This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 08/29/2019 at 00:14:05 (UTC).

ARTHUR YAZICHYAN VS MERCEDES BENZ USA LLC

Case Summary

On 05/03/2018 a Contract - Other Contract case was filed by ARTHUR YAZICHYAN against MERCEDES BENZ USA LLC in the jurisdiction of Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****4510

  • Filing Date:

    05/03/2018

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Contract - Other Contract

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

 

Party Details

Petitioner and Plaintiff

YAZICHYAN ARTHUR

Respondents and Defendants

DOES 1 TO 20

MERCEDES-BENZ USA LLC

 

Court Documents

Declaration

8/6/2019: Declaration

Memorandum of Points & Authorities

8/6/2019: Memorandum of Points & Authorities

Ex Parte Application

8/7/2019: Ex Parte Application

Order

8/7/2019: Order

Minute Order

5/15/2019: Minute Order

Minute Order

5/29/2019: Minute Order

Stipulation and Order

12/7/2018: Stipulation and Order

CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

9/21/2018: CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

Separate Statement

11/5/2018: Separate Statement

Motion to Compel

11/5/2018: Motion to Compel

Case Management Order

10/11/2018: Case Management Order

Minute Order

10/11/2018: Minute Order

NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

9/20/2018: NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

CIVIL DEPOSIT

9/26/2018: CIVIL DEPOSIT

NOTICE OF CHANGE OF ADDRESS OR OTHER CONTACT INFORMATION

6/5/2018: NOTICE OF CHANGE OF ADDRESS OR OTHER CONTACT INFORMATION

NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

6/11/2018: NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

NOTICE OF CASE REASSIGNMENT AND OF ORDER FOR PLAINTIFF TO GIVE NOTICE

6/21/2018: NOTICE OF CASE REASSIGNMENT AND OF ORDER FOR PLAINTIFF TO GIVE NOTICE

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

5/3/2018: COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

16 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 05/12/2020
  • Hearingat 10:00 AM in Department 24 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Jury Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/29/2020
  • Hearingat 09:30 AM in Department 24 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Final Status Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/26/2020
  • Hearingat 08:30 AM in Department 24 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Status Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/27/2019
  • Docketat 10:00 AM in Department 24; Jury Trial - Not Held - Advanced and Vacated

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/27/2019
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 24; Trial Setting Conference - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/27/2019
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Trial Setting Conference)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/27/2019
  • DocketCase Management Order; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/15/2019
  • Docketat 09:30 AM in Department 24; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Advanced and Vacated

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/07/2019
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 24; Hearing on Ex Parte Application (for Order to Continue Trial to Complete Discovery) - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/07/2019
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Hearing on Ex Parte Application for Order to Continue Trial t...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
38 More Docket Entries
  • 06/11/2018
  • DocketDEFENDANT MERCEDES-BENZ USA, LLC'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/11/2018
  • DocketAnswer; Filed by Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/11/2018
  • DocketNotice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/05/2018
  • DocketNOTICE OF CHANGE OF ADDRESS OR OTHER CONTACT INFORMATION

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/09/2018
  • DocketProof-Service/Summons; Filed by Arthur Yazichyan (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/09/2018
  • DocketPROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/03/2018
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Arthur Yazichyan (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/03/2018
  • DocketSUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/03/2018
  • DocketSummons; Filed by Arthur Yazichyan (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/03/2018
  • DocketCOMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC704510    Hearing Date: January 29, 2020    Dept: 24

Plaintiff Aurthur Yazichyan’s motion to compel is DENIED without prejudice.

Plaintiff Aurthur Yazichyan (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant lemon law action against Defendant Mercedes-Benz USA LLC (“Defendant”) on June 13, 2018.

On October 22, 2019, Plaintiff filed the instant motion to compel the deposition of Defendant’s “non-retained expert witnesses” or in the alternative for an order excluding the witnesses from testifying at trial. On January 15, 2020, Defendant filed an opposition. On January 23, 2020, Plaintiff filed a reply.

Discussion

There are several notice issues that must be addressed. Defendant contends that the instant motion was improperly noticed against it. Plaintiff contends that it properly noticed the instant motion against Mercedes-Benz of Arcadia ("MBA"), the dealership. Of course, both parties are incorrect. The relevant parties that should have received notice of this motion are the deponents themselves. The instant notice fails to mention these individuals, and only obliquely refers to them as Defendant’s “non-retained expert witnesses” without specifically mentioning whose depositions Plaintiff seeks to compel. The parties’ confusion is somewhat understandable since Defendant is the only party mentioned in the notice, despite Plaintiff’s contention that the motion was directed at MBA. Further compounding this ambiguity is that this motion improperly brings multiple motions to compel. There are no less than twelve motions to compel presented by the instant motion. None of these witnesses are even mentioned in the entirety of the notice or motion. These motions are therefore defective against all the non-party deponents.

The disputes presented in this motion also highlight another defect in the notice and motion. The notice of motion must state in the first paragraph exactly what relief is sought and the grounds. (CCP § 1010; CRC 3.1110(a).) The instant motion makes no reference to any proper moving authority. The notice of motion only references CCP section 2024.030, which provides the time limits for conducting discovery. Reviewing the entirety of the motion and reply, Plaintiff offers no statutory authority that would empower the Court to compel the deposition of any non-party deponent. At best, Plaintiff cites statutes which state a nonparty witness who fails to appear in response to a deposition subpoena may be punished for contempt without a prior court order directing that witness to comply with the subpoena, and may be liable for damages to the subpoenaing party. (CCP § 2020.240; Civ. Code § 1992.) Plaintiff has not discussed the elements of contempt or offered any evidence of contempt. Furthermore, a contempt citation would not logically provide for compelling attendance, as this would be separate relief from a motion to compel.

Underscoring the lack of authority, Plaintiff argues that section 2025.480 does not apply regarding the timeliness of the motion. However, Plaintiff does not state what statute should apply. Notably, Plaintiff’s cited secondary authority suggests that section 2025.480 would apply to compel a third party’s attendance to a deposition. (Weil & Brown, Cal. Prac. Guide Civ. Pro. Before Trial Ch. 8E-6 at 8:609.1 [citing CCP § 2025.480(b) and Unzipped for the proposition that “[i]f a nonparty disobeys a depo subpoena, the subpoenaing party may seek a court order compelling the nonparty to comply with the subpoena within 60 days after completion of the deposition record.” (Emphasis removed.)].) As to the applicability of this statute, Plaintiff argues that the deposition record was never even completed. This only highlights another issue: the instant motions are unripe. Plaintiff fails to cite any provision of the CCP that authorizes this Court to compel a non-party’s deposition proactively, prior to a non-appearance. Without a failure to obey a deposition subpoena (i.e. failure to appear), then the non-party never actually disobeyed the deposition subpoena and thus cannot be compelled to do so.

While the Court encourages the parties to informally resolve the substantive issues, relief cannot be granted at this time. The Court will note that failure to attend a properly noticed deposition or produce properly requested documents, followed by a proper motion to compel, will result in an order to compel and monetary sanctions.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to compel is DENIED without prejudice.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.