This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 10/06/2020 at 07:57:03 (UTC).

DAVID EHDIZADEH ET AL VS EVA SAHKYAN ET AL

Case Summary

On 03/02/2018 DAVID EHDIZADEH filed a Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle lawsuit against EVA SAHKYAN. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are CHRISTOPHER K. LUI and DANIEL M. CROWLEY. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****6171

  • Filing Date:

    03/02/2018

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

CHRISTOPHER K. LUI

DANIEL M. CROWLEY

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs and Petitioners

EHDIZADEH DAVID

EHDIZADEH ELY

Defendants and Respondents

DOES 1 TO 25

SAHAKYAN NATALIE

SAHAKYAN EVA

Not Classified By Court

ELY MEHDIZADEH

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorney

ALDER C. MICHAEL ESQ.

Defendant and Respondent Attorneys

SANTA CRUZ BROWNWOOD & CANNON

HURLEY BETH LOUISE

 

Court Documents

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR TERMINATING SANCTIONS; TRIAL SETTING C...)

8/4/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR TERMINATING SANCTIONS; TRIAL SETTING C...)

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (NUNC PRO TUNC ORDER)

6/9/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (NUNC PRO TUNC ORDER)

Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (COURT ORDER) OF 04/15/2020

4/15/2020: Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (COURT ORDER) OF 04/15/2020

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER)

4/15/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER)

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER CONTINUING MOTION FOR TERMINATING SANCTIONS)

3/18/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER CONTINUING MOTION FOR TERMINATING SANCTIONS)

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER)

3/18/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER)

Declaration - DECLARATION OF COUNSEL

2/11/2020: Declaration - DECLARATION OF COUNSEL

Motion for Terminating Sanctions

2/11/2020: Motion for Terminating Sanctions

Notice - NOTICE OF RULING; NEW FSC AND TRIAL DATES

11/26/2019: Notice - NOTICE OF RULING; NEW FSC AND TRIAL DATES

Memorandum of Points & Authorities

10/24/2019: Memorandum of Points & Authorities

Motion to Compel - MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF DAVID MEHDIZADEH'S DEPOSITION AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

10/24/2019: Motion to Compel - MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF DAVID MEHDIZADEH'S DEPOSITION AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

Memorandum of Points & Authorities

11/1/2019: Memorandum of Points & Authorities

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS -

3/28/2018: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS -

Declaration in Support of Attorney's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel-Civil

4/25/2019: Declaration in Support of Attorney's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel-Civil

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (MOTIONS OF MICHAEL ALDER, ALDERLAW P.C. TO BE RELIEVED AS COU...)

5/28/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (MOTIONS OF MICHAEL ALDER, ALDERLAW P.C. TO BE RELIEVED AS COU...)

Order Granting Attorney's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel-Civil

5/28/2019: Order Granting Attorney's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel-Civil

Notice of Ruling

6/7/2019: Notice of Ruling

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS -

3/28/2018: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS -

40 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 03/02/2021
  • Hearing03/02/2021 at 08:30 AM in Department 28 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/06/2020
  • Hearing10/06/2020 at 08:30 AM in Department 28 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/15/2020
  • DocketNotice (of Order to Show Cause re Dismissal); Filed by Eva Sahakyan (Defendant); Natalie Sahakyan (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/04/2020
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 28, Daniel M. Crowley, Presiding; Trial Setting Conference - Not Held - Continued - Court's Motion

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/04/2020
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 28, Daniel M. Crowley, Presiding; Hearing on Motion for Terminating Sanctions - Held - Motion Granted

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/04/2020
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Defendant's Motion for Terminating Sanctions Against Plaintif...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/18/2020
  • DocketNotice (of Continued Motion for Terminating Sanctions and Trial Setting Conference); Filed by Eva Sahakyan (Defendant); Natalie Sahakyan (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/04/2020
  • Docketat 2:30 PM in Department 28, Daniel M. Crowley, Presiding; Hearing on Motion for Terminating Sanctions - Held - Continued

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/04/2020
  • Docketat 2:30 PM in Department 28, Daniel M. Crowley, Presiding; Trial Setting Conference - Held - Continued

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/04/2020
  • Docketat 2:30 PM in Department 28, Daniel M. Crowley, Presiding; Hearing on Motion for Terminating Sanctions - Not Held - Vacated by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
69 More Docket Entries
  • 04/18/2018
  • DocketCIVIL DEPOSIT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/18/2018
  • DocketReceipt; Filed by Eva Sahakyan (Defendant); Natalie Sahakyan (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/18/2018
  • DocketGENERAL DENIAL TO COMPLAINT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/28/2018
  • DocketPROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/28/2018
  • DocketPROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/28/2018
  • DocketProof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by David Ehdizadeh (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/28/2018
  • DocketProof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by David Ehdizadeh (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/02/2018
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by David Ehdizadeh (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/02/2018
  • DocketCOMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES: 1. NEGLIGENCE; ETC

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/02/2018
  • DocketSUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC696171    Hearing Date: August 04, 2020    Dept: 28

Motion for Terminating Sanctions

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

BACKGROUND

On March 2, 2018, Plaintiffs David Mehdizadeh and Ely Mehdizadeh (“Plaintiffs”) filed a complaint against Defendants Eva Sahakyan and Natali Sahakyan (erroneously sued as Natalie Sahakyan) (“Defendants”) alleging negligence and negligent entrustment arising from an automobile collision that occurred on November 29, 2016. 

On November 25, 2019, the Court granted Defendants’ Motion to Compel both Plaintiffs’ depositions.  Plaintiffs were ordered to appear and testify at depositions within 30 days of the order on a mutually agreeable date.

On February 11, 2020, Defendants filed the instant motion for terminating sanctions against Plaintiff David Mehdizadeh (“Mehdizadeh”).

On March 18, 2020, the Court continued the hearing on Defendants’ motion for terminating sanctions to March 25, 2020.

On April 15, 2020, the Court continued the hearing on Defendants’ motion for terminating sanctions to July 9, 2020.

On July 9, 2020, the Court continued the hearing on Defendants’ motion for terminating sanctions to August 4, 2020.

A trial setting conference is scheduled for August 4, 2020.

PARTIES REQUESTS

Defendants ask the Court to impose terminating sanctions against Plaintiff Mehdizadeh by dismissing his complaint against Defendants based on his failure to comply with the Court’s discovery order.

LEGAL STANDARD

If a party fails to comply with a court order compelling a further response to a request for production, the court may impose monetary, issue, evidence, or terminating sanctions. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (i).) California Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030 provides that, “[t]o the extent authorized by the chapter governing any particular discovery method . . . , the court, after notice to any affected party, person, or attorney, and after opportunity for hearing, may impose . . . [monetary, issue, evidence, or terminating] sanctions against anyone engaging in conduct that is a misuse of the discovery process . . . .” California Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.010 provides that “[m]issues of the discovery process include, but are not limited to, the following: . . . (g) Disobeying a court order to provide discovery . . . .”

“The trial court may order a terminating sanction for discovery abuse ‘after considering the totality of the circumstances: [the] conduct of the party to determine if the actions were willful; the detriment to the propounding party; and the number of formal and informal attempts to obtain the discovery.’” (Los Defensores, Inc. v. Gomez (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 377, 390 [quoting Lang v. Hochman (2000) 77 Cal.App.4th 1225, 1246).) “Generally, ‘[a] decision to order terminating sanctions should not be made lightly. But where a violation is willful, preceded by a history of abuse, and the evidence shows that less severe sanctions would not produce compliance with the discovery rules, the trial court is justified in imposing the ultimate sanction.’” (Los Defensores, supra, 223 Cal.App.4th at p. 390 [citation omitted].)

“Under this standard, trial courts have properly imposed terminating sanctions when parties have willfully disobeyed one or more discovery orders.” (Los Defensores, 223 Cal.App.4th at p. 390 [citing Lang, supra,¿ 7 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1244-1246 [discussing cases]]; see, e.g., Collisson & Kaplan v. Hartunian (1994) 21 Cal.App.4th 1611, 1617-1622 [terminating sanctions imposed after defendants failed to comply with one court order to produce discovery]; Laguna Auto Body v. Farmers Ins. Exchange (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 481, 491 [terminating sanctions imposed against plaintiff for failing to comply with a discovery order and for violating various discovery statutes] [disapproved on other grounds in Garcia v. McCutchen (1997) 16 Cal.4th 469, 478, n. 4].)

DISCUSSION

Here, Plaintiff Mehdizadeh was ordered to appear for deposition within 30 days of the November 25, 2019 order.  Defense counsel declares that Mehdizadeh a meet and confer letter was sent to him on January 6, 2020 after he failed to appear for deposition within the time allotted by the Court.  (Johnson Decl., ¶ 4.)  As of the date the motion was filed, Mehdizadeh has not appeared for his deposition, has refused to provide any available dates, and has made no attempt to comply with the November 25, 2019 order.  (Id. at ¶¶ 5-6.)  Defense counsel sent an additional meet and confer letter on January 6, 2020 that was never responded to.  (Id. at ¶ 7.)

The Court finds that Plaintiff Mehdizadeh has engaged in conduct that is an abuse of the discovery process in disobeying the Court’s November 25, 2019 order compelling his deposition within 30 days.  Mehdizadeh did not oppose the motion to compel deposition and has not opposed the instant motion for terminating sanctions. As such, terminating sanctions are properly imposed against him.

CONCLUSION

The motion is GRANTED.

Plaintiff David Mehdizadeh’s complaint is DISMISSED.

Defendants are ordered to give notice of this ruling.

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

Case Number: BC696171    Hearing Date: November 25, 2019    Dept: 4A

Motion to Compel Deposition (x2)

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

BACKGROUND

On March 2, 2018, Plaintiffs David Mehdizadeh and Ely Mehdizadeh (“Plaintiffs”) filed a complaint against Defendants Eva Sahakyan and Natali Sahakyan (erroneously sued as Natalie Sahakyan) (“Defendants”) alleging negligence and negligent entrustment arising from an automobile collision that occurred on November 29, 2016.

On October 24, 2019, Defendants filed motions to compel Plaintiffsattendance and testimony at depositions pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.450, subdivision (a).

Trial is set for April 16, 2020.

PARTYS REQUESTS

Defendants ask the Court to compel Plaintiffs to appear and testify at depositions within 20 days of this ruling base on their failure to appear at previous depositions.

Defendants also request that the Court impose monetary sanctions.

LEGAL STANDARD

California Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.450, subdivision (a) provides: “If, after service of a deposition notice, a party to the action . . . , without having served a valid objection under Section 2025.410, fails to appear for examination, or to proceed with it, or to produce for inspection any document . . . described in the deposition notice, the party giving the notice may move for an order compelling the deponent’s attendance and testimony, and the production for inspection of any document . . . described in the deposition notice.”

California Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.450, subdivision (b) provides: “A motion under subdivision (a) shall comply with both of the following:

  1. The motion shall set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the production for inspection of any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing described in the deposition notice.

  1. The motion shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040, or, when the deponent fails to attend the deposition and produce the documents, electronically stored information, or things described in the deposition notice, by a declaration stating that the petitioner has contacted the deponent to inquire about the nonappearance.”

California Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.450, subdivision (c) provides, “(1) If a motion under subdivision (a) is granted, the court shall impose a monetary sanction . . . in favor of the party who noticed the deposition and against the deponent or the party with whom the deponent is affiliated, unless the court finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.”

Under California Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030, subd. (a), “[t]he court may impose a monetary sanction ordering that one engaging in the misuse of the discovery process, or any attorney advising that conduct, or both pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct. . . . If a monetary sanction is authorized by any provision of this title, the court shall impose that sanction 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.” Failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery is a misuse of the discovery process.  (Code of Civ. Proc. § 2023.010, subd. (d).)

California Rules of Court, rule 3.1348, subdivision (a) states: “The court may award sanctions under the Discovery Act in favor of a party who files a motion to compel discovery, even though no opposition to the motion was filed, or opposition to the motion was withdrawn, or the requested discovery was provided to the moving party after the motion was filed.”

DISCUSSION

Between August 13, 2018 and March 13, 2019, Defendants served three notices seeking to take Plaintiffs’ depositions.  (Both Declarations of Spencer Johnson, Esq. (“Johnson Decl.”), ¶¶ 2-4, Exh. A, C, E.)  Plaintiffs’ counsel objected to the first two deposition notices on the grounds that they were unilaterally set and did not appear at their corresponding depositions.  (Johnson Decl., ¶¶ 2-3, Exh. B, D.)  Defendants took the third deposition notice off calendar based on Plaintiffs’ representation that a motion to be relieved as counsel was filed.  (Johnson Decl., ¶ 4.)  On July 29, 2019, Defendants served a notice of taking Plaintiffs’ depositions on August 23, 2019.  (Johnson Decl., ¶ 6, Exh. F.)  Plaintiffs did not appear at their August 23, 2019 depositions.  (Johnson Decl., ¶¶ 6-7, Exh. G.)

The Court finds the motion is properly granted.  Plaintiffs’ objections to the first two deposition notices on the ground that Defendants unilaterally set the deposition dates did not justify their failure to appear at those depositions.  Moreover, Plaintiffs failed to object or appear at the most recently scheduled depositions on August 23, 2019.  Additionally, there are no facts presented to the Court showing Plaintiffs acted with a substantial justification or that circumstances exist showing that the imposition of sanctions would be unjust.

Defendants’ request for sanctions in their notices of motions to compel Plaintiffs’ appearance and testimony at depositions.  However, there is no argument presented in the bodies of the memoranda of points and authorities.  Similarly, there is no calculation in Defendants’ counsel’s declarations showing a reasonable amount of sanctions to be imposed.  As such, the Court declines to impose sanctions.

The motions are GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

Plaintiffs are ordered to appear and testify at depositions within 30 days of this order on a date mutually agreeable between the parties.

Defendants’ request for sanctions are DENIED.

Defendants are ordered to give notice of this ruling.