This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 11/28/2019 at 00:29:16 (UTC).

JAMES VARGAS VS ARUTYUN SARGISIAN

Case Summary

On 05/23/2018 a Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle case was filed by JAMES VARGAS against ARUTYUN SARGISIAN 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:

    ****7385

  • Filing Date:

    05/23/2018

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

STEPHEN I. GOORVITCH

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner

VARGAS JAMES

Defendants and Respondents

SAGISIAN ARUTYUN

DOES 1 TO 50

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

HAKIM GEORGE ESQ.

HAKIM GEORGE

Defendant Attorneys

GHENCIU VLAD

SPRIGGS SCOTT B.

 

Court Documents

Opposition - OPPOSITION TO EX PARTE APPLICATION

11/6/2019: Opposition - OPPOSITION TO EX PARTE APPLICATION

Motion re: - MOTION RE: DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR RECLASSIFICATION AND CONSOLIDATION WITH BC707385

11/7/2019: Motion re: - MOTION RE: DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR RECLASSIFICATION AND CONSOLIDATION WITH BC707385

Ex Parte Application - EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL AND ALL TRIAL-RELATED DATES

11/13/2019: Ex Parte Application - EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL AND ALL TRIAL-RELATED DATES

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL AND ALL TRI...)

11/13/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL AND ALL TRI...)

Notice of Ruling

11/14/2019: Notice of Ruling

Opposition - OPPOSITION PLAINTIFF JAMES VARGAS' OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT ARUTYUN SARGISIAN'S WALKER MOTION TO RECLASSIFY ACTION; DECLARATION OF GEORGE HAKIM ESQ.

11/15/2019: Opposition - OPPOSITION PLAINTIFF JAMES VARGAS' OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT ARUTYUN SARGISIAN'S WALKER MOTION TO RECLASSIFY ACTION; DECLARATION OF GEORGE HAKIM ESQ.

Ex Parte Application - EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR A MOTION TO COMPEL ANSWERS TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE ORDER SHORTENING TIME TO HEAR A MOTION TO COMPEL ANSWERS TO REQUESTS FOR ADMIS

10/31/2019: Ex Parte Application - EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR A MOTION TO COMPEL ANSWERS TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE ORDER SHORTENING TIME TO HEAR A MOTION TO COMPEL ANSWERS TO REQUESTS FOR ADMIS

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (FINAL STATUS CONFERENCE; HEARING ON EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ...)

11/6/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (FINAL STATUS CONFERENCE; HEARING ON EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ...)

Ex Parte Application - EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER DEEMING ADMITTED TRUTH OF FACTS OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE ORDER SHORTENING TIME TO HEAR A MOTION FOR AN ORDER DEEMING ADMITTED TRUTH OF FACTS

11/6/2019: Ex Parte Application - EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER DEEMING ADMITTED TRUTH OF FACTS OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE ORDER SHORTENING TIME TO HEAR A MOTION FOR AN ORDER DEEMING ADMITTED TRUTH OF FACTS

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER RE: RELATED CASES;)

3/19/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER RE: RELATED CASES;)

Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER RE: RELATED CASES;) OF 03/19/2019

3/19/2019: Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER RE: RELATED CASES;) OF 03/19/2019

Notice of Related Case

3/19/2019: Notice of Related Case

Association of Attorney

5/7/2019: Association of Attorney

ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

8/3/2018: ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

DEMAND FOR JURY

8/3/2018: DEMAND FOR JURY

CIVIL DEPOSIT -

8/3/2018: CIVIL DEPOSIT -

SUMMONS -

5/23/2018: SUMMONS -

COMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES) -

5/23/2018: COMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES) -

6 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 05/24/2021
  • Hearing05/24/2021 at 08:30 AM in Department 5 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; : OSC RE Dismissal

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/04/2020
  • Hearing03/04/2020 at 08:30 AM in Department 5 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Jury Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/21/2020
  • Hearing02/21/2020 at 10:00 AM in Department 5 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Final Status Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/10/2019
  • Hearing12/10/2019 at 13:30 PM in Department 5 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Hearing on Motion to Reclassify (Walker Motion)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/26/2019
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 5, Stephen I. Goorvitch, Presiding; Jury Trial - Not Held - Continued - Party's Motion

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/19/2019
  • Docketat 10:00 AM in Department 5, Stephen I. Goorvitch, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Continued - Party's Motion

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/15/2019
  • DocketOpposition (Plaintiff James Vargas' Opposition to Defendant Arutyun Sargisian's Walker Motion to Reclassify Action; Declaration of George Hakim Esq.); Filed by James Vargas (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/14/2019
  • DocketNotice of Ruling; Filed by Arutyun Sagisian (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/13/2019
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 5, Stephen I. Goorvitch, Presiding; Hearing on Ex Parte Application (to continue trial and all trial-related dates) - Held - Motion Granted

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/13/2019
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Hearing on Ex Parte Application to continue trial and all tri...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
13 More Docket Entries
  • 03/19/2019
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Court Order re: related cases;)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/03/2018
  • DocketANSWER TO COMPLAINT; Filed by Arutyun Sagisian (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/03/2018
  • DocketCIVIL DEPOSIT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/03/2018
  • DocketDEMAND FOR JURY

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/03/2018
  • DocketANSWER TO COMPLAINT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/03/2018
  • DocketDemand for Jury Trial; Filed by Arutyun Sagisian (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/03/2018
  • DocketReceipt; Filed by Arutyun Sagisian (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/23/2018
  • DocketCOMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/23/2018
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by James Vargas (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/23/2018
  • DocketSUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC707385    Hearing Date: December 10, 2019    Dept: 5

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 5

johnny padilla, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

arutyun sargisian, et al.

Defendants.

Case No.: 18STLC04387 (related to

BC707385)

Hearing Date: December 10, 2019

[TENTATIVE] order RE:

MOTION TO consolidate

Defendant Arutyun Sargisian (“Defendant”) moves to reclassify the above-referenced case as an unlimited civil case and then seeks to consolidate it with another unlimited civil case: James Vargas v. Arutyun Sargisian (Super. Ct. L.A. County, 2018, No. BC707385). Plaintiffs Johnny Padilla and Elsy Ramirez (“Plaintiffs”) oppose the motion for reclassification, thereby opposing the motion for consolidation.

Per Local Rule 3.3, subdivision (g), “Before consolidation of a limited case with an unlimited case, the limited case must be reclassified as an unlimited case and the reclassification fee paid.” (Super. Ct. L.A. County, Local Rules, rule 3.3(g)(3).) In determining whether to classify a limited case as an unlimited case, the Court must “review the record to determine whether a judgment in excess of $25,000 is obtainable.” (Ytuarte v. Superior Court (2005) 129 Cal.App.4th 266, 279.)

Here, Defendant has not advanced any evidence from which the Court could determine if Plaintiffs might obtain a judgment in excess of $25,000. Defendant simply argues that the Court should consolidate the actions for purposes of judicial economy since both actions arise from the same motor vehicle accident. However, that is not the standard for determining whether an action should be reclassified as an unlimited civil matter. In the absence of evidence in support of Defendant’s position, the motion is denied.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Defendant’s motion for reclassification is denied without prejudice. Therefore, Defendant’s motion for consolidation is denied without prejudice. Defendant shall provide notice and file proof of such with the Court.

DATED: December 10, 2019 ___________________________

Stephen I. Goorvitch

Judge of the Superior Court