This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 06/27/2019 at 07:23:44 (UTC).

GURGEN ARAMYAN ET AL VS GEICO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY

Case Summary

On 03/27/2018 a Contract - Other Contract case was filed by GURGEN ARAMYAN against GEICO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY 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:

    ****9785

  • Filing Date:

    03/27/2018

  • 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

Plaintiffs and Petitioners

HOVHANNISYAN GURGEN

ARAMYAN GURGEN

HOVHANNISYAN VARAZDAT

GALSTYAN GURGEN

Defendants and Respondents

GEICO INSURANCE COMPANY

DOES 1-100

 

Court Documents

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE HEARING

6/12/2018: ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE HEARING

NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

6/12/2018: NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

Certificate of Mailing for

11/7/2018: Certificate of Mailing for

Minute Order

11/7/2018: Minute Order

Minute Order

1/3/2019: Minute Order

Notice of Case Reassignment and Order for Plaintiff to Give Notice

1/22/2019: Notice of Case Reassignment and Order for Plaintiff to Give Notice

Amended Complaint

3/7/2019: Amended Complaint

Minute Order

3/7/2019: Minute Order

Certificate of Mailing for

3/7/2019: Certificate of Mailing for

Case Management Statement

5/22/2019: Case Management Statement

Case Management Statement

5/28/2019: Case Management Statement

Answer

6/4/2019: Answer

Notice of Posting of Jury Fees

6/6/2019: Notice of Posting of Jury Fees

Case Management Order

6/6/2019: Case Management Order

Minute Order

6/6/2019: Minute Order

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

4/4/2018: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

SUMMONS

3/27/2018: SUMMONS

1. BREACH OF CONTRACT

3/27/2018: 1. BREACH OF CONTRACT

6 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 06/06/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 37; Case Management Conference - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/06/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Case Management Conference)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/06/2019
  • Case Management Order; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/06/2019
  • Notice of Posting of Jury Fees; Filed by Geico Insurance Company (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/04/2019
  • Answer (DEFENDANT GEICO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY?S ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT); Filed by Geico Insurance Company (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/28/2019
  • Case Management Statement; Filed by Gurgen Aramyan (Plaintiff); Gurgen Galstyan (Plaintiff); Gurgen Hovhannisyan (Plaintiff) et al.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/22/2019
  • Case Management Statement; Filed by Geico Insurance Company (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/07/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 37; Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/07/2019
  • Complaint (1st); Filed by Gurgen Aramyan (Plaintiff); Gurgen Galstyan (Plaintiff); Gurgen Hovhannisyan (Plaintiff) et al.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/07/2019
  • Amended Complaint (1st); Filed by Gurgen Aramyan (Plaintiff); Gurgen Aramyan (Plaintiff); Gurgen Galstyan (Plaintiff) et al.

    Read MoreRead Less
12 More Docket Entries
  • 07/25/2018
  • Minute order entered: 2018-07-25 00:00:00; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/12/2018
  • NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/12/2018
  • ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE HEARING

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/12/2018
  • Notice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/12/2018
  • OSC-RE Other (Miscellaneous); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/04/2018
  • Proof-Service/Summons

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/04/2018
  • PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/27/2018
  • 1. BREACH OF CONTRACT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/27/2018
  • Complaint; Filed by Gurgen Aramyan (Plaintiff); Gurgen Galstyan (Plaintiff); Gurgen Hovhannisyan (Plaintiff) et al.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/27/2018
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC699785    Hearing Date: March 09, 2020    Dept: 37

HEARING DATE: March 9, 2020

CASE NUMBER: BC699785

CASE NAME: Gurgen Aramyan, et al. v. Geico General Insurance Company

MOVING PARTIES: Defendant, Geico General Insurance Company

OPPOSING PARTY: Plaintiffs, Gurgen Aramyan, Gurgen Galstyan, Gurgen Hovhannisyan, Varazdat Hovhannisyan

TRIAL DATE: November 24, 2020

PROOF OF SERVICE: OK

MOTION: Defendant’s Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories, Sets One

OPPOSITION: None, as of March 6, 2020

REPLY: No opposition filed.

TENTATIVE: Geico’s motionS to compel responses to Requests for Production, Sets One Special Interrogatories, Sets One are GRANTED. Plaintiffs are ordered to provide complete, verified responses within 30 days of this date. Geico’s requests for sanctions is denied. Geico is to provide notice.

MOTION: Defendant’s Motion to Deem Requests for Admission, Sets One Admitted

OPPOSITION: None, as of March 6, 2020

REPLY: No opposition filed.

TENTATIVE: Geico’s motion to deemed Requests for Admission, Sets One admitted as to Plaintiffs is GRANTED. Requests for Admission, Sets One are deemed admitted as to Plaintiffs, Gurgen Aramyan, Gurgen Galstyan, Gurgen Hovhannisyan and Varazdat Hovhannisyan.

Geico’s requests for sanctions is denied. Geico is to provide notice.

Background

This action arises out of an automobile collision occurring on or about September 18, 2016 between a vehicle driven by Plaintiff, Gurgen Aramyan (“Aramyan”) and an uninsured motorist, Elyas H.A. Mohtaseb (“Mohtaseb.”) Plaintiffs Gurgen Galstyan (“Galstyan”), Gurgen Hovhannisyan (“Gurgen”) and Varazdat Hovhannisyan (“Varazdat”) were alleged to be passengers in Aramyan’s vehicle. All Plaintiffs allegedly suffered bodily injuries as a result of the collision with Mohtaseb. Plaintiffs allege that at the time of the collision, Aramyan carried automobile insurance with Defendant Geico General Insurance Company (“Geico”) and that Aramyan submitted a claim for payment for damages to his vehicle as well as medical expenses related to bodily injuries sustained by each Plaintiff. Plaintiffs contend that while Geico paid repair costs for Aramyan’s vehicle, it unreasonably denied each Plaintiff’s claim for medical expenses.

Plaintiffs’ operative First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) alleges causes of action as follows: (1) breach of contract by Aramyan, (2) breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by all Plaintiffs, (3) Unfair business practices in violation of Business and Professions Code § 17200 by all Plaintiffs.

Geico now moves to compel each Plaintiff to respond to Requests for Production, Special Interrogatories, Sets One and to deem Requests for Admission, Sets One admitted against each Plaintiff. Although Geico reserved time for one motion, it has really submitted 12 motions without reserving time for twelve motions or paying 12 motion fees. This is an inappropriate abuse of the court’s time and the court’s staff time.

Procedural History

Geico served Plaintiffs with form interrogatories and requests for production, sets one on November 1, 2019. (Declaration of Mark W. Hansen in support of Motion to Compel (“Hansen”), ¶¶ 3-10.) Geico also served requests for admission, sets one on Plaintiffs on November 1, 2019 (Hansen Decl. in support of Motion to Deem Admitted, ¶¶ 3-6.) Plaintiffs’ responses were accordingly due on or before December 6, 2019. (Id.; ¶ 10.)

Although no meet and confer was required, Geico’s counsel Mark Hansen attests that on December 26, 2019, he sent a meet and confer letter to Plaintiffs’ counsel via email, facsimile and U.S. mail inquiring into why no responses had been provided. (Hansen Decl. in support of Motion to Compel ¶ 17, Exhibit 9; Hansen Decl. in support of Motion to Deem Admitted, ¶ 12, Exhibit 5.) Hansen further attests that he met and conferred with Plaintiffs’ counsel by telephone on January 17, 2020 and followed up his conversation with an email informing Plaintiffs’ counsel that a motion to compel would be forthcoming if no responses were provided to Geico’s discovery requests. (Hansen Decl. in support of Motion to Compel, ¶¶ 19-23; Hansen Decl. in support of Motion to Deem Admitted, ¶¶ 14-18.)

Hansen attests that as of February 6, 2020, Plaintiffs have served no responses to Geico’s form interrogatories, requests for production or requests for admission. (Hansen Decl. in support of Motion to Compel ¶ 23; Hansen Decl. in support of Motion to Deem Admitted, ¶ 19.)

Analysis

I. Discussion

Under the Discovery Act, “any party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action or to the determination of any motion made in that action, if the matter either is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2017.010.)

“If a party to whom requests for admission are directed fails to serve a timely response . . . . (b) The requesting party may move for an order that the genuineness of any documents and the truth of any matters specified in the requests be deemed admitted, as well as for a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010).”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280.) If the requesting party moves for an order to deem its requests for admissions admitted, the court “shall make this order, unless it finds that the party to whom the requests for admissions have been directed has served, before the hearing on the motion, a proposed response to the requests for admission that is in substantial compliance with section 2033.220.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280 (c).) Further, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.290 subdivision (b) and 201.300 subdivision (b), the party propounding interrogatories or inspection demands may move for an order compelling responses if the responding party fails to timely respond.

Here, as discussed above, Geico’s counsel Hansen has attested that Plaintiffs were each served with form interrogatories, requests for production and requests for admission, sets one on November 1, 2019. Further, Hansen has attested that Plaintiffs did not respond to any of these sets of discovery within thirty days and have not provided responses as of the date Geico filed the instant motions. Moreover, although not required, Hansen has also attested to making multiple attempts to meet and confer with Plaintiffs’ counsel by email and by telephone regarding whether responses would be forthcoming.

Accordingly, given that Geico has demonstrated that Plaintiffs were properly served with form interrogatories, requests for production and requests for admission, sets one and that Plaintiffs have not served responses, Geico’s motion to compel responses is GRANTED. Further, Geico’s motion to deem requests for admissions, sets one admitted as to Plaintiffs is also GRANTED.

II. Request for Sanctions

The court may impose sanctions against any party for engaging in conduct constituting a “misuse of the discovery process.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.030 (a).) Misuse of the discovery process includes “failing to respond or submit to an authorized method of discovery.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.010 (d).)

Geico requests monetary sanctions in the total amount of $2,126.00 against Plaintiffs and their attorney of record in connection with its motion to deem requests for admission, sets one admitted. (Hansen Decl. ¶¶ 20-23.) Geico also requests monetary sanctions in the total amount of $1,227.50 in connection with its motion to compel responses to form interrogatories and requests for production, sets one from Plaintiffs. (Hansen Decl. ¶¶ 25-28.)

Hansen attests with regard to the motion to deem requests for admitted that the total amount requested represents 3.4 hours of attorney time spent in preparing the moving papers and meeting and conferring with Plaintiffs’ counsel, as well as an additional 2 hours anticipated for preparing reply papers and attending the hearing. (Hansen Decl. in support of Motion to Deem Admitted, ¶ 21-23.) Hansen attests with regard to the motion to compel responses to form interrogatories and requests for production that the total amount requested represents 3.5 hours spent on meeting and conferring and preparing the moving papers, with an additional one hour spent on preparing reply papers and attending the hearing. (Hansen Decl. in support of Motion to Compel, ¶¶ 26-28.) Finally, Hansen requests costs of $155 in connection with the motion to deem admitted and $60 in connection with the motion to compel responses. (Hansen Decl. ¶¶ 23, 28.)

Given the failure to properly utilize the court’s systems and the resulting burden on the court, the court finds that an award of sanctions is inappropriate in the circumstance.

III. Conclusion

Geico’s motion to compel responses to Special Interrogatories and Requests for Productions, Sets One are GRANTED. Each Plaintiff is ordered to provide complete, verified responses within 30 days of this date.

Geico’s motion to deemed Requests for Admission, Sets One admitted as to Plaintiffs is GRANTED. Requests for Admission, Sets One are deemed admitted as to Plaintiffs, Gurgen Aramyan, Gurgen Galstyan, Gurgen Hovhannisyan and Varazdat Hovhannisyan.

Geico’s requests for sanctions is denied. Geico is to provide notice.