of the action.

“(c) The court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to extend or to reopen discovery, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.”

DISCUSSION

Moving Party argues there is good cause to reopen discovery because Moving Party has issued several discovery requests and notices of deposition, but Opposing Party has not provided meaningful responses to any of those requests, nor has he sat for a deposition.  (Petoyan Decl., ¶ 7-16, Exh. 2-11.) Ibid.)  Opposing Party argues the motion should be denied because trial has been continued four times already.  (Opposition, p. 6:11.)

The Court finds the motion is properly granted.  Moving Party is not asking for a continuance of the trial.  Rather, Moving Party, whose counsel was just recently substituted in on June 13, 2019, seeks only to reopen discovery.  Opposing Party’s responses, which contain objections to interrogatories that have been approved of by the Judicial Counsel, seem arguably deficient at a glance.  There is only good cause to reopen non-expert discovery because Moving Party does not show there is good cause for reopening expert discovery.

The motion is GRANTED.

Non-expert discovery is re-opened and relates to the February 14, 2020 trial date.

Moving Party is ordered to give notice of this ruling.