This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 12/19/2021 at 19:40:13 (UTC).

SBK HOLDINGS USA INC VS EDGAR SARGSYAN ET AL

Case Summary

On 02/03/2017 SBK HOLDINGS USA INC filed a Property - Other Property Fraud lawsuit against EDGAR SARGSYAN. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are JOSEPH R. KALIN, MICHAEL J. RAPHAEL, DAVID L. MINNING, MARY H. STROBEL, FREDERICK C. SHALLER, MARK A. BORENSTEIN and DENNIS J. LANDIN. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****9108

  • Filing Date:

    02/03/2017

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Property - Other Property Fraud

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

JOSEPH R. KALIN

MICHAEL J. RAPHAEL

DAVID L. MINNING

MARY H. STROBEL

FREDERICK C. SHALLER

MARK A. BORENSTEIN

DENNIS J. LANDIN

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs, Petitioners and Cross Defendants

SBK HOLDINGS UA INC

DOES 1 - 10

Respondents, Defendants and Cross Plaintiffs

SARGSYAN EDGAR

PILLAR LAW GROUP

REGDALIN PROPERTIES LLC

REGDALIN AVIATION LLC

DOES 1 TO 50

DISHIGRIKYAN MKRTIC DOE 15

KHACHIKI ROSE

COLETTE PRODUCTIONS LLC DOE 7

MARTIROSYAN VAAGAN

ISRAELYAN ANI DOE 9

MOSESI HENRIK MOSESIAN DOE 5

TERMENDJIAN GRIGOR DOE 10

SIOW PETER

REGDALIN PRODUCTION COMANY LLC DOE 26

PELISSIER COLLETTE DOE 3

LK PETROL DOE 19

SCHMIDT PAUL DOE 16

REGDALIN LENDING LLC DOE 28

17 More Parties Available

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

GAREEB ALEXANDER S. ESQ.

MITILIAN ARMEN G. ESQ.

Defendant and Respondent Attorneys

BROWNE GEORGE ROSS LLP

RUBIN FRANK D. ESQ.

BEITCHMAN DAVID P. ESQ.

CHEN GRACE

BONIADI ANDRE

NURIK MARC STEVEN

Plaintiff and Cross Defendant Attorney

MITILIAN ARMEN G. ESQ.

Other Attorneys

KIRAKOSIAN GREGORY LEVON

HOESLY MATTHEW MICHAEL

GERAGOS MARK JOHN

 

Court Documents

OPPOSITION OF EDGAR SARGSYAN TO SBK HOLDINGS USA, INC.'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES; ETC

1/2/2018: OPPOSITION OF EDGAR SARGSYAN TO SBK HOLDINGS USA, INC.'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES; ETC

OPPOSITION OF REGDALIN PROPERTIES LLC TO MOTION OF SBK HOLDINGS USA, INC. TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE; ETC.

12/28/2017: OPPOSITION OF REGDALIN PROPERTIES LLC TO MOTION OF SBK HOLDINGS USA, INC. TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE; ETC.

PLAINTIFF SBK HOLDINGS USA, INC.'S OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER OF DEFENDANTS REGDALIN PROPERTIES, LLC AND PILLAR LAW GROUP, AND DEFENDANT/CROSS-COMPLAINANT EDGAR SARGSYAN, ETC

12/26/2017: PLAINTIFF SBK HOLDINGS USA, INC.'S OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER OF DEFENDANTS REGDALIN PROPERTIES, LLC AND PILLAR LAW GROUP, AND DEFENDANT/CROSS-COMPLAINANT EDGAR SARGSYAN, ETC

NERSES ANANYAN, MKRTICH DISHIGRIKYAN AND LUSINE DISHIGRIKYAN'S NOTICE OF DEMURRER AND ETC

6/29/2017: NERSES ANANYAN, MKRTICH DISHIGRIKYAN AND LUSINE DISHIGRIKYAN'S NOTICE OF DEMURRER AND ETC

AMENDED NOTICE OF RULING ON SELECT DEFENDANTS? MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER (IN LEAD CASE) AND MOTION TO EXPUNGE LIS PENDENS (IN RELATED CASE)

6/12/2018: AMENDED NOTICE OF RULING ON SELECT DEFENDANTS? MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER (IN LEAD CASE) AND MOTION TO EXPUNGE LIS PENDENS (IN RELATED CASE)

NOTICE OF RULING ON PLAINTIFF SBK HOLDINGS USA, INC.'S SEVEN (7) MOTIONS TO COMPEL, AND SELECT DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER

2/13/2018: NOTICE OF RULING ON PLAINTIFF SBK HOLDINGS USA, INC.'S SEVEN (7) MOTIONS TO COMPEL, AND SELECT DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER

NOTICE OF RULING ON DEFENDANTS' EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER: (1) SELECTING DATE FOR LEVON TERMENDZHYAN'S CONTINUED DEPOSITION IN LOS ANGELES; ETC

12/15/2017: NOTICE OF RULING ON DEFENDANTS' EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER: (1) SELECTING DATE FOR LEVON TERMENDZHYAN'S CONTINUED DEPOSITION IN LOS ANGELES; ETC

FIRST AMENDED ANSWER OF REGDALIN AVIATION LLC, REGDALIN PROPERTIES LLC, PILLAR LAW GROUP, EDGAR SARGSYAN, ART KALANTAR, ELINA SARGSYAN, HASMIK DERMENDZHYAN, ETC

12/8/2017: FIRST AMENDED ANSWER OF REGDALIN AVIATION LLC, REGDALIN PROPERTIES LLC, PILLAR LAW GROUP, EDGAR SARGSYAN, ART KALANTAR, ELINA SARGSYAN, HASMIK DERMENDZHYAN, ETC

NOTICE OF DEFENDANTS' WITHDRAWAL OF EX PARTE APPLICATION CONTINUED TO DECEMBER 6, 2017

12/4/2017: NOTICE OF DEFENDANTS' WITHDRAWAL OF EX PARTE APPLICATION CONTINUED TO DECEMBER 6, 2017

Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: FIRST AMENDED CROSS COMPLAINT

5/4/2017: Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: FIRST AMENDED CROSS COMPLAINT

Answer - ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED CROSS-COMPLAINT;

10/10/2017: Answer - ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED CROSS-COMPLAINT;

Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

10/10/2017: Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Answer - ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED CROSS-COMPLAINT;

10/10/2017: Answer - ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED CROSS-COMPLAINT;

Answer - ANSWER AMENDED ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT;

12/8/2017: Answer - ANSWER AMENDED ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT;

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (STATUS CONFERENCE RE: BANKRUPTCY)

8/4/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (STATUS CONFERENCE RE: BANKRUPTCY)

Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

9/1/2020: Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

Order Granting Attorney's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel-Civil - ORDER GRANTING ATTORNEY'S MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL-CIVIL (DEFENDANT MANUK ABOYAN)

9/1/2020: Order Granting Attorney's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel-Civil - ORDER GRANTING ATTORNEY'S MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL-CIVIL (DEFENDANT MANUK ABOYAN)

Declaration in Support of Attorney's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel-Civil

9/1/2020: Declaration in Support of Attorney's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel-Civil

469 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 01/28/2022
  • Hearing01/28/2022 at 08:30 AM in Department 51 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Order to Show Cause Re: Entry of Default and Default Judgment as to SBK Holdings USA, Inc.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/01/2021
  • DocketNotice (PLAINTIFF SBK HOLDINGS USA, INC.'S NOTICE OF CASE REASSIGNMENT); Filed by SBK Holdings USA INC (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/30/2021
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 51, Dennis J. Landin, Presiding; Order to Show Cause Re: (Entry of Default and Default Judgment as to SBK Holdings USA, Inc.) - Held - Continued

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/30/2021
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Order to Show Cause Re: Entry of Default and Default Judgment...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/22/2021
  • DocketNotice of Case Reassignment and Order for Plaintiff to Give Notice; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/10/2021
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 51, Dennis J. Landin, Presiding; Nunc Pro Tunc Order

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/10/2021
  • DocketCertificate of Mailing for ((Nunc Pro Tunc Order) of 11/10/2021); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/10/2021
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Nunc Pro Tunc Order)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/09/2021
  • DocketNotice of Ruling (GRANTING MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL FOR REGDALIN PROPERTIES, LLC); Filed by Regdalin Properties LLC (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/08/2021
  • Docketat 09:00 AM in Department 51, Dennis J. Landin, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to be Relieved as Counsel - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
942 More Docket Entries
  • 02/17/2017
  • DocketDeclaration; Filed by SBK Holdings USA INC (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/16/2017
  • DocketDECLARATION OF NON SERVICE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/16/2017
  • DocketDeclaration; Filed by SBK Holdings USA INC (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/16/2017
  • DocketDeclaration; Filed by SBK Holdings USA INC (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/16/2017
  • DocketDECLARATION OF NON SERVICE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/16/2017
  • DocketDeclaration; Filed by SBK Holdings USA INC (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/16/2017
  • DocketDECLARATION OF NON SERVICE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/03/2017
  • DocketSUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/03/2017
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by null

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/03/2017
  • DocketCOMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES: (1) BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY ;ETC

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

b"

Case Number: BC649108 Hearing Date: November 8, 2021 Dept: 51

Background

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Plaintiff’s Allegations

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

On September 27, 2016, Plaintiff Stuart\r\nKaplan filed this action against defendants over a transaction related to an\r\nexpensive watch gone awry. In the operative fourth amended complaint (4AC), filed\r\nSeptember 7, 2018, Plaintiff alleges causes of action against Defendants Erik\r\nGrochowiak, LCGG Enterprises, LLC (“LCGG”), Danies Wong, Mario Alessandro\r\nCiani, Alex Ciani, LLC, and Luxury Vintage Concept, Inc., related to multiple\r\nwatch transactions, alleging two counts of conversion, two counts of replevin,\r\ntwo counts of fraud, two counts of negligent misrepresentation, three counts of\r\nbreach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, aiding and abetting breach of\r\nfiduciary duty, unfair competition, and violation of Penal Code section 496.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Plaintiff is a collector of expensive and\r\nrare watches. Grochowiak is a broker/dealer of expensive and rare watches and\r\nwholly owns LCGG. Plaintiff owns a particularly rare watch, which he purchased\r\nin 2013 for an auction bid-price of $521,960 (the “Subject Watch”). In addition\r\nto that watch, Plaintiff was the owner of over 20 other rare and expensive watches.\r\nFor years, Plaintiff has purchased, sold, and repaired watches through\r\nGrochowiak. In 2016, Grochowiak agreed to attempt to sell the Subject Watch for\r\nPlaintiff on certain terms. Grochowiak represented that he had sold the Subject\r\nWatch to an overseas buyer through a Hong Kong broker of his, but did not\r\nidentify the broker or buyer. Plaintiff demanded that Grochowiak produce proof\r\nhe had sold the watch, but Grochowiak refused. Grochowiak did not close the\r\nsale by the deadline to do so and refused to return the Subject Watch.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Plaintiff rescinded all rights for\r\nGrochowiak to sell the Subject Watch in September 2016. Plaintiff reported the\r\nwatch as stolen on September 30, 2016. Plaintiff alleges that Grochowiak conspired\r\nwith Defendants Wong and Ciani to falsely represent that Wong was buyer and\r\nfabricated records to do so. Plaintiff alleges that they needed more time to\r\nmarket the watch to sell the watch at a much higher price (Plaintiff believes\r\nthat the value of the Subject Watch is $1.2 million) and abscond with undisclosed\r\nprofits while pressuring Plaintiff to part with the Subject Watch for a much\r\nlower price.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Grochowiak was also in possession of 20\r\nother watches that Plaintiff owned. Plaintiff demanded the return of all of his\r\nwatches. Grochowiak initially refused to do so, but eventually returned them.\r\nHowever, Grochowiak did not return three, which were sold without Plaintiff’s\r\nknowledge or permission. As to the remaining watches that Grochowiak did\r\nreturn, he did not return the boxes, the original certificates, or the original\r\ndust case with the boxes.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

On June 8, 2021, Plaintiff filed two Doe\r\namendments, substituting Doe 5 for Defendant Eric Ku and Doe 6 for Defendant\r\nEric Ku, Inc. (“Ku Inc.”) (collectively, the “Ku Defendants.”)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

On July 8, 2021, Plaintiff filed two\r\nnotices of acknowledgment of receipt of the summons and complaint for the Ku\r\nDefendants. The notices were signed by Rebecca Wester on June 21, 2021.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Instant Motion to Quash by the\r\nKu Defendants

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

On July 21, 2021, the Ku Defendants file a\r\nmotion to strike and quash the Doe amendments. They argue that Plaintiff\r\nunreasonably delayed in filing the Doe amendments as Plaintiff had knowledge of\r\nthe Ku Defendants two years ago. The allegations related to the Ku Defendants\r\nrelate to a sale of a Cartier Crash white gold watch (the “White Crash”) that\r\nbelonged to Plaintiff. Grochowiak brokered the sale of the White Crash to the\r\nKu Defendants.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

On October 22, 2021, Plaintiff filed an\r\nopposition. Plaintiff argues the following:

\r\n\r\n

· \r\nThe\r\noriginal complaint, filed on September 27, 2016, only concerned the Subject\r\nWatch.

\r\n\r\n

· \r\nThe\r\nfirst amended complaint, filed on February 14, 2017, was when a cause of action\r\nconcerning the White Crash was first alleged, but Plaintiff did not know the\r\nidentity of the buyer of the White Crash at the time.

\r\n\r\n

· \r\nIn\r\nJanuary 2018, Plaintiff confirmed that the Ku Defendants were the buyers of the\r\nWhite Crash. In 2018, the Ku Defendants only produced documents suggesting that\r\nthey were innocent purchasers.

\r\n\r\n

· \r\nFor\r\ntwo years, Plaintiff was in extensive discovery disputes with Grochowiak. In\r\nApril 2021, two years after the court ordered a forensic examination, the forensic\r\nexpert produced records regarding texts between Ku and Grochowiak that neither\r\nGrochowiak nor Ku had produced in discovery. Plaintiff argues that it did not\r\nhave a reasonable basis for believing that Ku was involved in any fraud until\r\nthose text messages.

\r\n\r\n

Accordingly, Plaintiff argues that he did not unreasonably\r\ndelay filing the Doe amendments and, even if he did, the Ku Defendants will not\r\nsuffer prejudice from allowing the amendments.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

On November 1, 2021, the Ku Defendants filed a reply.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Legal Standard

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Quashing\r\nDoe Amendments for Unreasonable Delay

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Code of Civil Procedure, section 474 provides in relevant\r\npart: “When the plaintiff is ignorant of the name of a defendant, he must state\r\nthat fact in the complaint, or the affidavit if the action is commenced by\r\naffidavit, and such defendant may be designated in any pleading or proceeding\r\nby any name, and when his true name is discovered, the pleading or proceeding\r\nmust be amended accordingly….” Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 474. A\r\nplaintiff must substitute in the name of the Doe defendant when the plaintiff\r\nlearns the individual’s name and the facts giving rise to\r\nliability. E.g., Optical Surplus v. Superior Court (1991)\r\n228 Cal.App.3d 776, 783-784 [recognizing that a plaintiff’s earlier knowledge\r\nof the facts giving rise to his or her claims bars a plaintiff from naming an\r\nindividual as a Doe defendant]. A plaintiff need not be aware of “each and\r\nevery detail” concerning a person’s involvement to be “aware of the facts\r\nimplicating the defendant.” Dover\r\nv. Sadowinski (1983) 147 Cal.App.3d 113, 117-118 [recognizing that a\r\nplaintiff need not be aware of “each and every detail” concerning a person’s\r\ninvolvement to be aware of the facts implicating the defendant.]

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

A plaintiff cannot avail himself or herself of the Doe\r\namendment procedure if he or she unreasonably delays in filing Doe amendments\r\nnaming Doe defendants as parties. A.N. v. County of Los Angeles (2009)\r\n171 Cal.App.4th 1058, 1064-1066.) In order to prevail on a\r\nmotion to bar amendment under section 474 on grounds of unreasonable delay, a\r\ndefendant “must show not only that the plaintiff was dilatory but also ‘that\r\ndefendant suffered prejudice from any such delay.” Id. at p.\r\n1066.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Dismissal\r\nfor Delay in Serving Doe Amendments

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Also relevant and related to this inquiry, but which the\r\nparties do not raise or address is California Code of Civil Procedure sec 583.210.\r\nThat section requires that the summons and complaint be served upon a defendant\r\nwithin three years after the complaint is filed. Cal. Civ. Proc. Code\r\n§ 583.210(a). If service of the summons and complaint has not been served upon\r\na defendant within the three-year statutory time period, the court shall\r\ndismiss the action—i.e., dismissal is mandatory. Cal. Civ. Proc.\r\nCode § 583.250. “The three-year rule applies where the defendant seeking\r\ndismissal was served as a Doe defendant named in the original complaint, later\r\namended to show his or her true name.” Inversiones Papaluchi S.A.S.\r\nv. Superior Court (2018)\r\n20 Cal.App.5th 1055, 1061. Thus, “a plaintiff has three years from the\r\ndate of filing the complaint to identify and serve a Doe defendant.” Ibid.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

The Legislature\r\nhas articulated four conditions that toll the time for service set forth in\r\nCalifornia Code of Civil Procedure § 583.240, which states:

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

In computing the\r\ntime within which service must be made pursuant to this article, there shall be\r\nexcluded the time during which any of the following conditions existed:

\r\n\r\n

(a) The defendant\r\nwas not amenable to the process of the court.

\r\n\r\n

(b) The\r\nprosecution of the action or proceedings in the action was stayed and the stay\r\naffected service.

\r\n\r\n

(c) The validity\r\nof service was the subject of litigation by the parties.

\r\n\r\n

(d) Service, for\r\nany other reason, was impossible, impracticable, or futile due to causes beyond\r\nthe plaintiff's control. Failure to discover relevant facts or evidence is not\r\na cause beyond the plaintiff's control for the purpose of this subdivision.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

These conditions “must be construed strictly\r\nagainst the plaintiff.” Inversiones, supra, at p. 1061. For\r\nexample, in Higgins v. Superior Court, the court held that the automatic\r\nstay triggered by co-defendant's filing of chapter seven bankruptcy petition\r\napplied only to that defendant, not to the nondebtor defendant at issue, and\r\nthus stay did not toll the three-year period for plaintiff to serve summons and\r\ncomplaint on the defendant. Higgins v. Superior Court (2017) 15 Cal.App.5th\r\n973, 982.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Analysis:

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

First, the court finds that the Ku Defendants have a\r\ncolorable argument that Plaintiff knew or should have known about the facts giving\r\nrise to his claim between 2017 and 2019. In the first amended complaint,\r\nPlaintiff alleges that “another of the watches Plaintiff entrusted to\r\nGrochowiak was a Cartier Crash White Gold dial marked London. Plaintiff\r\nbelieves this was a unique piece. Grochowiak represented to Plaintiff that he\r\nhad a buyer for the Cartier Crash White Gold at $125,000 which, by Grochowiak’s\r\nrepresentation and assessment, was a fair price. Based upon Grochowiak’s\r\nrepresentation, Plaintiff consented to the sale despite having previously\r\ninstructed Grochowiak to only sell … for $300,000.” (First Amended Complaint, ¶\r\n58.) Plaintiff, therefore, had the facts that gave rise to his claim since\r\n2017, but had not yet identified the buyer then. Plaintiff admits that he\r\ndiscovered the buyer—the Ku Defendants—in early 2018. Further, Plaintiff deposed\r\nKu in January 2019. The record, therefore, establishes that Plaintiff had\r\nnotice of the facts on which Plaintiff based his claims in 2017, knew of the\r\nidentity of the buyer in January 2018, and was able to depose Ku in January\r\n2019 to discover further facts. These circumstances give some weight to the Ku\r\nDefendants’ argument that Plaintiff unreasonably delayed filing the Doe\r\namendments on June 8, 2021, despite having knowledge of them between January\r\n2018 and January 2019.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

However, even if the court were to interpret the facts in a\r\nlight that most favors Plaintiff—i.e., that Plaintiff did not have any\r\nsuspicion that Plaintiff had any claims against the Ku Defendants related to\r\nthe White Crash until April 2021—such that there was no unreasonable delay and\r\nno prejudice, Plaintiff would still not be able to overcome sections 583.210\r\nand 583.250. Under those sections, Plaintiff had three\r\nyears from filing the complaint to discover the identities of the Doe\r\ndefendants and serve them. Plaintiff filed the complaint on September 27, 2016,\r\nwhich means that Plaintiff had until September 27, 2019, to serve the Doe\r\ndefendants. Even if the court were to toll the accrual of this deadline until\r\nthe date that Plaintiff filed the first amended complaint (February 14, 2017), when\r\nallegations relating to the White Crash first arose, Plaintiff’s deadline to\r\nserve the Doe defendants would be February 14, 2020.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Further, on the record before the court, none of the\r\nconditions under section 583.240 exist to toll this deadline. There is no\r\nevidence that:

\r\n\r\n

· \r\nThe Ku Defendants were not amenable to the process of the court. Cal.\r\nCiv. Proc. Code § 583.240(a).

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

· \r\nThe validity of service is the subject of litigation—there is no\r\nservice contest here. Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 583.240(c).

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

· \r\nService, for any other reason, was impossible, impracticable, or\r\nfutile due to causes beyond the plaintiff's control. Civ. Proc. Code §\r\n583.240(d). As the statute expressly states, “[f]ailure to discover relevant\r\nfacts or evidence is not a cause beyond the plaintiff's control for the purpose\r\nof this subdivision.” The entire basis\r\nof plaintiff’s opposition is that he could not discover facts or evidence\r\nsooner, which does not constitute impossibility, impracticability or futility\r\nunder the statute.

\r\n\r\n

The only other condition that may apply to toll the deadline is\r\n“[t]he prosecution of the action or proceedings in the action was stayed and\r\nthe stay affected service.” Civ. Proc. Code § 583.240(b). While the\r\ncourt finds that, under Higgins, the stay caused by the bankruptcy\r\nfilings of the other co-defendants do not apply to toll Plaintiff’s deadline to\r\nserve, the stay of the action pending the resolution of the anti-SLAPP motion\r\nmay apply. Otherwise, under § 583.250, the court must dismiss this\r\naction as against the Ku Defendants for failure to serve them with the doe\r\namendments within three years.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Conclusion

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

The court is inclined to GRANT the motion. However, the\r\ncourt will allow the parties to file a supplemental brief that does not exceed\r\nfive pages on the discrete issues of (1) whether or not any stay related to the\r\nanti-SLAPP motion tolls the deadline to serve Doe defendants under section 583.240,\r\nand if yes, (2) by how many days (i.e., calculate the three-year deadline to\r\nserve Doe defendants after tolling).

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

The Ku Defendants to give notice.

"
related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where REGDALIN AVIATION LLC is a litigant

Latest cases where Regdalin Properties, LLC is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer HOESLY MATTHEW M.