This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 06/16/2019 at 16:03:46 (UTC).

LANCE KRIEGER VS VICTORIA HOVSEPIAN

Case Summary

On 07/13/2017 LANCE KRIEGER filed a Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle lawsuit against VICTORIA HOVSEPIAN. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.
Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****8473

  • Filing Date:

    07/13/2017

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

 

Party Details

Petitioner and Plaintiff

KRIEGER LANCE

Respondents and Defendants

HOVSEPIAN VICTORIA

DOES 1 TO 20

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Petitioner and Plaintiff Attorney

KAMRAN M.H. TONY ESQ.

 

Court Documents

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

7/13/2017: COMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)

SUMMONS

7/13/2017: SUMMONS

Minute Order

12/27/2018: Minute Order

 

Docket Entries

  • 01/14/2019
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 5; Jury Trial - Not Held - Advanced and Vacated

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 12/27/2018
  • Docketat 10:00 AM in Department 5; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Vacated by Court

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 12/27/2018
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Final Status Conference)); Filed by Clerk

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 07/13/2017
  • DocketSUMMONS

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 07/13/2017
  • DocketCOMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 07/13/2017
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Lance Krieger (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: ****8473    Hearing Date: December 04, 2020    Dept: 32

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 32

lance krieger,

Plaintiff,

v.

victoria hovsepian,

Defendant.

Case No.: ****8473

Hearing Date: December 4, 2020

[TENTATIVE] order RE:

plaintiff’s motion to set aside dismissal

This case was filed on July 13, 2017. Over two years later, Plaintiff still had not served the summons and complaint. The Court set an Order to Show Cause re: Dismissal for Lack of Service for January 16, 2020, at 8:30 a.m. The day before, at 2:36 p.m., Plaintiff’s counsel filed a proof of service. However, it was not processed by the Clerk’s Office prior to the hearing, and Plaintiff’s counsel did not appear at the hearing. Therefore, the Court dismissed the case.

Now, Plaintiff’s counsel seeks to set aside that dismissal. Per Code of Civil Procedure, section 473, subdivision (b), a court may “relieve a party or his or her legal representative from a judgment, dismissal, order, or other proceeding taken against him or her through his or her mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect.” The party must seek such relief “within a reasonable time, in no case exceeding six months, after the judgment, dismissal, order, or proceeding was taken.” (Ibid.) “[W]hen relief under section 473 is available, there is a strong public policy in favor of granting relief and allowing the requesting party his or her day in court.” (Rappleyea v. Campbell (1994) 8 Cal.4th 975, 981-982, internal quotations omitted.)

Plaintiff has proffered a declaration from his counsel, M.H. Tony Kamran (“Counsel”). Counsel states that he failed to appear at the hearing because he erroneously calendared the hearing date. The Court gives Plaintiff’s counsel the benefit of the doubt and grants the motion.

The Court sets the following dates:

Final Status Conference: December 21, 2021, at 10:00 a.m.

Trial: January 11, 2022, at 8:30 a.m.

The discovery and motions cut-off shall be based on the new trial date. Plaintiff shall provide notice and file proof of such with the Court.

DATED: December 4, 2020 ___________________________

Stephen I. Goorvitch

Judge of the Superior Court



b'

Case Number: ****8473 Hearing Date: July 15, 2021 Dept: 32

PLEASE NOTE: Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at sscdept32@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. If the parties do not submit on the tentative, they should arrange to appear in-person or remotely.

TENTATIVE RULING

DEPARTMENT

32

HEARING DATE

July 15, 2021

CASE NUMBER

****8473

MOTIONS

Motions to Compel Responses to Demand for Production of Documents, Special Interrogatories and Form Interrogatories; Requests for Monetary Sanctions

MOVING PARTY

Defendant Victoria Hovsepian

OPPOSING PARTY

None

MOTIONS

Defendant Victoria Hovsepian (“Defendant”) moves to compel responses from Plaintiff Lance Krieger (“Plaintiff”) to : (1) Demand for Production of Documents, set one (“RPD”); (2) Form Interrogatories, set one (“FROG”); and (3) Special Interrogatories, set one (“SROG”). Defendant also seeks monetary sanctions. Plaintiff has not filed oppositions to the motions.

ANALYSIS

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.290, subdivision (a), “[i]f a party to whom interrogatories are directed fails to serve a timely response…[t]he party to whom the interrogatories are directed waives any right to exercise the option to produce writings under Section 2030.230, as well as any objection to the interrogatories, including one based on privilege or the protection for work product[.]” (Code Civ. Proc., ; 20390.290, subd. (a).). Similarly, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.300, subdivision (a), “[i]f a party to whom a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling is directed fails to serve a timely response to it…[t]he party to whom the demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling is directed waives any objection to the demand, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product[.]” (Code Civ. Proc., ; 2031.300, subd. (a).)

Here, Defendant served the subject discovery requests on Plaintiff on February 15, 2021, electronically. Plaintiff’s responses were thus due by March 22, 2021. As of the filing date of the motions, Defendant has not received responses from Plaintiff. Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to serve timely responses to the RPD, FROG and SROG.

Defendant requests monetary sanctions in connection with the motions. The Court finds that Plaintiff’s failure to respond to the subject discovery requests is an abuse of the discovery process, warranting monetary sanctions. (See Code Civ. Proc., ;; 2023.010, subd. (d), 2030.290, subd. (c), 2031.300, subd. (c).) Thus, the Court will impose monetary sanctions against Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel of record, Mir-Houtan Tony Kamran, in the amount of $780, which represents four hours of attorney time to prepare the motions and attend the hearing at $150 per hour, plus the filing fees at $60 per motion.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Therefore, the Court grants Defendant’s motions to compel responses to the RPD, FROG and SROG per Code of Civil Procedure sections 2030.290 and 2031.300, and orders Plaintiff to serve verified responses to the FROG, SROG and RPD, without objections, within 30 days of notice of the Court’s orders.

Further, the Court orders Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel of record, Mir-Houtan Tony Kamran, jointly and severally, to pay monetary sanctions in the amount of $780 to Defendant, by and through counsel for Defendant, within 30 days of notice of the Court’s orders.

Defendant is ordered to provide notice of the Court’s orders and file a proof of service of such.

'


related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases represented by Lawyer KAMRAN M.H. TONY ESQ.