This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 04/12/2021 at 06:16:53 (UTC).

RIMA ABELIAN VS YELIZABET PETROSYAN ET AL

Case Summary

On 03/21/2018 RIMA ABELIAN filed a Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury lawsuit against YELIZABET PETROSYAN. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are STEPHEN I. GOORVITCH and MICHAEL E. WHITAKER. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****9228

  • Filing Date:

    03/21/2018

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

STEPHEN I. GOORVITCH

MICHAEL E. WHITAKER

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner

ABELIAN RIMA

Defendants, Respondents and Cross Plaintiffs

PETROSYAN HAKOP

KANG HEE D.

PETROSYAN YELIZABET

KANG INJA

DOES 1 TO 50

KANG 2016 FAMILY TRUST DOE 1

KANG 2016 FAMILY TRUST

ZINAYDA ALBARYAN INDIVIDUALLY AND DBA MAGGIE'S PASTRY

GRIGOR ALBARYAN INDIVIDUALLY AND DBA MAGGIE'S PASTRY

MAGGIE'S PASTRY AND CAFE INC. A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION DBA MAGGIES'S PASTRY

Cross Defendants

ALBARYAN ZINAIDA DBA MAGGIE'S PASTRY

ALBARYAN GRIGOR DBA MAGGIE'S PASTRY

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Defendant, Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

DERVISHIAN ABRAHAM ESQ.

OHANIAN SARK

Defendant, Cross Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

LAW OFFICES OF KIRK & MYERS

TAN DOMINGO R.

TAN DOMINGO REYNALDO

PALTA AMIT

ARMSTRONG ROBERT WEAVER II

ARMSTRONG ROBERT W.

KANIEWSKI JOHN ANTHONY

DERVISHIAN ABRAHAM ESQ.

LUETTO HELEN MARIE

Defendant and Cross Plaintiff Attorney

TAN DOMINGO REYNALDO

 

Court Documents

Notice of Ruling

12/22/2020: Notice of Ruling

Motion to Compel - MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION OF DEFENDANT AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

12/16/2020: Motion to Compel - MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION OF DEFENDANT AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

Opposition - OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER TO CONTINUE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OPPOSITION DEADLINE AND MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT HEARING DATE

12/18/2020: Opposition - OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER TO CONTINUE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OPPOSITION DEADLINE AND MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT HEARING DATE

Answer

12/8/2020: Answer

Proof of Personal Service

10/8/2020: Proof of Personal Service

Amendment to Complaint (Fictitious/Incorrect Name)

9/21/2020: Amendment to Complaint (Fictitious/Incorrect Name)

Substitution of Attorney

8/13/2020: Substitution of Attorney

Substitution of Attorney

7/23/2020: Substitution of Attorney

[Proposed Order] and Stipulation to Continue Trial, FSC (and Related Motion/Discovery Dates) Person - [PROPOSED ORDER] AND STIPULATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL, FSC (AND RELATED MOTION/DISCOVERY DATES) PERSO

7/7/2020: [Proposed Order] and Stipulation to Continue Trial, FSC (and Related Motion/Discovery Dates) Person - [PROPOSED ORDER] AND STIPULATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL, FSC (AND RELATED MOTION/DISCOVERY DATES) PERSO

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER)

6/10/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER)

Request for Entry of Default / Judgment

5/21/2020: Request for Entry of Default / Judgment

Cross-Complaint

2/10/2020: Cross-Complaint

Summons - SUMMONS ON COMPLAINT

2/10/2020: Summons - SUMMONS ON COMPLAINT

ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

9/5/2018: ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

CIVIL DEPOSIT -

9/5/2018: CIVIL DEPOSIT -

Answer - Answer DEFENDANTS HEE D. KANG,INJA KANG,AND KANG 2016 FAMILY TRUST'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT

3/7/2019: Answer - Answer DEFENDANTS HEE D. KANG,INJA KANG,AND KANG 2016 FAMILY TRUST'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT

AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT -

8/8/2018: AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT -

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS -

8/27/2018: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS -

60 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 07/16/2021
  • Hearing07/16/2021 at 13:30 PM in Department 32 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Trial Setting Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/16/2021
  • Hearing07/16/2021 at 13:30 PM in Department 32 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/29/2021
  • Docketat 10:00 AM in Department 32, Michael E. Whitaker, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Vacated by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/22/2021
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 32, Michael E. Whitaker, Presiding; (OSC RE Dismissal) - Not Held - Vacated by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/14/2021
  • Docketat 1:30 PM in Department 32, Michael E. Whitaker, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Compel (Motion to Compel Deposition of Defendant Hee D. Kang and Request for Production of Documents) - Held - Motion Granted

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/14/2021
  • Docketat 1:30 PM in Department 32, Michael E. Whitaker, Presiding; Hearing on Ex Parte Application (for Order to Continue Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment) - Held - Motion Granted

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/14/2021
  • Docketat 1:30 PM in Department 32, Michael E. Whitaker, Presiding; Trial Setting Conference - Held - Continued

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/14/2021
  • Docketat 1:30 PM in Department 32, Michael E. Whitaker, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Dismiss - Held - Motion Denied

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/14/2021
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Hearing on Motion to Dismiss; Hearing on Motion to Compel Mot...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/07/2021
  • DocketReply (Reply of Defendants Maggie's Bakery, Inc., Zinayda Albaryan and Grigor Albaryan to Plaintiff's Complaint); Filed by Maggie's Pastry and Cafe, Inc., a California Corporation dba Maggies's Pastry (Defendant); Zinayda Albaryan, individually and dba Maggie's Pastry (Defendant); Grigor Albaryan, individually and dba Maggie's Pastry (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
79 More Docket Entries
  • 09/05/2018
  • DocketOther - (Proof Of Service Of Summons); Filed by Rima Abelian (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/05/2018
  • DocketDemand for Jury Trial; Filed by Hakop Petrosyan (Defendant); Yelizabet Petrosyan (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/27/2018
  • DocketPROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/27/2018
  • DocketProof of Service by Substituted Service; Filed by Rima Abelian (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/27/2018
  • DocketPROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/08/2018
  • DocketAmendment to Complaint; Filed by Rima Abelian (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/08/2018
  • DocketAMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/21/2018
  • DocketSummons; Filed by Rima Abelian (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/21/2018
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Rima Abelian (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/21/2018
  • DocketComplaint

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC699228    Hearing Date: January 14, 2021    Dept: 32

ORDER #1 of 3

rima abelian,

Plaintiff,

v.

yelizabeth petrosyan, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: BC699228

Hearing Date: January 14, 2021

[TENTATIVE] order RE:

DEfendant’s Motion to dismiss

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Rima Abelian (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Yelizabet Petrosyan, Hakop Petrosyan, Hee D. Kang, Inja Kang, and Does 1 to 50 on March 12, 2018. Plaintiff alleges that on January 24, 2017, Defendant Yelizaet Petrosyan drove her vehicle into a store located at 6530 Lankershim Boulevard in Los Angeles, California, where she hit multiple people, including Plaintiff. (Complaint, p.4.) Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Hee D. Kang and Inja Kang owned, managed, and maintained the property and failed to place proper barriers, including curb stops and bollard posts, which would have prevented such accidents. (Ibid.) On August 8, 2018, Plaintiff filed a Doe amendment and added the Kang 2016 Family Trust in place of Doe 1.

On September 21, 2020, Plaintiff filed three Doe amendments. First, Plaintiff added “Maggie’s Pastry and Café, Inc., a California Corporation dba Maggie’s Pastry” in place of Doe 2. Second, Plaintiff added “Zinayda Albaryan, individually and dba Maggie’s Pastry” in place of Doe 3. Third, Plaintiff added “Grigor Albaryan, individually and dba Maggie’s Pastry” in place of Doe 4. Now, these defendants (“Defendants”) move to dismiss the complaint per the statute of limitations. The motion is denied without prejudice to Defendants filing a motion for summary judgment on this issue.

Legal Standard

The statute of limitations for a personal injury case is two years. (Code Civ. Proc., § 335.1.) To preserve the statute of limitations, a plaintiff must be truly ignorant of the identity of a person that the plaintiff names as a Doe defendant. (See Davis v. Marin (2000) 80 Cal.App.4th 380, 387.) A Doe defendant bears the burden to prove that the plaintiff was aware of the identity of the Doe defendant at the time the plaintiff filed the initial complaint. (See Breceda v. Gamsby (1968) 267 Cal.App.2d 167, 179.)

DISCUSSION

The accident occurred on January 24, 2017. Therefore, the statute of limitations ran on January 24, 2019. There is no dispute that Plaintiff was aware the accident occurred at a business called “Maggie’s Pastry.” Ultimately, the resolution of this issue depends on extrinsic evidence, which the Court cannot consider at this time. Therefore, the motion is denied without prejudice to Defendants filing a motion for summary judgment on this issue.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Defendants’ motion to dismiss is denied. Defendants may file a motion for summary judgment on this issue. Plaintiff shall provide notice and file proof of such with the Court.

ORDER #2 of 3

rima abelian,

Plaintiff,

v.

yelizabet petrosyan, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: BC699228

Hearing Date: January 14, 2021

[TENTATIVE] order RE:

motion to compel deposition

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Rima Abelian (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Yelizabet Petrosyan, Hakop Petrosyan, Hee D. Kang, Inja Kang, and Does 1 to 50 on March 12, 2018. Plaintiff alleges that on January 24, 2017, Defendant Yelizaet Petrosyan drove her vehicle into a store located at 6530 Lankershim Boulevard in Los Angeles, California, where she hit multiple people, including Plaintiff. (Complaint, p.4.) Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Hee D. Kang and Inja Kang owned, managed, and maintained the property and failed to place proper barriers, including curb stops and bollard posts, which would have prevented such accidents. (Ibid.) Now, Plaintiff moves to compel the deposition of Defendant Hee D. Kang (“Defendant”). The motion is granted.

LEGAL STANDARD

Per Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.450, if a party to the action fails to appear for deposition after service of a deposition notice and the party has not served a valid objection to that deposition notice, the party that noticed the deposition may move for an order to compel the deponent to attend and testify at deposition. (Code Civ. Proc., §2025.450, subd. (a).)

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff noticed the first deposition of Defendant for September 23, 2020. (Declaration of Sark Ohanian, ¶ 3.) Plaintiff noticed a live deposition (during a pandemic). (Id., Exh. #1.) Defendant objected on the grounds that the deposition was unilaterally set and the the state’s “shelter-in-place” order did not allow Defendant and Defendant’s counsel to be in the same place. (Id., Exh. #2.) Plaintiff re-noticed the deposition for November 17, 2020 as a remote deposition via Zoom, and Defendant failed to appear. (Id., ¶ 5.) Defendant objected again because of health issues which prevented her from being in the same place as her attorney. (Id., ¶ 6.)

The Court grants the motion. Although Defendant argues that she raised valid objections, she is incorrect. If Defendant contends he cannot appear for deposition because of his age or infirmity, Defendant should have sought a protective order. (See Poeschl v. Superior Court In and For Ventura County (1964) 229 Cal.App.2d 383, 386.) Defendant was not entitled to unilaterally refuse to appear. Moreover, other attorneys have been able to appear for remote depositions, so the Court questions the merits of Defendant’s objection.

The Court concludes that Defendant’s failure to appear for deposition was an abuse of the discovery process, and awards sanctions. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.450, subd. (g)(1).) The Court imposes sanctions against Defendant and his counsel of record, Wood, Smith, Henning & Berman LLP, in the amount of $1,061.65, which represents four hours of attorney time to prepare the motion and attend the hearing at $250 per hour, plus the filing fee of $61.65.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Plaintiff’s motion to compel Defendant to appear for deposition is granted. Defendant is to appear for deposition within 90 days of notice of this order unless the parties stipulate to a different date. The deposition shall be conducted remotely unless the parties stipulate to a different arrangement. Defendant and his counsel of record, Wood, Smith, Henning & Berman LLP, jointly and severally, shall pay sanctions in the amount of $1,060 to Plaintiff, by and through counsel, within 30 days of notice of this order. Plaintiff shall provide notice and file proof of such with the Court.

ORDER #3 of 3

rima abelian,

Plaintiff,

v.

yelizabet petrosyan, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: BC699228

Hearing Date: January 14, 2021

[TENTATIVE] order RE:

EX PARTE APPLICATION

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Rima Abelian (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Yelizabet Petrosyan, Hakop Petrosyan, Hee D. Kang, Inja Kang, and Does 1 to 50 on March 12, 2018. Plaintiff alleges that on January 24, 2017, Defendant Yelizaet Petrosyan drove her vehicle into a store located at 6530 Lankershim Boulevard in Los Angeles, California, where she hit multiple people, including Plaintiff. (Complaint, p.4.) Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Hee D. Kang and Inja Kang owned, managed, and maintained the property and failed to place proper barriers, including curb stops and bollard posts, which would have prevented such accidents. (Ibid.) Plaintiff moved to compel the deposition of Defendant Hee D. Kang (“Defendant”), and the Court granted that motion.

Therefore, the Court grants Plaintiff’s ex parte application to continue the hearing on the pending motion for summary judgment. The hearing on the pending motion for summary judgment is continued to July 16, 2021, at 1:30 p.m. The Court advances and vacates the final status conference and trial dates and shall hold a trial setting conference on July 16, 2021, at 1:30 p.m. Plaintiff shall provide notice and file proof of such with the Court.

Case Number: BC699228    Hearing Date: February 06, 2020    Dept: 32

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 32

rima abelian,

Plaintiff,

v.

yelizabet petrosyan, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: BC699228

Hearing Date: February 6, 2020

[TENTATIVE] order RE:

defendantS’ motion for leave to file cross-complaint

Defendants Inja Kang, Hee D. Kang, and Kang 2016 Family Trust (“Defendants”) seek leave to assert a cross-complaint for indemnification and contribution against Grigor Albaryan and Zinaida Albaryan. Per Code of Civil Procedure section 428.10, a party against whom a cause of action is asserted may file a cross-complaint to assert “[a]ny cause of action he has against a person alleged to be liable thereon, whether or not such person is already a party to the action, if the cause of action asserted in his cross-complaint (1) arises out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences as the cause brought against him or (2) asserts a claim, right, or interest in the property or controversy which is the subject of the cause brought against him.” (Code Civ. Proc., §428.10, subd. (b).) A party must obtain leave of court to file a cross-complaint if the party does not file the cross-complaint at the same time as the answer. The court may grant leave to file a cross-complaint in the interests of justice at any time during the course of the action. (Code Civ. Proc., §428.10, subd. (c).)

In this case, Plaintiff Rima Abelian (“Plaintiff”) alleges she sustained injuries in an incident in which Defendant Yelizabet Petrosyan drove her vehicle into a bakery. Defendants owned the building where the accident occurred, and Grigor Albaryan and Zinaida Albaryan operated a bakery on the premises. Defendants seek indemnification from Grigor Albaryan and Zinaida Albaryan. “Undoubtedly, a claim for contribution or indemnity ‘arises out of’ the same transaction or occurrence as the plaintiff's claim.” (Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. v. Superior Court (1999) 69 Cal.App.4th 785, 799.) Thus, it is in the interests of justice to permit Defendants to file the proposed cross-complaint, as resolution of all issues pertaining to responsibility Plaintiff’s damages in one action is efficient. The Court therefore grants the motion.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Defendants’ motion for leave to file a cross-complaint is granted. Defendants shall file their cross-complaint within ten (10) days. Defendants shall provide notice and file proof of such with the Court.

DATED: February 6, 2020 ___________________________

Stephen I. Goorvitch

Judge of the Superior Court

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases represented by Lawyer DERVISHIAN ABRAHAM