This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 07/19/2019 at 01:08:47 (UTC).

LILIT HAKOBYAN VS CITIGROUP INC ET AL

Case Summary

On 02/20/2018 LILIT HAKOBYAN filed a Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury lawsuit against CITIGROUP INC. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Burbank 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:

    ****4483

  • Filing Date:

    02/20/2018

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Burbank Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

JON R. TAKASUGI

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner

HAKOBYAN LILIT

Defendants, Respondents, Cross Plaintiffs and Cross Defendants

CITIGROUP INC.

201 OWNER LLC

DOES 1 TO 50

CITIBANK N.A. SUED AS CITIGROUP INC.

DTZ WORLDWIDE LTD.

W.E. O'NEIL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA DOE 1

201 LEX LLC

CUSHMAN AND WAKEFIELD

SHAMROCK GROUP INC DBA SHAMROCK PAVING

Cross Defendants and Not Yet Classified

201 LEX LLC

CUSHMAN AND WAKEFIELD

SHAMROCK GROUP INC DBA SHAMROCK PAVING

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

OUNJIAN ROBERT ESQ.

JEWELL-COHEN RUDYARD ESQ.

NALBANDYAN ARUTYUN HARRY ESQ.

Defendant and Not Yet Classified Attorneys

FELDMAN IAN ROBERT ESQ.

ROSS JONATHAN ARTHUR ESQ.

 

Court Documents

DEFENDANT, CITIBANK, N.A.'S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT; ETC

5/31/2018: DEFENDANT, CITIBANK, N.A.'S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT; ETC

PLAINTIFF LILIT HAKOBYAN'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT 201 OWNER LLC'S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER; DECLARATION OF HARRY NALBANDYAN

7/19/2018: PLAINTIFF LILIT HAKOBYAN'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT 201 OWNER LLC'S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER; DECLARATION OF HARRY NALBANDYAN

DEFENDANT 201 OWNER LLC'S DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL AND NOTICE OF POSTING JURY FEE DEPOSIT

5/4/2018: DEFENDANT 201 OWNER LLC'S DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL AND NOTICE OF POSTING JURY FEE DEPOSIT

DEFENDANT 201 OWNER LLC'S S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR (1) A PROTECTIVE ORDER RE PLAINTIFF'S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE; OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE (2) AN ORDER SHORTENING TIME FOR HEARING ON MOTION FO

7/19/2018: DEFENDANT 201 OWNER LLC'S S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR (1) A PROTECTIVE ORDER RE PLAINTIFF'S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE; OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE (2) AN ORDER SHORTENING TIME FOR HEARING ON MOTION FO

Notice

10/11/2018: Notice

Order

10/19/2018: Order

Separate Statement

11/2/2018: Separate Statement

Informal Discovery Conference Form for Personal Injury Courts

11/2/2018: Informal Discovery Conference Form for Personal Injury Courts

Certificate of Mailing for

12/5/2018: Certificate of Mailing for

Minute Order

12/27/2018: Minute Order

Case Management Statement

3/28/2019: Case Management Statement

Opposition

4/2/2019: Opposition

Reply

4/5/2019: Reply

Minute Order

4/12/2019: Minute Order

Answer

5/24/2019: Answer

Case Management Statement

6/4/2019: Case Management Statement

Case Management Statement

6/4/2019: Case Management Statement

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

2/20/2018: COMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)

66 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 06/25/2019
  • Notice (of Continuance of Case Management Conference); Filed by Citibank N.A. sued as Citigroup Inc. (Cross-Complainant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/19/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department B; Case Management Conference - Held - Continued

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/19/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Case Management Conference)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/13/2019
  • Case Management Statement; Filed by Citibank N.A. sued as Citigroup Inc. (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/13/2019
  • Cross-Complaint; Filed by Citibank N.A. sued as Citigroup Inc. (Cross-Complainant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/13/2019
  • Summons (on Complaint); Filed by Citibank N.A. sued as Citigroup Inc. (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/04/2019
  • Case Management Statement; Filed by 201 Owner LLC (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/04/2019
  • Case Management Statement; Filed by Lilit Hakobyan (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/24/2019
  • Summons (on Complaint); Filed by 201 Owner LLC (Defendant); W.E. O'Neil Construction Company of California (Doe 1) (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/24/2019
  • Cross-Complaint; Filed by 201 Owner LLC (Cross-Complainant); W.E. O'Neil Construction Company of California (Doe 1) (Cross-Complainant)

    Read MoreRead Less
96 More Docket Entries
  • 05/04/2018
  • Receipt; Filed by 201 Owner LLC (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/04/2018
  • CIVIL DEPOSIT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/11/2018
  • Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by Lilit Hakobyan (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/11/2018
  • PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/11/2018
  • PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/11/2018
  • Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by Lilit Hakobyan (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/20/2018
  • COMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/20/2018
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/20/2018
  • Summons Issued; Filed by Lilit Hakobyan (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/20/2018
  • Complaint; Filed by Lilit Hakobyan (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC694483    Hearing Date: March 06, 2020    Dept: NCB

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

North Central District

Department B

lilit hakobyan,

Plaintiff,

v.

citigroup, inc., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: BC694483

Hearing Date: March 6, 2020

[TENTATIVE] order RE:

Motion for leave to file a first amended cross-complaint

BACKGROUND

A. Allegations

Plaintiff Lilit Hakobyan (“Plaintiff”) alleges on August 22, 2017, she fell on an uneven, undamaged, defective, and/or unsafe parking lot surface on the property of Defendants Citigroup, Inc. and 201 Owner LLC (“201 Owner”), which caused her to sustain injuries. The complaint, filed February 20, 2018, alleges causes of action for: (1) general negligence; and (2) premises liability.

On June 13, 2019, Cross-Complainant Citibank, N.A. (sued and served as Citigroup, Inc.) (“Citibank”) filed a cross-complaint against Cross-Defendants Shamrock Group Inc. dba Shamrock Paving (“Shamrock”), W.E. O’Neil, Cushman and Wakefield (“C&W”), 201 Owner, and 201 Lex, LLC. The cross-complaint alleges causes of action for: (1) comparative indemnity and apportionment of fault; (2) contribution; (3) total equitable indemnity; (4) declaratory relief; (5) negligence; (6) contractual indemnity; (7) breach of contract; (8) declaratory relief – duty to defend; and (9) declaratory relief – duty to indemnify.

On July 19, 2019, Cross-Complainants 201 Owner and W.E. O’Neil Construction Co of California filed a first amended cross-complaint against Citibank for: (1) equitable indemnity; (2) express contractual indemnity; (3) contribution; (4) declaratory relief regarding duty to defend; (5) declaratory relief regarding duty to indemnity; and (6) breach of written contract – additional insurance.

B. Motion on Calendar

On February 11, 2020, Cross-Complainant Citibank filed a motion for leave to file a first amended cross-complaint.

On February 24, 2020, Cross-Defendant Cushman and Wakefield filed a Notice of Non-Opposition to the motion. On February 24, 2020, Cross-Defendant 201 Owner, LLC and W.E. O’Neil Construction Co of California filed an opposition brief.

On February 28, 2020, Citibank filed a reply brief.

LEGAL STANDARD

CCP §473(a)(1) states: “The court may, in furtherance of justice, and on any terms as may be proper, allow a party to amend any pleading or proceeding by adding or striking out the name of any party, or by correcting a mistake in the name of a party, or a mistake in any other respect; and may, upon like terms, enlarge the time for answer or demurrer. The court may likewise, in its discretion, after notice to the adverse party, allow, upon any terms as may be just, an amendment to any pleading or proceeding in other particulars; and may upon like terms allow an answer to be made after the time limited by this code.”

CRC rule 3.1324 requires a motion seeking leave to amend to include a copy of the proposed pleadings, to identify the amendments, and to be accompanied by a declaration including the following facts:

1) The effect of the amendment;

2) Why the amendment is necessary and proper;

3) When the facts giving rise to the amended allegations were discovered; and

4) The reasons why the request for amendment was not made earlier.

The Court’s discretion regarding granting leave to amend is usually exercised liberally to permit amendment of pleadings. (Nestle v. Santa Monica (1972) 6 Cal.3d 920, 939.) If a motion to amend is timely made and the granting of the motion will not prejudice the opposing party, it is error to refuse permission to amend. (Morgan v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County (1959) 172 Cal.App.2d 527, 530.)

DISCUSSION

Citibank moves for leave to file the proposed first amended cross-complaint (“FAXC”). A copy of the FAXC is attached to the Declaration of Lily Nhan, counsel for Citibank, as Exhibit B. Exhibit A includes a red-line (strike-through) version of the initial cross-complaint.

In support of the motion, Citibank provides the declaration of its counsel, Ms. Nhan. Ms. Nhan states that the effect of the amendment would be to attach the correct agreement with the indemnity clause, as the wrong agreement was attached to the initial cross-complaint. (Nhan Decl., ¶¶8-11.) Citibank also intends to remove any references to the 2005 agreement and replace it with the correct 2013 agreement sections. (Id., ¶¶11-15.) Ms. Nhan states that the amendment is necessary and proper because under the 2013 agreement, C&W is required to procure insurance and name Citibank as an additional insured. (Id., ¶16.) Thus, Citibank seeks to amend the cross-complaint to allege that C&W has a duty to indemnify and defend Citibank in this matter. (Id., ¶17.)

Ms. Nhan states that the facts giving rise to the amended allegations were discovered only recently. She states that she did not realize that the initial cross-complaint had attached the wrong agreement until C&W raised it as a part of its defense and opposition to Citibank’s motion for summary adjudication. (Nhan Decl., ¶9.) She states that had the error been brought to her attention earlier, she would have resolved the matter quickly and before the motion for summary adjudication date. (Id., ¶¶9-10.)

201 Owner and W.E. O’Neil oppose the motion only to the limited extent that allowing amendment may alter Citibank’s allegations against them and thereby interfere with their pending dispositive motions and impose undue prejudice. Thus, they seek a Court order conditioning any amendment to the cross-complaint to allow no allegations against 201 Owner and/or W.E. O’Neil to be altered and their summary adjudication motion be heard as scheduled.

The Court has reviewed the red-lined version of the FAXC and notes that only substantive changes were made regarding the 6th and 7th causes of action for contractual indemnity and breach of contract and only as to those allegations regarding the alleged agreement Citibank had with C&W. The allegations regarding 201 Owner and W.E. O’Neil remain unchanged. (In the reply brief, Citibank also states that this motion was only intended to involve Citibank’s allegations towards C&W.)

Based on the declaration of Ms. Nhan and the liberal policy in favor of allowing amendments to the pleading, the Court grants Citibank’s motion for leave to file the proposed FAXC.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Citibank’s motion for leave to file the proposed FAXC is granted.

Citibank is ordered to electronically file a separate version of the FAXC with the Court by this date following the hearing on the matter.

Citibank shall provide notice of this order.