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.
Pending - Other Pending
Los Angeles County Superior Courts
Stanley Mosk Courthouse
Los Angeles, California
DENNIS J. LANDIN
CHRISTOPHER K. LUI
DOES 1 TO 10
JANFAZA RON A. ROSEN
TAMRAZ JOEL F. ESQ.
PETOYAN MARCUS ARAM
SAHAR MALEK LAW APC
COHAN LAW GROUP
COHAN SABRINA S
JANFAZA RON A. ROSEN
TAMRAZ JOEL FRANCIS
2/1/2018: MEMORMDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT
2/7/2018: Minute Order
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,
5/1/2018: OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT
8/29/2018: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS
10/11/2018: Motion to Quash Service of Summons
10/11/2018: Minute Order
11/27/2018: Proof of Personal Service
12/3/2018: Motion to Quash Service of Summons
12/6/2018: Ex Parte Application
1/23/2019: Minute Order
3/27/2019: Minute Order
6/13/2019: Substitution of Attorney
11/30/2017: Minute Order
Substitution of Attorney; Filed by Alexander Haroonian (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
at 11:00 AM in Department 4A, Christopher K. Lui, Presiding; Informal Discovery Conference (IDC) - Not Held - Taken Off Calendar by CourtRead MoreRead Less
Minute Order ( (Informal Discovery Conference (IDC))); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
Answer; Filed by Alexander Haroonian (Cross-Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
Cross-Complaint; Filed by Ron A. Rosen Janfaza (Cross-Complainant)Read MoreRead Less
Answer; Filed by Ron A. Rosen Janfaza (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
Summons (on Complaint); Filed by Ron A. Rosen Janfaza (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
at 1:30 PM in Department 4A, Christopher K. Lui, Presiding; Hearing on Motion - OtherRead MoreRead Less
at 08:30 AM in Department 4A, Christopher K. Lui, Presiding; Jury Trial - Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by CourtRead MoreRead Less
at 1:30 PM in Department 4A, Christopher K. Lui, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Held - ContinuedRead MoreRead Less
Minute OrderRead MoreRead Less
Notice; Filed by Alexander Haroonian (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
NOTICE OF INFORMAL DISCOVERY CONFERENCERead MoreRead Less
OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION THERETORead MoreRead Less
Opposition Document; Filed by Alexander Haroonian (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT; ETCRead MoreRead Less
Motion to Quash; Filed by Ron A. Rosen Janfaza (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
Complaint; Filed by Alexander Haroonian (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
SUMMONSRead MoreRead Less
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES: 1. ASSAULT AND BATTERY; ETC.Read MoreRead Less
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.
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.
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.
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.”
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.