This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 07/13/2019 at 02:34:54 (UTC).

HAGOP OGANIAN VS ZABEL OGANIAN

Case Summary

On 01/16/2018 HAGOP OGANIAN filed a Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury lawsuit against ZABEL OGANIAN. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is STEPHEN I. GOORVITCH. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****9855

  • Filing Date:

    01/16/2018

  • 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 Judge

STEPHEN I. GOORVITCH

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs and Petitioners

OGANIAN ZABEL

OGANIAN HAGOP

Defendants and Respondents

LOS ANGELES CITY OF

DOES 1 TO 50

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES DEPARTMENT OF

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

MANOUKIAN NIGOL. ESQ.

CARTER BRIAN S

 

Court Documents

CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET

1/31/2018: CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1. NEGLIGENCE 2. NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS

1/31/2018: FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1. NEGLIGENCE 2. NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS

SUMMONS

1/31/2018: SUMMONS

SUMMONS

1/16/2018: SUMMONS

COMPLAINT FOR NEGLIGENCE

1/16/2018: COMPLAINT FOR NEGLIGENCE

 

Docket Entries

  • 07/02/2019
  • at 10:00 AM in Department 5, Stephen I. Goorvitch, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Held - Continued

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/02/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Final Status Conference)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/22/2019
  • Substitution of Attorney; Filed by Hagop Oganian (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/31/2018
  • First Amended Complaint; Filed by Hagop Oganian (Plaintiff); Zabel Oganian (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/31/2018
  • FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1. NEGLIGENCE 2. NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/31/2018
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/31/2018
  • CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/31/2018
  • Miscellaneous-Other; Filed by Hagop Oganian (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/31/2018
  • Summons; Filed by Hagop Oganian (Plaintiff); Zabel Oganian (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/16/2018
  • Complaint; Filed by Hagop Oganian (Plaintiff); Zabel Oganian (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/16/2018
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/16/2018
  • COMPLAINT FOR NEGLIGENCE

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC689855    Hearing Date: September 22, 2020    Dept: 32

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 32

zabel oganian, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

vs.

city of los angeles, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: BC689855

Hearing Date: September 22, 2020

[TENTATIVE] order RE:

demurrer to first amended complaint

NOTICE

Judge Goorvitch was sworn-in as a Superior Court Judge on December 15, 2015.  Prior to that time, Judge Goorvitch made the following campaign contributions to Michael N. Feuer: (1) $100 to Mr. Feuer’s 2008 campaign for the 42nd Assembly District on or about November 9, 2007; (2) $100 to Mr. Feuer’s 2010 campaign for the 42nd Assembly District on or about October 19, 2010; and (3) $100 to Mr. Feuer’s 2013 campaign for Los Angeles City Attorney on or about May 30, 2012.  Judge Goorvitch has no personal relationship with Mr. Feuer and has had no communications with Mr. Feuer since he became the City Attorney.  The Court can be fair and impartial in this matter. 

BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs Zabel Oganian and Hakop Oganian (“Plaintiffs”) filed this action against Defendant City of Los Angeles (“Defendant”), alleging that the Los Angeles County Coroner’s Office mishandled the body of their relative. The Court previously granted a motion to strike Plaintiffs’ claims for prejudgment interest and attorney’s fees. Now, Defendant demurs to the first amended complaint, arguing that Plaintiffs failed to file the complaint within six months from the time their government claim was rejected. Plaintiffs do not oppose the demurrer, which is sustained.

LEGAL STANDARD

“It is black letter law that a demurrer tests the legal sufficiency of the allegations in a complaint.”  (Lewis v. Safeway, Inc. (2015) 235 Cal.App.4th 385, 388.)  In ruling on a demurrer, the court must “liberally construe[]” the allegations of the complaint.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 452.) “This rule of liberal construction means that the reviewing court draws inferences favorable to the plaintiff, not the defendant.”  (Perez v. Golden Empire Transit Dist. (2012) 209 Cal.App.4th 1228, 1238.)

REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE

Defendant filed a request seeking judicial notice of Plaintiffs’ claims to Defendant, as well as Defendant’s denial of those claims. “The court may take judicial notice of the filing and contents of a government claim, but not the truth of the claim.” (Gong v. City of Rosemead (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 363, 368, fn. 1.) The Court grants the request for judicial notice within these parameters.

DISCUSSION

Per the Government Claims Act, a party with a claim for damages against a public entity must first file claim directly with that entity. The party may file a lawsuit only if the public entity denies or rejects the claim. (Gov. Code §§ 905, 945.4; City of Ontario v. Superior Court (1993) 12 Cal.App.4th 894.) The claims presentation requirement provides the public entity with an opportunity to evaluate the claim and decide whether to pay on the claim. (Roberts v. County of Los Angeles (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 474.) A party must file a claim based on “a cause of action for death or for injury to person” within six months. (Gov. Code, §§ 911.4, 911.2, subd. (a).)

Plaintiffs filed a claim against the City of Los Angeles on July 5, 2017. The claim was denied on July 13, 2017. This action was filed on January 16, 2018. Therefore, this action against Defendant was untimely.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Defendant’s demurrer is sustained without leave to amend. Defendant shall provide notice and file proof of such with the Court.

DATED: September 22, 2020 ___________________________

Stephen I. Goorvitch

Judge of the Superior Court

Case Number: BC689855    Hearing Date: February 11, 2020    Dept: 32

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 32

HAGOP OGANIAN, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

city of los angeles, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: BC689855

Hearing Date: February 11, 2020

[TENTATIVE] order RE:

motionS to compel responses to discovery

Defendant County of Los Angeles (“Defendant”) moves to compel responses from Plaintiffs Hakop Oganian and Zabel Oganian (“Plaintiffs”) to Defendant’s Special Interrogatories, Set One (“SROG”); Requests for Production of Documents, Set One (“RPD”); and Requests for Admissions, Set One (“RFA”). Defendant served the discovery at issue on Plaintiffs by mail on August 20, 2019, meaning that the responses were due on or before Tuesday, September 24, 2019. Plaintiffs served objections to Defendant’s discovery on September 27, 2019. By serving untimely responses, Plaintiff waived all objections. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, subd. (a), 2031.300, subd. (a), 2033.280, subd. (a).) Accordingly, the motions to compel responses to the SROG, RPD, and RFA are granted per Code of Civil Procedure sections 2030.290, 2031.300, and 2033.290. Plaintiffs are ordered to serve responses to Defendant’s SROG, RPD, and RFA, without objections, within 30 days of service of this order.

Defendant seeks sanctions against Plaintiffs in connection with these motions. Defendant was required to schedule an informal discovery conference before filing motions to compel further responses. Had Defendant done so, the motions likely would not have been necessary. Therefore, the Court finds good cause to impose no sanctions against Plaintiffs in this case.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Defendant’s motions to compel responses to the SROG, RPD, and RFA are granted per Code of Civil Procedure sections 2030.290, 2031.300, and 2033.290. Plaintiffs are ordered to serve verified responses, without objections, within 30 days of notice of this order. The Court declines to impose sanctions. Defendant is ordered to provide notice of this order and file proof of service of such.

DATED: February 11, 2020 ___________________________

Stephen I. Goorvitch

Judge of the Superior Court