PATRICK VARDAPOUR VS MAGDY ZOUEN ET AL
Case Summary
On 09/29/2017 PATRICK VARDAPOUR filed a Contract - Other Contract lawsuit against MAGDY ZOUEN. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is MICHELLE WILLIAMS COURT. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.
Case Details
-
Case Number:
****7822
-
Filing Date:
09/29/2017
-
Case Status:
Pending - Other Pending
-
Court:
Los Angeles County Superior Courts
-
Courthouse:
Stanley Mosk Courthouse
-
County, State:
Los Angeles, California
Judge Details
Presiding Judge
MICHELLE WILLIAMS COURT
Party Details
Plaintiff, Petitioner and Cross Defendant
VARDAPOUR PATRICK
Defendants, Respondents and Cross Plaintiffs
DOES 1-10
ZOUEN MAGDA
ZOUEN MAGDY
Attorney/Law Firm Details
Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys
VARDAPOUR LAW GROUP
VARDAPOUR PATRICK
Defendant and Respondent Attorneys
LEVINE ZACHARY ESQ.
LEVINE ZACHARY JAMES ESQ.
Defendant and Cross Plaintiff Attorney
LEVINE ZACHARY JAMES ESQ.
Plaintiff and Cross Defendant Attorney
VARDAPOUR PATRICK
Court Documents
6/19/2019: Opposition
6/19/2019: Separate Statement
7/3/2019: Minute Order
3/21/2018: DECLARATION OF DEMURRING PARTY IN SUPPORT OF AUTOMATIC EXTENSION
6/4/2018: Minute Order
9/10/2018: DEFENDANTS AND CROSS COMPLAINANTS' OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF AND CROSS DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO STRIKE DEFENDANTS AND CROSS COMPLAINANTS? CROSS COMPLAINT
9/21/2018: CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER
1/8/2019: Request for Dismissal
1/9/2019: Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)
1/22/2019: Opposition
1/31/2019: Notice
2/4/2019: Reply
2/11/2019: Minute Order
2/27/2019: Reply
3/6/2019: Cross-Complaint
4/3/2019: Notice
5/10/2019: Motion to Strike (not anti-SLAPP) - without Demurrer
11/20/2017: Minute Order
Docket Entries
- 07/13/2020
-
Hearingat 10:00 AM in Department 74 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Jury Trial
- 07/02/2020
-
Hearingat 08:30 AM in Department 74 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Final Status Conference
- 01/15/2020
-
Hearingat 08:30 AM in Department 74 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Status Conference
- 10/08/2019
-
Hearingat 08:30 AM in Department 74 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Hearing on Motion to Strike (not anti-SLAPP) - without Demurrer
- 10/08/2019
-
Hearingat 08:30 AM in Department 74 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Hearing on Motion to Compel Arbitration
- 09/06/2019
-
Hearingat 08:30 AM in Department 74 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Hearing on Motion for Protective Order
- 08/09/2019
-
Docketat 08:31 AM in Department 74; Final Status Conference - Held - Continued
- 08/08/2019
-
DocketDeclaration (of Michael J. Armenta); Filed by Patrick Vardapour (Plaintiff)
- 08/08/2019
-
DocketRequest for Judicial Notice; Filed by Patrick Vardapour (Plaintiff)
- 08/08/2019
-
DocketMotion for Protective Order (Restricting Use of Document Production); Filed by Patrick Vardapour (Plaintiff)
- 10/24/2017
-
DocketNOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE
- 10/24/2017
-
DocketNOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE
- 10/24/2017
-
DocketNotice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk
- 10/20/2017
-
DocketProof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by Patrick Vardapour (Plaintiff)
- 10/20/2017
-
DocketProof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by Patrick Vardapour (Plaintiff)
- 10/20/2017
-
DocketPROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS & COMPLAINT MAGDA ZOUEN
- 10/20/2017
-
DocketPROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS & COMPLAINT MAGDY ZOUEN
- 09/29/2017
-
DocketCOMPLAINT FOR: 1. ACCOUNT STATED (RABADI MATTER) ;ETC
- 09/29/2017
-
DocketSUMMONS
- 09/29/2017
-
DocketComplaint; Filed by Patrick Vardapour (Plaintiff)
Tentative Rulings
Case Number: BC677822 Hearing Date: February 24, 2020 Dept: 74
BC677822 PATRICK VARDAPOUR VS MAGDY ZOUEN ET AL
Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents
TENTATIVE RULING: The motions are untimely and are DENIED. Moving party to give notice.
Requests for Judicial Notice
The parties’ requests for judicial notice are GRANTED.
Motions to Compel Further Responses
Defendant served responses on November 5, 2019. Plaintiff had until December 26, 2019 to file motions to compel further responses. These motions were filed on January 6, 2020. The motions are untimely.
Case Number: BC677822 Hearing Date: February 21, 2020 Dept: 74
BC677822 PATRICK VARDAPOUR VS MAGDY ZOUEN ET AL
Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses, Requests for Admissions
TENTATIVE RULING: The motion is DENIED. Moving party to give notice.
Requests for Judicial Notice
Plaintiff’s request to take judicial notice of documents of this court is GRANTED. (Evid. Code, § 452(d)(1).)
Defendants’ request to take judicial notice of California Senate and Assembly committee reports and analysis of bills is GRANTED. (Evid. Code, § 452(c).) Plaintiff’s objection to this request is overruled.
Motion to Compel Further Responses
Code of Civil Procedure § 2033.290(c) states that the time limit for bringing a motion to compel further responses runs from the service of a verified response or supplemental verified response. Defendant served responses to the RFA on November 5, 2019. Plaintiff had until December 26, 2019 to file a motion to compel further responses. This motion was filed on January 6, 2020. The motion is untimely.Case Number: BC677822 Hearing Date: January 13, 2020 Dept: 74
BC677822 PATRICK VARDAPOUR VS MAGDY ZOUEN ET AL
Plaintiff’s Motion for Issue or Evidence Sanctions and for Sanctions
TENTATIVE RULING: The motion is denied. The request for sanctions is denied.
Motion for Issue or Evidence Sanctions and for Sanctions
The motion seeks issue and evidence sanctions based on the failure to comply with a court order compelling production of documents.
Defendants maintain they have produced all documents in their possession. A respondent cannot be compelled to admit a fact in discovery, even where its truth is obvious. (Wimberly v. Derby Cycle Corp. (1997) 56 Cal. App. 4th 618, 634.) Plaintiff is arguing that he thinks defendants should have more documents. This is not a proper ground for a terminating sanction. That defendants did not produce documents which plaintiff produced to them earlier in this litigation does not establish they are withholding documents from the underlying actions.
The motion is denied.
Monetary Sanctions
The request for monetary sanction is denied. The request for monetary sanctions for a prior motion can only be brought as a separate motion for reconsideration.
Case Number: BC677822 Hearing Date: December 03, 2019 Dept: 74
BC677822 PATRICK VARDAPOUR VS MAGDY ZOUEN ET AL
Plaintiff Patrick Vardapour’s Motion to Compel Production to Requests for Production, Set 2
TENTATIVE RULING: Plaintiff’s Unopposed Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Production to Requests for Production Set 2 is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to refiling and reserving a hearing date for a motion to compel further responses to discovery. Sanctions are awarded against Plaintiff in the amount of $1,469.60.
Dig Deeper
Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases