On 06/27/2017 AMIT JANWEJA filed a Property - Other Real Property lawsuit against AMWEST FUNDING CORP. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are ROBERT L. HESS and ROBERT B. BROADBELT. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.
Pending - Other Pending
Los Angeles County Superior Courts
Stanley Mosk Courthouse
Los Angeles, California
ROBERT L. HESS
ROBERT B. BROADBELT
PEAK FORECLOSURE SERVICES INC
AMWEST FUNDING CORP
DOES 1 TO 25
PEAK FORECLOSURE SERVICES INC.
AMWEST FUNDING CORP.
JAMES A. MOSS
FIDELITY NATIONAL LAW GROUP
MOSS JAMES ALEXANDER
MARCUS WATANABE & ENOWITZ
MARCUS DAVID MORRIS
2/14/2018: Minute Order
3/23/2018: NOTICE OF CASE REASSIGNMENT PURSUANT TO PEREMPTORY CHALLENGE
4/18/2018: Minute Order
4/19/2018: NOTICE OF CONTINUANCE OF HEARING ON DEFENDANT AMWEST FUNDING CORP.'S DEMURRER TO VERIFIED FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT AND CONTINUANCE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE
8/29/2018: PLAINTIFFS' OBJECTIONS TOAMWEST'S REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE
8/29/2018: PIA1NIIFFS? OPPOSITION TO DEMURRER TO VERIFIED FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
8/31/2018: FURTHER REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT AMWEST FUNDING CORP.'S DEMURRER TO VERIFIED FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT, ETC
9/4/2018: NOTICE OF CASE REASSIGNMENT AND OF ORDER FOR PLAINTIFF TO GIVE NOTICE
1/9/2019: Case Management Statement
1/11/2019: Minute Order
1/29/2018: Minute Order
11/30/2017: VERIFIED FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR: 1. QUIET TITLE; 2. DECLARATORY RELIEF; ETC
1/4/2018: PEREMPTORY CHALLENGE TO JUDICIAL OFFICER
6/27/2017: VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR: 1. QUIET TITLE; ETC
7/3/2017: NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF ACTION (LIS PENDENS)
8/8/2017: NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE
at 08:30 AM in Department 53, Robert B. Broadbelt, Presiding; Case Management Conference - HeldRead MoreRead Less
Minute Order ((Case Management Conference;)); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
Case Management Statement; Filed by Amit Janweja (Plaintiff); Reema Janweja (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
Case Management Statement; Filed by Amwest Funding Corp. (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
Answer; Filed by Amwest Funding Corp. (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
at 08:30 AM in Department 53; Hearing on Demurrer - without Motion to Strike (Hearing on Demurrer; Demurrer overruled) -Read MoreRead Less
Minute order entered: 2018-09-11 00:00:00; Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
Minute OrderRead MoreRead Less
Notice of Case Reassignment and Order for Plaintiff to Give Notice; Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
NOTICE OF CASE REASSIGNMENT AND OF ORDER FOR PLAINTIFF TO GIVE NOTICERead MoreRead Less
PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONSRead MoreRead Less
Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)Read MoreRead Less
NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCERead MoreRead Less
Notice of Case Management Conference; Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
Notice of Lis Pendens; Filed by Amit Janweja (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF ACTION (LIS PENDENS)Read MoreRead Less
Complaint; Filed by Amit Janweja (Plaintiff); Reema Janweja (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
SUMMONSRead MoreRead Less
VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR: 1. QUIET TITLE; ETCRead MoreRead Less
at 08:30 AM in Department 53; Final Status ConferenceRead MoreRead Less
Case Number: BC666642 Hearing Date: July 23, 2020 Dept: 53
Superior Court of California
County of Los Angeles – Central District
amwest funding corp.
July 23, 2020
[Tentative] Order RE:
motion to compel third-party witness stepan yamalyan to appear for deposition, produce documents, and otherwise fully comply with deposition subpoena
MOVING PARTY: Defendant Amwest Funding Corp.
RESPONDING PARTY: n/a
Motion to Compel Third-Party Witness Stepan Yamalyan to Appear for Deposition, Produce Documents, and Otherwise Fully Comply With Deposition Subpoena
The court considered the moving papers. No opposition to the motion was filed.
On October 8, 2019, defendant Amwest Funding Corp. (“Amwest”) issued a Deposition Subpoena for Personal Appearance and Production of Documents and Things directed to nonparty Stepan Yamalyan (“Yamalyan”), and Amwest served that deposition subpoena on Yamalyan on October 19, 2019. (Chomsky Decl., ¶¶ 4-5, Exhs. A-B.) The deposition subpoena required Yamalyan to appear to testify as a witness at deposition and to produce the documents described in Attachment 3 on November 7, 2019. (Chomsky Decl., ¶ 4, Exh. A.) Yamalyan did not respond to the deposition subpoena and did not appear for deposition on November 7, 2019. (Chomsky Decl., ¶ 6, Exh. C.)
Amwest now moves for an order compelling Yamalyan to comply with the deposition subpoena by appearing and testifying at his deposition, and producing the documents requested in the deposition subpoena. No opposition to the motion was filed.
“If a subpoena requires the attendance of a witness or the production of . . . documents . . . at the taking of a deposition, the court, upon motion reasonably made by [a party] . . . may make an order . . . directing compliance with it upon those terms or conditions as the court shall declare . . . .” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1987.1, subd. (a).) “A written notice and all moving papers supporting a motion to compel an answer to a deposition question or to compel production of a document or tangible thing from a nonparty deponent must be personally served on the nonparty deponent unless the nonparty deponent agrees to accept service by mail or electronic service at an address or electronic service address specified on the deposition record.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1346.)
On June 4, 2020, Amwest filed a Proof of Service showing that, on May 27, 2020, Yamalyan was served with Amwest’s notice of motion and all moving papers filed in support of this motion, as required by California Rules of Court, rule 3.1346 and due process. In light of Yamalyan’s failure to file an opposition to the motion and the court’s finding of good cause to grant the motion, the court grants Amwest’s motion to compel compliance with deposition subpoena for nonparty Stepan Yamalyan.
Amwest also requests that the court impose monetary sanctions in the amount of $500 against Yamalyan pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 2020.240 and 1992. Section 2020.240 provides, in relevant part: “A deponent who disobeys a deposition subpoena . . . may be punished for contempt . . . without the necessity of a prior order of court directing compliance by the witness. The deponent is also subject to the forfeiture and the payment of damages set forth in Section 1992.” Section 1992 provides: “A person failing to appear pursuant to a subpoena or a court order also forfeits to the party aggrieved the sum of five hundred dollars ($500), and all damages that he or she may sustain by the failure of the person to appear pursuant to the subpoena or court order, which forfeiture and damages may be recovered in a civil action.”
“The maximum sanction [under Code of Civil Procedure section 1992] is a $500 forfeiture plus actual damages, and the party aggrieved by the failure to make discovery can recover the sanctions only by bringing an independent civil action.” (New York Times Co. v. Superior Court (1990) 51 Cal.3d 453, 464 (emphasis added).) Because the sanction under section 1992 can only be recovered in an action separate and independent from this action, the court denies Amwest’s request for monetary sanctions without prejudice.
For the reasons set forth above, the court makes the following orders.
The court grants defendant Amwest Funding Corp.’s motion to compel compliance with the Deposition Subpoena for Personal Appearance and Production of Documents and Things directed to nonparty Stepan Yamalyan, issued October 8, 2019.
The court orders nonparty Stepan Yamalyan (1) to appear in person to testify as a witness in this action on _________________, 2020, at 10:00 a.m., at the office of Marcus, Watanabe & Enowitz, located at 11377 W. Olympic Boulevard, 5th Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90064, and (2) to produce the documents and things described in Attachment 3 to the Deposition Subpoena for Personal Appearance and Production of Documents and Things directed to nonparty Stepan Yamalyan, issued October 8, 2019. Pursuant to Appendix I to the California Rules of Court, Emergency Rules Related to COVID-19, Emergency rule 11(a), nonparty deponent Stepan Yamalyan, at his election or the election of the deposing party, is not required to be present with the deposition officer at the time of the deposition. In light of the concerns about the COVID-19 pandemic, if nonparty deponent Stepan Yamalyan and defendant Amwest Funding Corp. agree to conduct the deposition by videoconference, they may do so.
The court denies defendant Amwest Funding Corp.’s request for an order imposing monetary sanctions against Stepan Yamalyan.
Defendant Amwest Funding Corp. is ordered to give notice of this ruling.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: July 23, 2020
Robert B. Broadbelt III
Judge of the Superior Court
Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases