On 07/12/2017 IDRIP VAPE LLC, TARIK DUGUM was filed as a Contract - Business lawsuit. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Chatsworth Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are MELVIN D. SANDVIG and STEPHEN P. PFAHLER. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.
Pending - Other Pending
Los Angeles County Superior Courts
Los Angeles, California
MELVIN D. SANDVIG
STEPHEN P. PFAHLER
IDRIP VAPE LLC
TONY'S DRIPNVAPE INC.
HAWATMEH TARIK S.
MARJIYA LAW OFFICE
MARJIYA LAW OFFICE
2/28/2020: Ex Parte Application - EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR CONTINUANCE OF TRIAL
3/2/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR CONTINUANCE OF TRIAL)
6/26/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (FINAL STATUS CONFERENCE)
6/26/2019: Stipulation and Order - STIPULATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL; ORDER THEREON
7/12/2017: Notice of Case Assignment - Unlimited Civil Case
7/12/2017: Civil Case Cover Sheet
11/8/2017: Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: First Amended Complaint
12/4/2017: Case Management Statement
1/12/2018: Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: Amendment to Complaint
1/12/2018: Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: Amendment to Complaint
4/30/2018: Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: Response
5/9/2018: Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: Reply
6/5/2018: Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: Stipulation and Order
6/18/2018: Notice of Related Case
8/13/2018: Minute Order - Minute order entered: 2018-08-13 00:00:00
8/2/2018: Stipulation and Order -
8/2/2018: Case Management Statement -
Hearing03/16/2020 at 08:30 AM in Department F47 at 9425 Penfield Ave., Chatsworth, CA 91311; Non-Jury TrialRead MoreRead Less
Hearing03/06/2020 at 08:30 AM in Department F47 at 9425 Penfield Ave., Chatsworth, CA 91311; Final Status ConferenceRead MoreRead Less
Docketat 08:30 AM in Department F47, Melvin D. Sandvig, Presiding; Hearing on Ex Parte Application (For Continuance of Trial) - Held - ContinuedRead MoreRead Less
Docketat 08:30 AM in Department F49, Stephen P. Pfahler, Presiding; Hearing on Ex Parte Application (For Continuance of Trial) - Not Held - Taken Off Calendar by CourtRead MoreRead Less
DocketMinute Order ( (HEARING ON EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR CONTINUANCE OF TRIAL)); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
DocketMinute Order ( (Hearing on Ex Parte Application For Continuance of Trial)); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
DocketDeclaration (24 Hours Notice Of Ex Parte Application to Continue Trial); Filed by DRIPNVAPE, INC. (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
DocketDeclaration in Support of Ex Parte Application; Filed by DRIPNVAPE, INC. (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
DocketPLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S EX PARTE REQUEST TO CONTINUE TRIAL; DECLARATION OF RICHARD MEAGLIA; Filed by IDRIP VAPE LLC (Plaintiff); EYAD RIHANI (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
DocketEx Parte Application (For Continuance of Trial); Filed by DRIPNVAPE, INC. (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
DocketMinute order entered: 2017-12-08 00:00:00; Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
DocketAnswer; Filed by TARIK DUGUM (Defendant); DRIPNVAPE, INC. (Defendant); MARJIYA LAW OFFICE (Legacy Party)Read MoreRead Less
DocketCase Management Statement; Filed by IDRIP VAPE LLC (Plaintiff); EYAD RIHANI (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
DocketFirst Amended Complaint; Filed by IDRIP VAPE LLC (Plaintiff); EYAD RIHANI (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
DocketSummons; Filed by IDRIP VAPE LLC (Plaintiff); EYAD RIHANI (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Unlimited Civil Case; Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
DocketNotice (of Case Management Conference); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
DocketComplaint filed-Summons Issued; Filed by nullRead MoreRead Less
DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by IDRIP VAPE LLC (Plaintiff); EYAD RIHANI (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
DocketSummons; Filed by nullRead MoreRead Less
Case Number: PC057860 Hearing Date: December 03, 2020 Dept: F47
Date: 12/3/20 TRIAL DATE: 2/8/21
Case #PC057860 (consolidated with PC058440)
MOTION TO SUBMIT LATE EXPERT WITNESS INFORMATION
MOVING PARTY: Defendants Tarik Dugum, Dripnvape, Inc. and Oshin Grigorian
RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiffs IDrip Vape LLC and Eyad Rihani
RELIEF REQUESTED: An order granting Defendants leave to submit Zaher Abdulrazak as an expert witness after the designated exchange date.
RULING: The motion is denied.
This action arises out of a dispute between former business partners. In 2015, Plaintiff Eyad Rihani and Defendant Tarik Dugum formed IDrip Vape LLC to own and operate a retail store selling electronic cigarettes and related products in Santa Clarita. In June 2017, Defendant Dripnvape, Inc., through Dugum, began operating its own retail store in Santa Clarita for the sale of electronic cigarettes and related products.
The operative First Amended Complaint contains causes of action for: (1) Conversion, (2) Accounting, (3) Breach of Fiduciary and Other Duties, (4) Establish Constructive Trust, (5) Establish Resulting Trust, (6) Fraud, (7) Negligent Misrepresentation, (8) Declaratory Relief, (9) Assault and Battery and (10) Misappropriation of Trade Secrets. Dugum filed a separate action against Plaintiffs which has been consolidated with this action.
On 4/1/20, Defendants served Plaintiffs with a Demand for Exchange of Experts with 4/22/20 as the exchange date. (Marjiya Decl. p.2:6-8, Ex.A). Pursuant to a telephone conversation between counsel, the exchange date was changed to 5/5/20. (Id. p.2:9-14, Ex.B). On 5/5/20, Plaintiffs provided Defendants with their Disclosure of Expert Witnesses. (Id. p.2:15-16). Defendants did not provide any Disclosure of Expert Witnesses. (Id. p.2:16-17). On 5/15/20, Defendants’ counsel sent a meet and confer letter to Plaintiffs’ counsel regarding the Expert Exchange which indicated that Defendants had 20 days to provide a Supplemental Expert Witness Disclosure. (Id. p.2:23-28, Ex.C). On 5/26/20, Defendants served their Supplemental Expert Witness Disclosure which designated Zaher Abdulrazak as their expert. (Id. p.3:1-4, Ex.D). On 6/1/20, Plaintiffs requested that Defendants withdraw their expert because the expert was not named in the original exchange. (Id. p.3:5-9, Ex.E).
By way of the instant motion, Defendants request permission to submit late expert witness information pursuant to CCP 2034.710 and CCP 2034.720, essentially conceding that that their designation was not a proper supplemental expert witness designation under CCP 2034.280. Plaintiffs oppose the request.
CCP 2034.720 provides:
The court shall grant leave to submit tardy expert witness information only if all of the following conditions are satisfied:
(a) The court has taken into account the extent to which the opposing party has relied on the absence of a list of expert witnesses.
(b) The court has determined that any party opposing the motion will not be prejudiced in maintaining that party's action or defense on the merits.
(c) The court has determined that the moving party did all of the following:
(1) Failed to submit the information as the result of mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect.
(2) Sought leave to submit the information promptly after learning of the mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect.
(3) Promptly thereafter served a copy of the proposed expert witness information described in Section 2034.260 on all other parties who have appeared in the action.
(d) The order is conditioned on the moving party making the expert available immediately for a deposition under Article 3 (commencing with Section 2034.410), and on any other terms as may be just, including, but not limited to, leave to any party opposing the motion to designate additional expert witnesses or to elicit additional opinions from those previously designated, a continuance of the trial for a reasonable period of time, and the awarding of costs and litigation expenses to any party opposing the motion.
Defendants have not shown that their failure to timely submit the expert information was the result of mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect. CCP 2034.720(c)(1). Defendant’s attorney, Bassam Marjiya, states that Defendants did not present any experts on the date set for the exchange because “[a]t the time, [he] was not able to contact Defendants’ expert as of the day of the exchange. [He] mistakenly did not ask to move the agreed upon date for the exchange and immediately notified Plaintiffs’ counsel about [his] mistake.” (See Marjiya Decl. p.2:15-22). Attorney Marjiya fails to explain what efforts were made to contact the expert and exactly when based on Defendants’ own Demand for Exchange of Expert Witness Information served on 4/1/20. (Marjiya Decl., Ex.A). Additionally, it is not clear whether the claimed mistake was the failure to contact Defendants’ expert before the exchange or the failure to request an extension of the exchange date. Further, contrary to attorney Marjiya’s assertion, he did not immediately notify Plaintiffs’ counsel about the mistake. Rather, a meet and confer letter was sent 10 days later on 5/15/20. (See Marjiya Decl. p.2:20-28). Finally, the fact that Defendants’ counsel’s 5/15/20 letter indicated that Defendants would be designating an expert pursuant to CCP 2034.280(a) indicates that the failure to designate an expert on 5/5/20 was not the result of mistake, but rather the belief that Defendants could designate an expert in a “supplemental list.” (See Marjiya Decl., Ex.C). However, since Defendants did not engage in the initial exchange, they are not entitled to “supplement” their non-existent expert witness list. See CCP 2034.280(a).
Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases