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.
Pending - Other Pending
Los Angeles County Superior Courts
Stanley Mosk Courthouse
Los Angeles, California
STEPHEN I. GOORVITCH
LOS ANGELES CITY OF
DOES 1 TO 50
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES DEPARTMENT OF
MANOUKIAN NIGOL. ESQ.
CARTER BRIAN S
1/31/2018: CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET
1/31/2018: FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1. NEGLIGENCE 2. NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
1/16/2018: COMPLAINT FOR NEGLIGENCE
at 10:00 AM in Department 5, Stephen I. Goorvitch, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Held - ContinuedRead MoreRead Less
Minute Order ( (Final Status Conference)); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
Substitution of Attorney; Filed by Hagop Oganian (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
First Amended Complaint; Filed by Hagop Oganian (Plaintiff); Zabel Oganian (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1. NEGLIGENCE 2. NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESSRead MoreRead Less
SUMMONSRead MoreRead Less
CIVIL CASE COVER SHEETRead MoreRead Less
Miscellaneous-Other; Filed by Hagop Oganian (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
Summons; Filed by Hagop Oganian (Plaintiff); Zabel Oganian (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
Complaint; Filed by Hagop Oganian (Plaintiff); Zabel Oganian (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
SUMMONSRead MoreRead Less
COMPLAINT FOR NEGLIGENCERead MoreRead Less
Case Number: BC689855 Hearing Date: February 11, 2020 Dept: 32
HAGOP OGANIAN, et al.,
city of los angeles, et al.,
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