Search

Attributes

This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 06/18/2019 at 22:31:04 (UTC).

BRAZJHAN BARBEAU VS CROWN LIMOUSINE ET AL

Case Summary

On 10/31/2017 BRAZJHAN BARBEAU filed a Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury lawsuit against CROWN LIMOUSINE. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are DAVID SOTELO and CHRISTOPHER K. LUI. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****1930

  • Filing Date:

    10/31/2017

  • 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

DAVID SOTELO

CHRISTOPHER K. LUI

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Guardian Ad Litem

BARBEAU SHAWNA

Defendants and Respondents

DOES 1 TO 100

GOGOSHIAN HRATCH

CROWN LIMOUSINE

SUV LIMOUSINE INC DBA CROWN LIMOUSINE

LIMOUSINE CROWN

Minor

BARBEAU BRAZJHAN

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Defendant and Respondent Attorneys

HARRINGTON FOXX DUBROW & CANTER LLP(L.A)

HARRINGTON FOXX DUBROW & CANTER LLP(ORG)

HARRINGTON FOXX DUBROW & CANTER LLPORG

HARRINGTON FOXX DUBROW & CANTER LLPL.A

THE SAFARIAN FIRM A.P.C

Minor Attorney

GEORGE VICTOR L. ESQ.

 

Court Documents

Minute Order

2/20/2018: Minute Order

Minute Order

2/20/2018: Minute Order

DEFENDANT HRATCH GOGOSHIAN?S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF PLAINTIFFS? COMPLAINT; ETC.

3/2/2018: DEFENDANT HRATCH GOGOSHIAN?S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF PLAINTIFFS? COMPLAINT; ETC.

DECLARATION OF JONATHAN D. NOH REGARDING NON-RECEIPT OF OPPOSITION BY PLAINTIFF TO NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT

3/27/2018: DECLARATION OF JONATHAN D. NOH REGARDING NON-RECEIPT OF OPPOSITION BY PLAINTIFF TO NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT

ORDER RE: MOTION TO STRIKE CLAIM FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES

4/25/2018: ORDER RE: MOTION TO STRIKE CLAIM FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES

Minute Order

4/25/2018: Minute Order

NOTICE OF RULING

5/23/2018: NOTICE OF RULING

DEFENDANT SUV LIMOUSINE INC.S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT DEMAND FOR JURY

5/23/2018: DEFENDANT SUV LIMOUSINE INC.S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT DEMAND FOR JURY

Unknown

5/24/2018: Unknown

Declaration

2/8/2019: Declaration

Declaration

2/8/2019: Declaration

Request for Judicial Notice

2/8/2019: Request for Judicial Notice

PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

1/22/2018: PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT BY DEFENDANT SUV LIMOUSINE DBA CROWN LIMOUSINE; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

1/25/2018: MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT BY DEFENDANT SUV LIMOUSINE DBA CROWN LIMOUSINE; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

Unknown

1/25/2018: Unknown

SUMMONS

11/27/2017: SUMMONS

NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

11/8/2017: NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

COMPLAINT?PERSONAL INJURY, PROPERTY DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH

10/31/2017: COMPLAINT?PERSONAL INJURY, PROPERTY DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH

23 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 04/24/2019
  • at 1:30 PM in Department 4A, Christopher K. Lui, Presiding; Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment - Not Held - Taken Off Calendar by Party

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/08/2019
  • Request for Dismissal; Filed by BRAZJHAN BARBEAU (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/08/2019
  • Separate Statement; Filed by HRATCH GOGOSHIAN (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/08/2019
  • Declaration (Declaration of Jonathan D. Noh in support of MSJ); Filed by HRATCH GOGOSHIAN (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/08/2019
  • Motion for Summary Judgment; Filed by HRATCH GOGOSHIAN (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/08/2019
  • Declaration (Declaration of Hratch Gogoshian in support of MSJ); Filed by HRATCH GOGOSHIAN (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/24/2018
  • Receipt; Filed by SUV LIMOUSINE, INC DBA CROWN LIMOUSINE (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/24/2018
  • CIVIL DEPOSIT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/23/2018
  • Answer; Filed by SUV LIMOUSINE, INC DBA CROWN LIMOUSINE (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/23/2018
  • NOTICE OF RULING

    Read MoreRead Less
56 More Docket Entries
  • 11/27/2017
  • Application ; Filed by Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/27/2017
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/27/2017
  • Application ; Filed by Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/27/2017
  • Application ; Filed by Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/08/2017
  • NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/08/2017
  • ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE HEARING

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/08/2017
  • Notice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/08/2017
  • OSC-Failure to File Proof of Serv; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/31/2017
  • COMPLAINT PERSONAL INJURY, PROPERTY DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/31/2017
  • Complaint; Filed by null

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC681930    Hearing Date: February 05, 2021    Dept: 28

Petition for Order Terminating Appointment of All Guardian Ad Litems

Having considered the moving papers, the Court rules as follows.

BACKGROUND

On October 31, 2017, Plaintiffs Brazjhan Barbeau, by and through his Guardian ad Litem, Shawna Barbeau (“Barbeau”); Jennifer Birstein, by and through her Guardian ad Litem, Kenny Birstein (“Birstein”); Ceday Bello, by and through her Guardian ad Litem, Cedric Bello (“Bello”); and Asia Roderick, by and through her Guardian ad Litem, Vanessa Lozano (“Roderick”) (collectively “Plaintiffs”) filed a complaint against Defendants Crown Limousine and Hratch Gogoshian (“Gogoshian”).  The complaint alleges negligence arising from an incident where Plaintiffs were injured while on a party bus on March 11, 2017.

On April 8, 2019, dismissal was entered as to Defendant Gogoshian.

On January 20, 2021, Plaintiffs filed a petition for order terminating appointment of all guardian ad litems.

Trial is set for February 26, 2021.

PARTYS REQUEST

Plaintiffs seek a court order terminating the appointments of Shawna Barbeau as guardian ad litem for Brazjhan Barbeau, Kenny Birstein as guardian ad litem for Jennifer Birstein, Cedric Bello as guardian ad litem for Ceday Bello, and Vanessa Lozano as guardian ad litem for Asia Roderick on grounds that Plaintiffs are now adults of sound mind capable of representing their own interests in this matter.

LEGAL STANDARD

Guardian ad litems are appointed by and subject to supervision of the trial court and the trial court can remove a guardian on its own motion or at a party’s request.  (McClintock v. West (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 540, 552.) Golin v. Allenby (2010) 190 Cal.App.4th 616, 643-44.)

DISCUSSION

Plaintiffs seek termination of the appointments of their respective guardian ad litems on grounds that they are now adults of sound mind capable of representing their own interests in this matter.

As Plaintiffs are no longer minors, the Court finds the appointments of guardian ad litems in this matter are no longer necessary and moot.

Accordingly, the petition for order terminating appointment of all guardians ad litem is GRANTED.

Plaintiffs are ordered to give notice of this ruling.

The parties are directed to the header of this tentative ruling for further instructions.¿

Case Number: BC681930    Hearing Date: November 05, 2020    Dept: 28

Motion for Leave to File Cross-Complaint

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

BACKGROUND

On October 31, 2017, Plaintiffs Brazjhan Barbeau, Jennifer Birstein, Ceday Bello, and Asia Roderick (collectively “Plaintiffs”) filed a complaint against Defendants SUV Limousine, Inc. dba Crown Limousine (“Defendant Limousine”) and Hratch Gogoshian.  Plaintiffs allege negligence in the complaint arising from an incident where Plaintiffs were injured while on a party bus on March 11, 2017.

On April 25, 2018, the Court struck punitive damages from Plaintiffs’ complaint.

On June 26, 2020, Defendant Limousine filed a motion for leave to file a cross-complaint pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure sections 426.50 and 428.50.

On June 29, 2020, the court scheduled the hearing on Defendant Limousine’s motion to be heard on November 5, 2020.

Trial is set for February 26, 2021.

PARTIES REQUESTS

Defendant Mighty Enterprises, Inc. dba Mighty U.S.A., Inc. (“Defendant Mighty”) asks the Court to grant leave for Defendant Mighty to file a cross-complaint to seek contribution and indemnity.

LEGAL STANDARD

California Code of Civil Procedure section 428.50 states, “(a) A party shall file a cross-complaint against any of the parties who filed the complaint or cross-complaint against him or her before or at the same time as the answer to the complaint or cross-complaint.

‘(b) Any other cross-complaint may be filed at any time before the court has set a date for trial.

‘(c) A party shall obtain leave of court to file any cross-complaint except one filed within the time specified in subdivision (a) or (b).  Leave may be granted in the interest of justice at any time during the course of the action.”

A cross-complaint is compulsory when a related cause of action existed at the time of serving the defendant’s answer to the complaint.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 426.30, subd. (a); see also Crocker Nat. Bank v. Emerald (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 852, 864.)  A related cause of action is “. . . a cause of action which arises out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences as the cause of action which the plaintiff alleges in his complaint.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 426.10, subd. (c).)  Leave must be granted to file a compulsory cross-complaint when the defendant is acting in good faith.  (See Code Civ. Proc., § 426.50.)

“Cross-complaints for comparative equitable indemnity would appear virtually always transactionally related to the main action.”  (Time for Living, Inc. v. Guy Hatfield Homes (1991) 230 Cal.App.3d 30, 38.)

DISCUSSION

Defendant Limousine asks the Court for leave to file a cross-complaint against the plaintiffs’ guardian ad litems, Shawna Barbeau, Kenny Birstein, Cedric Bello, and Vanessa Lozano.  (See Motion, Exh. A.)  Defendant Limousine seeks indemnity, contribution, apportionment, and declaratory relief.  (Ibid.Defendant Limousine alleges that these guardian ad litems are liable for damages Plaintiffs seek against Defendant Limousine.  (Ibid.)  As such, the cross-complaint arises from the same series of transactions or occurrences as the complaint and must be filed.

Plaintiffs argue Defendant Limousine’s motion is untimely because it has waited almost two years to bring this motion.  Timeliness of the motion is irrelevant because the cross-complaint is compulsory.  But even if the cross-complaint was permissive, Plaintiffs’ argument is unpersuasive.  Defendant Limousine indicates that it has been diligent in seeking Plaintiffs’ depositions, but to Defendant Limousine’s demise, these depositions have been consistently delayed.  (Johnson Decl., ¶¶ 3-4.)  Some of the depositions were taken in January of 2019 and March of 2020.  (Johnson Decl., 4.)  These depositions revealed the viability of Defendant Limousine’s cross-complaint.  (Johnson Decl., 7.)  As such, the Court finds this motion, which was filed on June 26, 2020, was timely.

CONCLUSION

The motion is GRANTED.

Defendant Limousine is ordered to file and serve the cross-complaint attached as Exhibit A to the moving papers within ten days of this ruling.

Defendant Limousine is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

The parties are directed to the header of this tentative ruling for further instructions.

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases represented by Lawyer GEORGE VICTOR L.