This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 05/26/2019 at 05:08:44 (UTC).

MANIK MANUKYAN VS SERGEY KRASNOV

Case Summary

On 11/22/2017 MANIK MANUKYAN filed a Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle lawsuit against SERGEY KRASNOV. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is STEPHEN I. GOORVITCH. The case status is Disposed - Dismissed.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****4509

  • Filing Date:

    11/22/2017

  • Case Status:

    Disposed - Dismissed

  • 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

MANUKYAN MANIK

Defendants and Respondents

KRASNOV SERGEY

DOES 1 TO 10

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

HG LAW APC

GALADZHYAN HYKA

Defendant and Respondent Attorney

CADENA MEGAN ESQ.

 

Court Documents

ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

1/2/2018: ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

DEMAND FOR JURY

1/2/2018: DEMAND FOR JURY

Unknown

1/2/2018: Unknown

SUMMONS

11/22/2017: SUMMONS

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

11/22/2017: COMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)

 

Docket Entries

  • 05/21/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 5, Stephen I. Goorvitch, Presiding; Jury Trial - Not Held - Vacated by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/21/2019
  • Certificate of Mailing for (Minute Order (Jury Trial) of 05/21/2019); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/21/2019
  • Order - Dismissal; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/21/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Jury Trial)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/07/2019
  • at 10:00 AM in Department 5, Stephen I. Goorvitch, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Taken Off Calendar by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/07/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Final Status Conference)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/02/2018
  • Demand for Jury Trial; Filed by SERGEY KRASNOV (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/02/2018
  • Receipt; Filed by Defendant/Respondent

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/02/2018
  • DEMAND FOR JURY

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/02/2018
  • Answer; Filed by SERGEY KRASNOV (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/02/2018
  • ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/02/2018
  • CIVIL DEPOSIT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/22/2017
  • Complaint; Filed by MANIK MANUKYAN (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/22/2017
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/22/2017
  • COMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC684509    Hearing Date: January 10, 2020    Dept: 5

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 5

MANIK MANUKYAN,

Plaintiff,

v.

SERGEY KRASNOV, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: BC684509

Hearing Date: January 10, 2020

[TENTATIVE] order RE:

plaintiff’s motion to set aside dismissal

BACKGROUND

On November 22, 2017, Plaintiff Manik Manukyan (“Plaintiff”) filed this action following a motor vehicle collision against Defendant Sergey Krasnov (“Defendant”). There were no appearances for trial on May 21, 2019, so the Court dismissed the case. Now, Plaintiff moves to set aside the dismissal, which Defendant opposes. The motion is granted.

LEGAL STANDARD

Code of Civil Procedure section 473(b) authorizes the Court to relieve a party from a judgment or dismissal based upon “mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 473(b).) Such an application must be made “within a reasonable time, in no case exceeding six months, after the judgment, dismissal, order, or proceeding was taken.” (Ibid.)

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff relies on counsel’s declaration, which states that the parties stipulated to a trial continuance, and counsel forwarded the stipulation to her legal assistant for filing and service. (Galadzhyan Decl., ¶¶ 4-9.) However, the legal assistant filed the stipulation in the wrong case. (Id., ¶ 18.) This is sufficient to satisfy the standard.

Defendant argues that the motion was untimely because the order was issued on May 21, 2019, and the motion was filed on November 20, 2019. The Court disagrees. The plain language of the statute affords “six months.” The order was issued on May 21, 2019, and the motion was filed one day before the six month anniversary. When the plain language is clear, the Court need not look beyond that language. Nevertheless, the Court’s review of relevant authorities and the legislative intent supports the Court’s view that this motion is timely. In Gonzales v. County of Los Angeles (1988) 199 Cal.App.3d 601, 603 the Second District “six months” to mean six calendar months, or 182 days, whichever is longer. (Gonzales, supra, 199 Cal.App.3d at 603.) Although Gonzales considered the meaning of the term “six months” relating to a government tort claim, it provides guidance in this case. Moreover, the Court is required to interpret statutes in a manner to facilitate cases being decided on the merits. Therefore, the motion is timely.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Plaintiff’s motion to vacate the Court’s dismissal is granted pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 473(b). The Court sets the following dates:

Final Status Conference: September 16, 2020, at 10:00 a.m.

Trial: September 30, 2020, 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 before the Court.

DATED: January 10, 2020 ___________________________

Hon. Stephen I. Goorvitch

Judge of the Superior Court