On 01/09/2017 EMANUEL AFRAHMIAN filed a Contract - Professional Negligence lawsuit against KOUSHA BEROKIM. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.
Pending - Other Pending
Stanley Mosk Courthouse
Los Angeles, California
DOES 1 TO 10
WEISS THOMAS J. ESQ.
WEISS THOMAS JOEL
2/13/2018: DEFENDANT BEROKIM'S EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF AFRAMIAN'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
2/13/2018: COMPENDIUM OF EXHIBITS AND REQUESTS FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF AFRAMIAN'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
10/2/2018: OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL
11/15/2018: Exhibit List
11/15/2018: Jury Instructions
11/16/2018: Exhibit List
12/6/2018: Ex Parte Application
12/6/2018: Minute Order
1/22/2019: Notice of Case Reassignment and Order for Plaintiff to Give Notice
Reply ( Brief to Opposition to Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production of Documents); Filed by Kousha Berokim (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
Reply ( Brief to Opposition to Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories); Filed by Kousha Berokim (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
Opposition (CONSOLIDATED OPPOSITION TO MOTIONS TO COMPEL); Filed by Emanuel Afrahmian (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
Declaration (Declaration of Shawn Zaman in Support of Consolidated Oppositions to Motions to Compel); Filed by Emanuel Afrahmian (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
Notice of Case Reassignment and Order for Plaintiff to Give Notice; Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
at 08:30 AM in Department 37; Trial Setting Conference - HeldRead MoreRead Less
Minute Order ( (Trial Setting Conference)); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
Miscellaneous-Other; Filed by Plaintiff/PetitionerRead MoreRead Less
Motion for Summary Judgment; Filed by Plaintiff/PetitionerRead MoreRead Less
Miscellaneous-Other; Filed by Plaintiff/PetitionerRead MoreRead Less
NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCERead MoreRead Less
Notice of Case Management Conference; Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
OSC-RE Other (Miscellaneous); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
DEFENDANT BEROKIM'S ANSWER TO COMPLAINTRead MoreRead Less
Answer; Filed by Kousha Berokim (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by Emanuel Afrahmian (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONSRead MoreRead Less
Complaint; Filed by Emanuel Afrahmian (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
SUMMONSRead MoreRead Less
COMPLAINT FOR LEGAL MALPRACTICERead MoreRead Less
THOMAS J. WEISS, State Bar No. 63167 firstname.lastname@example.org
ZAMAN, State Bar No. 306224 email@example.com LAW OFFICES OF THOMAS J. WEISS 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2140 Los Angeles, California 90067 Telephone: £3 10% 788-0710 Facsimile: (310) 788-0735
Attorneys for Plaintiff EMANUEL
Superior Court of California Countv of Los Angeles
Sherri R. Cacter, Lxecunye Officer/Clerk Byw, Deputy
EMANUEL AFRAMIAN, an individual. |
KOUSHA BEROKIM, an individual; and DOES 1-10, inclusive.
PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT. OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY
ADJUDICATION OF ISSUES:
[FILED CONCURRENTLY WITH:
CLUDING (a DECLARATIISI)N OF
EXHIBITS: (%}%)ECLARATION OF THOMAS J. WEISS WITH EXHIBITS; c) DECLARATION OF EXPERT
ISPUTED FACTS; and
Date: February 23, 2017 Time: 8:30 a.m. Dept: 3 Reservation No. 170810241773 Complaint Filed: January 9, 20 November'27, 20
17 Trial Date: 18 -
Case Number: BC646091 Hearing Date: August 17, 2020 Dept: 37
HEARING DATE: August 17, 2020
CASE NUMBER: BC646091
CASE NAME: Emanuel Aframian v. Kousha Berokim, et al.
MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Emanuel Aframian
RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant Kousha Berokim
TRIAL DATE: None
PROOF OF SERVICE: OK
PROCEEDING: Plaintiff’s Motion to Exclude Testimony of Defendant’s Experts
OPPOSITION: August 4, 2020
REPLY: August 10, 2020
TENTATIVE: Plaintiff’s motion to exclude Defendant from offering expert witness testimony is DENIED without prejudice. Plaintiff is to give notice.
This is a legal attorney malpractice action that Emanuel Aframian (“Plaintiff”) commenced against Kousha Berokim (“Defendant”) following a civil case regarding the enforcement of a $1,000,000 loan and personal guaranty. Plaintiff alleges that he retained Defendant to represent him in a civil matter that sought to recover money owed to him under the loan and personal guaranty. Plaintiff alleges that prior to retaining Defendant’s legal service a writ of attachment had been granted in connection to the loan and guaranty. Plaintiff further alleges that due to Defendant’s negligent legal representation, the attachment was ultimately discharged and Plaintiff was unable to recover from the attached property. Plaintiff alleges that he was unable fully recover under the loan and guaranty due to Defendant’s legal representation. In the Complaint, Plaintiff alleges a single cause of action for legal malpractice against the Defendant
Plaintiff now moves to preclude Defendant from calling an expert witness or introducing any material prepared by an expert witness at trial. Defendant opposes the motion.
Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure, section 2034.210, subdivision (a) any party may demand that all parties “simultaneously exchange information concerning each other’s expert trial witnesses.” The parties shall exchange lists containing the “names and addresses” of any person whose testimony the party intends to offer as an expert. Further, the exchange of expert witness information shall include either a list setting forth the name and contact information of all experts a party intends to offer, or a statement that the party does not presently intend to offer testimony of an expert witness. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2034.260(b)(1)-(2).) Further, on “on objection of any party who has made a complete and timely compliance with Section 2034.260,” the court shall exclude the testimony of any expert witness who was not properly designated. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2034.300, subd. (a).) Finally, the deadline to exchange expert witness information is as follows:
“(b) The demand shall specify the date for the exchange of lists of expert trial witnesses, expert witness declarations, and any demanded production of writings. The specified date of exchange shall be 50 days before the initial trial date, or 20 days after service of the demand, whichever is closer to the trial date, unless the court, on motion and a showing of good cause, orders an earlier or later date of exchange.”
(Code Civ. Proc. § 2034.230, subd. (b).)
Plaintiff contends that Defendant should be precluded from introducing any expert witness’ testimony at trial because Defendant did not participate in the initial expert witness exchange. (Motion, 3-5.) Plaintiff further contends that allowing Defendant to introduce expert witness testimony would prejudice Plaintiff because Defendant has failed to make his new expert available for deposition or otherwise provide anymore information on the new expert. (Id.)
In opposition, Defendant contends that Nader Malek is properly designated as an impeachment witness in response to Plaintiff’s October 2, 2018 designation. (Opposition, 3-4.) Further, Defendant contends that Plaintiff will not be prejudiced by allowing Nader Malek’s testimony as there is no trial date and his deposition has not yet been taken. (Opposition, 4-5.)
The court disagrees with Plaintiff that testimony from Defendant’s experts must be excluded because Defendant failed to participate in the initial exchange of expert witnesses. Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure, section 2034.260, Defendant was permitted to either disclose expert witnesses or provide a statement that he did not intend to offer expert witness testimony at the time. Defendant elected to provide the latter statement, which was proper. Further, the court agrees that Defendant has a right to call an expert for impeachment of Plaintiff’s expert. Given that Defendant timely stated that he did not intend to call an expert witness as of October 1, 2018, Defendant properly preserved his right to make a supplemental designation. The designation of Moradi was appropriate.
This case does not have a current trial date set, so there will be many months before trial. Consequently, a motion to exclude expert testimony is premature given the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure, sections 2034.610 & 2034.710.
Plaintiff’s motion is denied without prejudice.
Plaintiff’s motion to exclude Defendant from offering expert witness testimony is DENIED without prejudice. Plaintiff is to give notice.
Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases