This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 11/08/2020 at 12:28:40 (UTC).

FATIMA PATRICIA CISNEROS DE MANCIA ET AL VS GARY TAGLYAN ET

Case Summary

On 05/16/2018 FATIMA PATRICIA CISNEROS DE MANCIA filed a Labor - Other Labor lawsuit against GARY TAGLYAN ET. 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.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****6431

  • Filing Date:

    05/16/2018

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Labor - Other Labor

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs, Petitioners and Cross Defendants

DE MANCIA FATIMA PATRICIA CISNEROS

RODRIGUEZ MIGUEL ANGEL MANCIA

POLANCO KARLA BEATRIZ HERRERA

Defendants and Respondents

DIVINE FOOD AND CATERING LLC

TAGLYAN GARY

DOES 1 TO 100

TAGLYAN CULTURAL COMPLEX

COMPLEX TAGLYAN CULTURAL

DIVINE FOOD AND CATERING LLC DBA TAGLYAN CULTURAL COMPLEX

Defendant and Cross Plaintiff

DIVINE FOOD AND CATERING LLC DBA TAGLYAN CULTURAL COMPLEX

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff, Petitioner and Cross Defendant Attorney

EBRAHIMIAN ARIE

Defendant and Respondent Attorneys

YU SUSAN C. ESQ.

YU SUSAN CHUNG-MI ESQ.

Defendant and Cross Plaintiff Attorney

YU SUSAN CHUNG-MI ESQ.

 

Court Documents

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON EX PARTE APPLICATION TO ADVANCE DEFENDANTS' HEARIN...)

9/4/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON EX PARTE APPLICATION TO ADVANCE DEFENDANTS' HEARIN...)

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (INFORMAL DISCOVERY CONFERENCE (IDC))

7/27/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (INFORMAL DISCOVERY CONFERENCE (IDC))

Order - ORDER RULING

7/6/2020: Order - ORDER RULING

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A CROSS-COMPLAINT; TRIAL ...)

7/6/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A CROSS-COMPLAINT; TRIAL ...)

Opposition - OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT DIVINE FOOD AND CATERING, LLC'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A COMPULSARY CROSS-COMPLAINT

4/13/2020: Opposition - OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT DIVINE FOOD AND CATERING, LLC'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A COMPULSARY CROSS-COMPLAINT

Opposition - OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT DIVINE FOOD AND CATERING, LLC'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A COMPULSARY CROSS-COMPLAINT; EXHIBITS; DECLARATION OF ARIE EBRAHIMIAN

4/13/2020: Opposition - OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT DIVINE FOOD AND CATERING, LLC'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A COMPULSARY CROSS-COMPLAINT; EXHIBITS; DECLARATION OF ARIE EBRAHIMIAN

Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (COURT ORDER) OF 04/15/2020, 0

4/15/2020: Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (COURT ORDER) OF 04/15/2020, 0

Motion to Quash

2/25/2020: Motion to Quash

Motion to Quash

2/25/2020: Motion to Quash

Motion to Quash

2/25/2020: Motion to Quash

Separate Statement

2/25/2020: Separate Statement

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (STATUS CONFERENCE RE MEDIATION COMPLETION)

2/11/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (STATUS CONFERENCE RE MEDIATION COMPLETION)

Minute Order -

8/27/2018: Minute Order -

DEFENDANTS' NOTICE OF DEPOSIT OF ADVANCE JURY FEES

8/27/2018: DEFENDANTS' NOTICE OF DEPOSIT OF ADVANCE JURY FEES

CIVIL DEPOSIT -

8/27/2018: CIVIL DEPOSIT -

NOTICE OF ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF RECEIPT - CIVIL -

6/27/2018: NOTICE OF ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF RECEIPT - CIVIL -

NOTICE OF ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF RECEIPT - CIVIL -

6/27/2018: NOTICE OF ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF RECEIPT - CIVIL -

SUMMONS -

5/16/2018: SUMMONS -

56 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 01/06/2021
  • Hearing01/06/2021 at 09:30 AM in Department 49 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Order to Show Cause Re: dismissal

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/30/2020
  • DocketRequest for Dismissal (filed as to cross-complaint filed on 7/06/2020.); Filed by Divine Food and Catering, LLC (Cross-Complainant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/27/2020
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 49; Hearing on Motion to Quash (DEFENDANT DIVINE FOOD AND CATERING, LLC?S DEPOSITION SUBPOENA TO UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC. SEEKING PLAINTIFF?S PERSONAL RIDE HISTORY AND BILLING INFORMATION (ct'd per 7/6 minutes)) - Not Held - Advanced and Vacated

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/27/2020
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 49; Hearing on Motion to Quash (DEFENDANT DIVINE FOOD AND CATERING, LLC?S DEPOSITION SUBPOENA TO UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC. SEEKING PLAINTIFF?S PERSONAL RIDE HISTORY AND BILLING INFORMATION (ct'd per 7/6 minutes)) - Not Held - Advanced and Vacated

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/27/2020
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 49; Hearing on Motion to Quash (DIVINE FOOD AND CATERING, LLC?S DEPOSITION SUBPOENA SEEKING PLAINTIFF?S RIDE HISTORY, WHEREABOUTS AND BILLING INFORMATION WITH LYFT, INC. (ct'd per 7/6 minutes)) - Not Held - Advanced and Vacated

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/27/2020
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 49; Hearing on Motion to Quash (DIVINE FOOD AND CATERING, LLC?S DEPOSITION SUBPOENA SEEKING PLAINTIFF?S RIDE HISTORY, WHEREABOUTS AND BILLING INFORMATION WITH UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC. (ct'd per 7/6 minutes)) - Not Held - Advanced and Vacated

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/27/2020
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 49; Trial Setting Conference ((ct'd per 7/6 minutes)) - Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/27/2020
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 49; Hearing on Motion to Quash (DEFENDANT DIVINE FOOD AND CATERING, LLC?S DEPOSITION SUBPOENA TO LYFT, INC. SEEKING PLAINTIFF?S PERSONAL RIDE HISTORY AND BILLING INFORMATION (ct'd per 7/6 minutes)) - Not Held - Advanced and Vacated

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/27/2020
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 49; Hearing on Motion to Quash (DEFENDANT DIVINE FOOD AND CATERING, LLC?S DEPOSITION SUBPOENA TO LYFT, INC. SEEKING PLAINTIFF?S PERSONAL RIDE HISTORY AND BILLING INFORMATION (ct'd per 7/6 minutes)) - Not Held - Advanced and Vacated

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/27/2020
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 49; Hearing on Motion to Quash (DEFENDANT DIVINE FOOD AND CATERING, LLC?S DEPOSITION SUBPOENA SEEKING PLAINTIFF?S PERSONAL PHONE RECORDS (ct'd per 7/6 minutes)) - Not Held - Advanced and Vacated

    Read MoreRead Less
100 More Docket Entries
  • 05/30/2018
  • DocketNotice; Filed by Fatima Patricia Cisneros De Mancia (Plaintiff); Miguel Angel Mancia Rodriguez (Plaintiff); Karla Beatriz Herrera Polanco (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/30/2018
  • DocketNOTICE OF ERRATA TO PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/23/2018
  • DocketNOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/23/2018
  • DocketORDER TO SHOW CAUSE HEARING

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/23/2018
  • DocketNotice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/23/2018
  • DocketOSC-RE Other (Miscellaneous); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/17/2018
  • DocketNOTICE OF ERRATA TO PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/16/2018
  • DocketPLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND RESTITUTION AND FOR: 1. FAILURE TO PAY MINIMUM WAGES ;ETC

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/16/2018
  • DocketSUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/16/2018
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Fatima Patricia Cisneros De Mancia (Plaintiff); Miguel Angel Mancia Rodriguez (Plaintiff); Karla Beatriz Herrera Polanco (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC706431    Hearing Date: July 06, 2020    Dept: 49

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Fatima Patricia Cisneros de Mancia, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

Case No.

BC706431

v.

[Tentative] Ruling

Gary Taglyan, et al.

Defendants.

Hearing Date: July 6, 2020

Department 49, Judge Stuart M. Rice

(1) Defendants’ Motion for Leave to File a Cross-Complaint

Moving Party:  Defendant Divine Food and Catering, LLC

Responding Party:      Plaintiffs Fatima Patricia Cisneros de Mancia, et al.

Ruling: Defendant’s motion to file a cross-complaint is granted. Defendant is ordered to file said cross-complaint separately so that it appears on eCourt as an operative pleading.

Defendant moves for leave to file a cross-complaint alleging causes of action for fraud by intentional misrepresentation, fraud by concealment, negligent misrepresentation, conspiracy to commit fraud, aiding and abetting fraud, conversion, and unjust enrichment.

A party who fails to plead a cause of action subject to the requirements of this article, whether through oversight, inadvertence, mistake, neglect, or other cause, may apply to the court for leave to amend his pleading, or to file a cross-complaint, to assert such cause at any time during the course of the action. The court, after notice to the adverse party, shall grant, upon such terms as may be just to the parties, leave to amend the pleading, or to file the cross-complaint, to assert such cause if the party who failed to plead the cause acted in good faith. This subdivision shall be liberally construed to avoid forfeiture of causes of action.

“A motion to file a cross-complaint at any time during the course of the action must be granted unless bad faith of the moving party is demonstrated where forfeiture would otherwise result. Factors such as oversight, inadvertence, neglect, mistake or other cause, are insufficient grounds to deny the motion unless accompanied by bad faith.” (Silver Organizations Ltd. v. Frank (1990) 217 Cal.App.3d 94, 99.)

Plaintiffs support their argument that defendant acted in bad faith such that it should not be allowed to file a compulsory cross-complaint with the following: During plaintiff Miguel Angel Mancia Rodriguez’s deposition on October 11, 2019, it came to light that there were surveillance cameras by the kitchen, time card area, and courtyard area where plaintiffs were employed. Therefore, on October 14, 2019, plaintiffs’ counsel sent defendant a letter requesting that all video surveillance be preserved. (See Abe Ebrahimian Decl. ¶ 2, Exhibit 2.) The same day, plaintiffs propounded plaintiff Fatima Patricia Cisneros de Mancia’s second set of requests for production, seeking all surveillance videos of plaintiffs’ work stations and the surrounding areas. (Id., Exhibit 3.) Defendant responded to these requests with nothing but objections. (Id., Exhibit 4.)

The court declines to conclude that defendant acted in “bad faith” so as to preclude its filing of a compulsory cross-complaint. Plaintiffs had their remedies upon receiving responses to their requests for production that they now contend were evasive and in bad faith. They could have filed a motion to compel further responses, in the context of which the court would have evaluated the merits of defendants’ objections. But plaintiffs filed no such motion, and their time to do so has expired. Precluding defendant from filing a compulsory cross-complaint is not an appropriate response to its allegedly insufficient discovery responses which plaintiffs failed to timely raise in the appropriate motion. Plaintiffs’ argument that defendant acted in bad faith is rejected as a ground for denying this motion for leave to file a cross-complaint.

Therefore, defendant’s motion to file a cross-complaint is granted. Defendant is ordered to file the proposed cross-complaint as a separate document because the online filing system will not detect the operative cross-complaint if it is merely attached as an exhibit to this motion.

Pending Discovery Motions

The court notes that plaintiffs have filed nine motions to quash deposition subpoenas, which are currently scheduled for various dates throughout July and August. This court requires an informal discovery conference prior to the filing of discovery motions to resolve any issues the parties are unable to resolve on their own. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2016.080, subd. (a).

The parties have not participated in an IDC in this action. All nine motions to quash are continued to October 27, 2020. The parties are ordered to meet and confer in good faith regarding each issue raised in all pending discovery motions and to schedule an IDC with the court prior to October hearing date if unable to resolve the issues on their own. If the parties are unable to resolve the issues even with the court’s guidance during an IDC, they will be required to file a joint statement five court days prior to October 27, 2020 outlining the issues that remain in dispute.

Defendant is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

Date: July 6, 2020

Honorable Stuart M. Rice

Judge of the Superior Court