This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 06/17/2019 at 20:24:30 (UTC).

JOSE VASQUEZ ET AL VS SABRINA DAVTYAN ET AL

Case Summary

On 07/07/2017 JOSE VASQUEZ filed a Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle lawsuit against SABRINA DAVTYAN. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is JON R. TAKASUGI. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****6906

  • Filing Date:

    07/07/2017

  • 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

JON R. TAKASUGI

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs and Petitioners

VASQUEZ DAYANA

VASQUEZ JOSE

TORRES BLANCA

Defendants and Respondents

DAVTYAN SABRINA

DOES 1 TO 50

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

PANAH D. HESS

YAZDANPANAH HESAM DEAN ESQ.

 

Court Documents

Minute Order

12/21/2018: Minute Order

CoverSheet

7/7/2017: CoverSheet

Summons

7/7/2017: Summons

Complaint

7/7/2017: Complaint

 

Docket Entries

  • 01/07/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 3, Jon R. Takasugi, Presiding; Non-Jury Trial - Not Held - Advanced and Vacated

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/21/2018
  • at 10:00 AM in Department 3, Jon R. Takasugi, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Advanced and Vacated

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/21/2018
  • Minute Order ((Final Status Conference)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/07/2017
  • Complaint

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/07/2017
  • Summons; Filed by Jose Vasquez (Plaintiff); Blanca Torres (Plaintiff); Dayana Vasquez (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/07/2017
  • Complaint; Filed by Jose Vasquez (Plaintiff); Blanca Torres (Plaintiff); Dayana Vasquez (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC666906    Hearing Date: February 04, 2020    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES – CENTRAL DISTRICT

JOSE VASQUEZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

SABRINA DAVTYAN , et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: BC666906

ORDER TRANSFERRING COMPLICATED PERSONAL INJURY (PI) CASE TO AN INDEPENDENT CALENDAR (IC) COURT

After review of the court file, the Court makes the following order:

Department 31 of the Personal Injury Court has determined that the above entitled action is complicated based upon the number of pretrial hearings and/or the complexity of the issues presented.

AT THE DIRECTION OF DEPARTMENT 1:

This case is hereby transferred and reassigned to the following Independent Calendar Court in THE CENTRAL DISTRICT, JUDGE MEL RECANA presiding in DEPT. 45 of the STANLEY MOSK Courthouse, for all purposes except trial. Department 1 hereby delegates to the Independent Calendar Court the authority to assign the cause for trial to that Independent Calendar Court.

The Order is signed and filed this date, and incorporated herein by reference. Any pending motions or hearings, including trial and status conferences, will be reset, continued or vacated at the direction of the newly assigned Independent Calendar court.

Upon receipt of this notice, counsel for Plaintiff shall give notice to all parties of record.

DATED: February 4, 2020 ___________________________

Hon. Jon Takasugi

Judge of the Superior Court

Case Number: BC666906    Hearing Date: November 12, 2019    Dept: 3

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

JOSE VASQUEZ, ET AL.,

Plaintiff(s),

vs.

SABRINA DAVTYAN, ET AL.,

Defendant(s).

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: BC666906

[TENTATIVE] ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO QUASH

Dept. 3

1:30 p.m.

November 12, 2019

1. Background Facts

Plaintiffs, Jose Vasquez, Blanca Torres, and Dayana Vasquez filed this action against Defendant, Sabrina Davtyan for damages arising out of an automobile accident. Plaintiffs filed their complaint on 7/07/17. On 7/24/19, Plaintiffs filed proof of service of the summons and complaint on Defendant. The POS indicates Plaintiffs’ registered process server served Defendant via substitute service on Nana Gavorkyan – Grandma/Co-tenant on 7/21/19, with the papers mailed thereafter. The POS includes a declaration of diligence.

2. Motion to Quash

Defendant moves to quash service of the summons and complaint, contending she moved to Australia in November of 2018 and has resided there continuously since. Defendant supports the motion with her own declaration, wherein she declares she moved to Australia in November of 2018, has lived there ever since, does not intend to return to the United States, and applied for a partner Visa in Australia. She provides a copy of her Australia driver’s license in further support of her position. She concedes the person served is her grandmother, but declares she does not reside with her grandmother, as she resides in Australia.

Notably, Defendant’s declaration in support of her motion is neither signed nor dated. Defendant must bring a properly signed and dated declaration to the hearing on the motion.

Plaintiffs oppose the motion, contending they exercised reasonable diligence in personally serving Defendant, and ultimately sub-served her at an address confirmed by a skip trace. Plaintiffs support the motion with the declaration of their attorney, who declares there was a skip trace that confirmed Defendant’s address. Defendant correctly notes, in reply, that Plaintiffs’ attorney does not have personal knowledge concerning the skip trace, and all of the other evidence in the opposition, to the extent it is intended to prove the truth of the matter asserted therein, is objectionable hearsay. Plaintiffs argue Defendant’s grandmother conceded Defendant lives with her, and said she is on vacation and will return. There is no competent evidence to this effect. Regardless, it does not overcome the fact that Defendant has an Australian driver’s license, which one would not typically receive for purposes of a vacation.

Plaintiffs argue, in their brief, that Defendant has a California driver’s license. Plaintiffs provide no evidence of this license.

Plaintiffs also argue that they recently, in an abundance of caution, had Defendant served at an address on La Brea. That service is not the subject of this motion, and cannot be used to defeat this motion. The issue on this motion is whether the 7/21/19 service should be quashed.

When a defendant files a motion to quash, the burden is on the plaintiff to establish that service of the summons and complaint was proper. Summers v. McClanahan (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 403, 413. Defendant herein established she resides full-time in Australia. Plaintiffs failed to meet their burden to establish otherwise. The motion to quash is therefore granted.

Specially Appearing Defendant is ordered to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at sscdept3@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  If the department does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on the tentative and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion may be placed off calendar. If a party submits on the tentative, the party’s email must include the case number and must identify the party submitting on the tentative.