Search

Attributes

This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 05/25/2019 at 02:11:27 (UTC).

KEN BABALYAN ET AL VS ALEXADER HARPER WATTS ET AL

Case Summary

On 06/28/2017 KEN BABALYAN filed a Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle lawsuit against ALEXADER HARPER WATTS. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are BENNY C. OSORIO and STEPHEN I. GOORVITCH. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****6678

  • Filing Date:

    06/28/2017

  • 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 Judges

BENNY C. OSORIO

STEPHEN I. GOORVITCH

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs, Petitioners and Cross Defendants

GOLAN SHAHAR

BABALYAN KEN

MARTIROSYAN LEVON

RIGGS SHAUN

CITY OF LOS ANGELES

ROES 1 TO 25 INCLUSIVE

ROES 1 TO 25

BABALYN KEN

Defendants, Respondents and Cross Plaintiffs

WATTS ALEXANDER HARPER

LOS ANGELES CITY OF

LOS ANGELES COUNTY OF

STATE OF CALIFORNIA CALTRANS

DOES 1 TO 100

WATTS ANDREW

WATTS CATHY

CITY OF LOS ANGELES

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

CALIFORNIA STATE OF

BABALYAN KAREN GEORGIEVICH

WATTS CATHY H.

Guardian Ad Litem

TSINMA SIMONA AND IN HER CAPACITY AS AN

9 More Parties Available

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

MARDIROSSIAN GARO ESQ.

MARDIROSSIAN & ASSOCIATES INC. APC

MARDIROSSIAN GARO

FRANKLIN STANLEY C.

Defendant and Cross Plaintiff Attorneys

TYSON & MENDES LLP

FEUER MICHAEL N. CITY ATTORNEY

SASSOUNIAN DIKRAN HOWARD

TATE JUSTINA LEILANI

FEUER MICHAEL NELSON

TYSON ROBERT FRANCIS JR

KAYE ASHLEY L.

SASSOUNIAN DIKRAN H. DEPUTY CITY ATTY

Cross Defendant Attorneys

PAULSON JOHN KENNETH ESQ.

CHANG CHIAYU VALENIA

MCCLAUGHERTY JAY

Other Attorneys

ARDALAN PEZHMAN CHRISTOPHER ESQ.

HICKEY GEOFFREY S.

 

Court Documents

Minute Order

10/5/2017: Minute Order

DECLARATION OF JEREMY R. CRONIN IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMFEL FURTHER RESPONSES OF PLAINTIFF LEVON MARTIROSYAN TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS (SET TWO) AND REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS

4/27/2018: DECLARATION OF JEREMY R. CRONIN IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMFEL FURTHER RESPONSES OF PLAINTIFF LEVON MARTIROSYAN TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS (SET TWO) AND REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS

DECLARATION OF JEREMY R. CRONIN IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES OF PLAINTIFF SHAHAR GOLAN TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES (SET TWO) AND REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS

4/27/2018: DECLARATION OF JEREMY R. CRONIN IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES OF PLAINTIFF SHAHAR GOLAN TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES (SET TWO) AND REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS

SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES OF PLAINTIFF LEVON MARTIROSYAN TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES (SET THREE)

4/27/2018: SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES OF PLAINTIFF LEVON MARTIROSYAN TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES (SET THREE)

DECLARATION OF JEREMY R. CRONIT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL ROBERT CRONIN TO PROVIDE FURTHER RESPONSES TO DEPOSITION QUESTIONS ARD REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS

5/15/2018: DECLARATION OF JEREMY R. CRONIT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL ROBERT CRONIN TO PROVIDE FURTHER RESPONSES TO DEPOSITION QUESTIONS ARD REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL ROBERT CRONIN TO PROVIDE FURTHER RESPONSES TO DEPOSITION QUESTIONS AND REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS

5/15/2018: MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL ROBERT CRONIN TO PROVIDE FURTHER RESPONSES TO DEPOSITION QUESTIONS AND REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS

DEFENDANTS/CROSS-COMPLAFNTS ALEXANDER HARPER WATTS, ANDREW WATTS AND CATHY WATTS' OPPOSI1ION TO PLAINTIFF/CROSS-DEFENDANT SHAHAR GOLAN'S MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF CROSS-COMPLAINT

9/26/2018: DEFENDANTS/CROSS-COMPLAFNTS ALEXANDER HARPER WATTS, ANDREW WATTS AND CATHY WATTS' OPPOSI1ION TO PLAINTIFF/CROSS-DEFENDANT SHAHAR GOLAN'S MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF CROSS-COMPLAINT

Ex Parte Application

10/5/2018: Ex Parte Application

Minute Order

10/10/2018: Minute Order

Order

10/11/2018: Order

Notice of Case Reassignment/Vacate Hearings

10/11/2018: Notice of Case Reassignment/Vacate Hearings

Notice

10/16/2018: Notice

Minute Order

12/6/2018: Minute Order

Notice of Posting of Jury Fees

3/22/2019: Notice of Posting of Jury Fees

SUMMONS CROSS-COMPLAINT

12/8/2017: SUMMONS CROSS-COMPLAINT

Unknown

12/11/2017: Unknown

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1. NEGLIGENCE;ETC

6/28/2017: COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1. NEGLIGENCE;ETC

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS ALEXANDER HARPER WATTS, ANDREW WATTS, AND CATHY WATTS' MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT

8/29/2017: MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS ALEXANDER HARPER WATTS, ANDREW WATTS, AND CATHY WATTS' MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT

128 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 05/21/2019
  • Reply (Cross-Defendant Shaun Riggs Reply to Cross-Complianants opposition to motion to strike punitive damages); Filed by Shaun Riggs (Cross-Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/16/2019
  • Opposition (TO MOTION OF CROSS-DEFENDANT SHAUN RIGGS TO STRIKE PUNITIVE DAMAGES); Filed by Alexander Harper Watts (Defendant); Andrew Watts (Defendant); Cathy Watts (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/14/2019
  • Notice of Change of Address or Other Contact Information; Filed by Ken Babalyan (Cross-Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/10/2019
  • Separate Statement (IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO QUASH DEPOSTION SUBPOENA FOR PRODUCTION OF BUSINESS RECORDS TO QUICKSILVER TOWING); Filed by Ken Babalyan (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/10/2019
  • Motion to Quash; Filed by Ken Babalyan (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/10/2019
  • Separate Statement; Filed by Shahar Golan (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/10/2019
  • Motion to Quash; Filed by Levon Martirosyan (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/10/2019
  • Separate Statement; Filed by Levon Martirosyan (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/10/2019
  • Motion to Quash; Filed by Shahar Golan (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/22/2019
  • Notice of Posting of Jury Fees; Filed by Ken Babalyn (Cross-Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
245 More Docket Entries
  • 08/29/2017
  • Motion to Strike; Filed by Alexander Harper Watts (Defendant); Andrew Watts (Defendant); Cathy Watts (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/29/2017
  • REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/29/2017
  • Points and Authorities; Filed by Alexander Harper Watts (Defendant); Andrew Watts (Defendant); Cathy Watts (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/29/2017
  • DEFENDANTS ALEXANDER HARPER WATTS, ANDREW WATTS, AND CATHY WATTS' NOTICE OF MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/28/2017
  • Complaint; Filed by Ken Babalyan (Plaintiff); Levon Martirosyan (Plaintiff); Shahar Golan (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/28/2017
  • Declaration; Filed by Ken Babalyan (Plaintiff); Levon Martirosyan (Plaintiff); Shahar Golan (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/28/2017
  • Summons; Filed by Ken Babalyan (Plaintiff); Levon Martirosyan (Plaintiff); Shahar Golan (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/28/2017
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/28/2017
  • DECLARATION OF KEN BABALYAN, SIJCCESSOR-ININTEREST, PURSUANT TO C.C.P. 377.32

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/28/2017
  • COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1. NEGLIGENCE;ETC

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC666678    Hearing Date: August 06, 2020    Dept: O

Case Name: Babylan, et al. v. Watts, et al. 
Case No.: BC666678
Hearing: 8-6-20
Calendar #: 10
Notice: OK 
Complaint Filed:      6-28-17
Motion C/O: 5-5-21
Discovery C/O: 4-19-21 
Trial Date: 5-17-21 
______________________________________________________________________________
SUBJECT: (1)  MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
(2)  MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 
MOVING PARTY: (1)  Plaintiff Michelle Babalyan 
(2)  Defendants Alexander Harper Watts, Andrew Watts and Cathy Watts
JOINED BY: (1)  Defendants Watts, et al.
(1)  Defendant The City of Los Angeles
RESP. PARTY: (1) AND (2)  Plaintiff Ken Babalyan
TENTATIVE RULING
Plaintiff Michelle Babalyan’s Motion for Summary Judgment (joined by Defendants Alexander Watts, Andrew Watts, Cathy Watts, and the City of Los Angeles)  is DENIED. Plaintiff Michelle’s RJN is GRANTED as to Exhibit 1 but not as to its contents and DENIED as to the copies of the reporter’s transcripts attached as Exhibits 2 and 3.  
Defendants Alexander Watts, Andrew Watts and Cathy Watts’ (collectively referred to as “Watts”) Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED.  
Plaintiff Ken failed to submit evidentiary objections in compliance with CRC Rule 3.1345.  Ken includes his evidentiary objections as responses to Michelle’s statements of fact.  
Triable issues of fact remain as to whether Ken was financially dependent on David at the time of David’s death for purposes of standing under CCP §377.60(b).  Moving parties fail to meet their initial burden on summary judgment and even if they had, Ken’s evidence in opposition raises a material issue of fact precluding summary judgment.  
(1)  Plaintiff Michelle’s Motion for Summary Judgment seeks summary judgment of Plaintiff Ken’s complaint.  Plaintiff Michelle fails to cite any authority that would allow her to attack Ken’s standing to assert the causes of action in his complaint. Plaintiff Michelle is not a defendant in Ken’s action.  Michelle is not seeking summary judgment of her complaint against Plaintiff Ken, nor is there any authority provided for Michelle to name Ken as a “nominal defendant” in her complaint. 
(2)  Both Plaintiff Michelle and Defendants Watts fail to satisfy their burden as the parties moving for summary judgment.  Michelle and Watts argue Plaintiff Ken lacks standing under CCP §377.60(b) as “dependent” parent of decedent David Babalyan.  
CCP §377.60(b) allows the parents of a decedent to sue for wrongful death if “they were dependent on the decedent” and regardless of whether the decedent had children.  “For purposes of this subdivision, dependence refers to financial support…Financial dependency should be the test for parents who are not heirs of the decedent…[¶]  Financial dependence generally presents a question of fact, which should be determined on a case-by-case basis.”  Chavez v. Carpenter (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 1433, 1445; see also Soto v. BorgWarner Morse TEC Inc. (2015) 239 Cal.App.4th 165, 191 (interpreting CCP §377.60(c) by relying on case law interpreting CCP §377.60(b) and affirming nonsuit of great-grandson’s claims on grounds that decedent’s child care services were not financial necessities where parents admitted they could afford child care if decedent had not provided it)  
While there is no “strict formula” for determining financial dependence, case law has developed criteria in evaluating whether a parent establishes dependences under CCP §377.60(b).  Id.  First, dependency is evaluated “at the time of the child’s death.”  Id. (citing Hazelwood v. Hazelwood (1976) 57 Cal.App.3d 693, 698).  Second, only “financial support from their child which aids them in obtaining the things, such as shelter, clothing, food and medical treatment, which one cannot and should not do without” qualifies as financial dependence under CCP §377.60(b), as opposed to financial support that merely provides for “niceties” in life.   Id. at 1446.
Plaintiff Michelle and Defendants Watts fail to negate Ken’s allegation that he was “dependent” on decedent at the time of David’s death.  Moving parties rely on decedent’s 2014 testimony that he did not support his father.  See Plaintiff Michelle’s SSUMF Nos. 9-10; Defendant Watts’ SSUMF Nos. 9-10.  Such evidence is not probative of whether decedent was supporting Ken at the time of decedent’s death in June 2017. 
Moving parties also fail to establish that Ken is judicially estopped from contradicting David’s statements at the 2014 child support hearing.  Judicial estoppel should “quite clearly should be applied in the following situation: when (1) the same party has taken two positions; (2) the positions were taken in judicial or quasi-judicial administrative proceedings; (3) the party was successful in asserting the first position (i.e., the tribunal adopted the position or accepted it as true); (4) the two positions are totally inconsistent; and (5) the first position was not taken as a result of ignorance, fraud, or mistake.”  Thomas v. Gordon (2000) 85 Cal.App.4th 113, 118. 
Ken and David are not the same person or party, nor were David’s statements “agreements” that could bind Ken in a wrongful action proceeding.  “Although a wrongful death claim is an independent action, wrongful death plaintiffs may be bound by agreements entered into by decedent that limit the scope of the wrongful death action.”  Ruiz v. Podolsky (2010) 50 Cal.4th 838, 851–852.  A wrongful death plaintiff may also be “bound by defenses applicable to the decedent if the statute giving rise to the defense is construed to intend such application.”  Id. at 852. 
In addition, David’s 2014 testimony that he was not providing any support to his father in 2014 is not wholly inconsistent with Ken’s position that David was providing financial support to him in 2017, as defined under CCP §377.60(b).  David could not have been providing such support in 2014 but could have been doing so in 2017.  
(3)  A defendant may satisfy its initial burden on summary judgment by showing that the claim “cannot be established” because of the lack of evidence on some essential element of the claim.  See Union Bank v. Superior Court (1995) 31 Cal.App.4th 574, 590.  The showing of lack of evidence may be made with a party’s factually devoid discovery responses.  Id. 
In an attempt to satisfy their initial burden based on lack of evidence on the essential element of standing, moving parties rely on Defendant Ken’s admission during discovery that he has no documentation to support his claim of financial dependence on David when David died.  However, documentation of David’s payments is only one form of evidence, and the lack of one form of evidence is not the same as the lack of any evidence of standing.
Moreover, Ken submits direct evidence supporting his claim of financial dependence, namely his deposition testimony.  See Dec. of L. Marks filed on 7-21-20, ¶4, Ex. 1.  Ken testified during deposition that David paid his father’s monthly expenses for groceries ($400), utilities ($280) and medications ($50), transportation ($250), $300 for automobile insurance and $450 for telephone service.  Id. at 28:4-8, 28:21-29:14, 51:15-52:3.  These expenses qualify as basic necessities under Chavez.  Ken also submits evidence that he needed David’s financial assistance for such basic necessities, because he could not otherwise afford them.  Id. at 35:5-22.  Ken also testified that David performed the grocery shopping, ran errands, administered Ken’s medication, chauffeured him and provided therapeutic/medical services to him.  Id. at 92:20-93:23.  Ken’s deposition testimony is evidence that raises a triable issue of fact as to his financial dependence on David when David died.  CCP §437c(b)(2)(opposition “shall consist of … depositions…”).
(4)  Michelle’s argument that Ken’s claims “compete” with her claims is also unpersuasive.  Michelle cites her own complaint in support of this assertion.  Michelle’s complaint is irrelevant and inadmissible for this point.  
Moreover, Ken is suing for a very specific, distinct loss, i.e. loss of the specific financial support that David provided to him, not to Michelle. “The death of that child in this type of situation results in a distinct pecuniary loss to the parent which requires the parent to find aid elsewhere for the basic things we all need.”  Id. at 1446.  Such a loss includes loss of not just pure monetary support but may include loss of specific services the child provided, including grocery shopping and maintenance of the parent’s property.  Id. at 1447 (trial court erred in determining parents were not dependent on decedent under CCP §377.60 on summary judgment where parents submitted evidence of money and services provided by decedent at time of death and parents testified they relied on decedent’s contributions of money and services to make ends meet).  

Case Number: BC666678    Hearing Date: July 14, 2020    Dept: O

Case Name: Babylan, et al. v. Watts, et al. 
Case No.: BC666678
Hearing: 7-14-20
Calendar #: 8
Notice: OK 
Complaint Filed:      6/28/17
Motion C/O: 1/20/20
Discovery C/O: 1/3/20
Trial Date: 2/3/20 
______________________________________________________________________________
SUBJECT: MOTION TO COMPEL COMPLIANCE WITH DEPOSITION SUBPOENA
MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Ken Babalyan 
RESP. PARTY: Hrach Gasparyan
TENTATIVE RULING
Plaintiff Ken Babalyan’s Motion to Compel Compliance with Deposition Subpoena by Hrach Gasparyan is GRANTED per CCP §1987.1.  The only remaining issue in dispute is whether Gasparyan is required to appear for deposition in person.  Given the pandemic, the Court orders that the deposition be taken by video conference.  Gasparyan is ordered to appear for deposition on _____________________.  Plaintiff Ken Babalyan did not request sanctions. Gasparyan’s request for sanctions is denied. 
 
CCP §1987.1
“If a subpoena requires the attendance of a witness or the production of books, documents, electronically stored information, or other things before a court, or at the trial of an issue therein, or at the taking of a deposition, the court, upon motion reasonably made by any person described in subdivision (b), or upon the court's own motion after giving counsel notice and an opportunity to be heard, may make an order quashing the subpoena entirely, modifying it, or directing compliance with it upon those terms or conditions as the court shall declare, including protective orders. In addition, the court may make any other order as may be appropriate to protect the person from unreasonable or oppressive demands, including unreasonable violations of the right of privacy of the person.” CCP §1987.1.
related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases represented by Lawyer HICKEY GEOFFREY S.

Latest cases represented by Lawyer ARDALAN PEZHMAN CHRISTOPHER