Search

Attributes

This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 11/22/2019 at 14:10:43 (UTC).

SEVAN DEROHANIAN VS NORIS AMADY ET AL

Case Summary

On 10/04/2017 SEVAN DEROHANIAN filed a Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle lawsuit against NORIS AMADY. 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 Other.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****7898

  • Filing Date:

    10/04/2017

  • Case Status:

    Other

  • 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

DEROHANIAN SEVAN

Defendants and Respondents

AMADY NORIS

CHULDZHYAN TINA

DOES 1 TO 25

AMADY - SUMMARY JUDGMENT NORIS

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

CHOPURIAN HAGOP LAW OFFICES OF

CHOPURIAN HAGOP N.

Defendant and Respondent Attorneys

SHAVER KORFF & CASTRONOVO LAW O/O

NETTELS CHARLES F. ESQ.

OLSON SONALI

PATEL RAJEEV SUSHIL

 

Court Documents

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT)

10/29/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT)

Substitution of Attorney

10/21/2019: Substitution of Attorney

Objection - OBJECTION OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF'S EVIDENCE SUBMITTED IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION

10/22/2019: Objection - OBJECTION OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF'S EVIDENCE SUBMITTED IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION

Reply - REPLY MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

10/22/2019: Reply - REPLY MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Declaration - DECLARATION OF MARYAM DANISHWAR IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

8/12/2019: Declaration - DECLARATION OF MARYAM DANISHWAR IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Motion for Summary Judgment

8/12/2019: Motion for Summary Judgment

Separate Statement

8/12/2019: Separate Statement

Request for Judicial Notice

8/12/2019: Request for Judicial Notice

Notice of Ruling

6/24/2019: Notice of Ruling

Ex Parte Application - EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL AND RELATED DATES

6/17/2019: Ex Parte Application - EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL AND RELATED DATES

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL AND RELATED...)

6/17/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL AND RELATED...)

Association of Attorney

6/4/2019: Association of Attorney

NOTICE OF POSTING JURY FEES

4/5/2018: NOTICE OF POSTING JURY FEES

CIVIL DEPOSIT -

4/5/2018: CIVIL DEPOSIT -

ANSWER TO COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES; DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY

12/20/2017: ANSWER TO COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES; DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY

CIVIL DEPOSIT -

12/20/2017: CIVIL DEPOSIT -

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS -

10/18/2017: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS -

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS -

10/20/2017: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS -

13 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 11/14/2019
  • DocketRequest for Dismissal; Filed by Sevan Derohanian (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/30/2019
  • DocketNotice of Ruling; Filed by Noris Amady - SUMMARY JUDGMENT (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/29/2019
  • Docketat 1:30 PM in Department 5, Stephen I. Goorvitch, Presiding; Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment - Held - Motion Granted

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/29/2019
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/22/2019
  • DocketReply (Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment); Filed by Noris Amady - SUMMARY JUDGMENT (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/22/2019
  • DocketObjection (Objections to Plaintiff's Evidence Submitted in Opposition to Defendant's Summary Judgment Motion); Filed by Noris Amady - SUMMARY JUDGMENT (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/21/2019
  • DocketSubstitution of Attorney; Filed by Noris Amady - SUMMARY JUDGMENT (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/15/2019
  • DocketOpposition (Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment/Adjudication); Filed by Sevan Derohanian (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/01/2019
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 5, Stephen I. Goorvitch, Presiding; Jury Trial - Not Held - Continued - Stipulation

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/19/2019
  • Docketat 10:00 AM in Department 5, Stephen I. Goorvitch, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Continued - Stipulation

    Read MoreRead Less
24 More Docket Entries
  • 11/27/2017
  • DocketDEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/27/2017
  • DocketDemand for Jury Trial; Filed by Tina Chuldzhyan (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/20/2017
  • DocketPROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/20/2017
  • DocketProof-Service/Summons; Filed by Sevan Derohanian (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/18/2017
  • DocketProof-Service/Summons; Filed by Sevan Derohanian (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/18/2017
  • DocketPROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/04/2017
  • DocketPLAINTIFF'S STATEMENT OF DAMAGES

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/04/2017
  • DocketCOMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/04/2017
  • DocketSUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/04/2017
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Sevan Derohanian (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC677898    Hearing Date: October 29, 2019    Dept: 5

1

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 5

sevan derohanian,

Plaintiff,

v.

noris amady, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: BC677898

Hearing Date: October 29, 2019

[TENTATIVE] order RE:

Defendant’s MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Sevan Derohanian (“Plaintiff”) was a passenger in an all-terrain vehicle (“ATV”), also referenced as a “dune-buggy,” driven by his cousin, Defendant Noris Amady (“Defendant”), when it rolled, causing injuries. Plaintiff asserts a cause of action for negligence. Defendant now moves for summary judgment, which Plaintiff opposes. The motion is granted.

LEGAL STANDARD

“[T]he party moving for summary judgment bears the burden of persuasion that there is no triable issue of material fact and that he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law[.]  There is a triable issue of material fact if, and only if, the evidence would allow a reasonable trier of fact to find the underlying fact in favor of the party opposing the motion in accordance with the applicable standard of proof.”  (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 850.)  “[T]he party moving for summary judgment bears an initial burden of production to make a prima facie showing of the nonexistence of any triable issue of material fact; if he carries his burden of production, he causes a shift, and the opposing party is then subjected to a burden of production of his own to make a prima facie showing of the existence of a triable issue of material fact.”  (Ibid.)  

DISCUSSION

Defendant contends the primary assumption of risk doctrine bars Plaintiff’s claim for negligence. “Primary assumption of risk arises where a plaintiff voluntarily participates in an activity or sport involving certain inherent risks; primary assumption of risk . . . bar[s] recovery because no duty of care is owed as to such risks.” (West v. Sundown Little League of Stockton (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 351, 357, internal quotations and citations omitted.) Nonetheless, a defendant has “a duty to use due care not to increase the risks to a participant over and above those inherent in the [activity].” (Knight v. Jewett (1992) 3 Cal.4th 296, 315-316.) An inherent risk is one that cannot be eliminated without altering the nature of the activity. (Id. at 317.)

Defendant relies on the 2016 Annual Report of ATV Related Deaths and Injuries from the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission. If offered for the truth of the matters asserted therein, this report is hearsay and inadmissible. (Evid. Code, § 1200.) Even without this evidence, however, the District Court of Appeal has already found that “the sport of off-roading involves inherent risks that the participants in this recreational activity may be involved in inadvertent motor vehicle collisions and may suffer serious injury or death.” (Distefano v. Forester (2001) 85 Cal.App.4th 1249, 1264.) Therefore, Defendant is not liable unless Defendant intentionally harmed Plaintiff, or “engaged in conduct that was so reckless as to be totally outside the range of ordinary activity involved in off-roading . . . .” (Huff v. Wilkins (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 732, 739-740, internal quotations omitted.)

Defendant relies on portions of Plaintiff’s deposition testimony, in which Plaintiff conceded that driving an all-terrain vehicle or utility task vehicle can be a dangerous activity. (Defendant’s Separate Volume of Exhibits in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment, Exhibit 3, p. 46.) Plaintiff testified that Defendant “started speeding up faster” and “[d]riving erratically” prior to the accident. (Exhibit 3, p. 88.) Plaintiff testified that Defendant failed to observe an upcoming ledge, which caused Plaintiff and Defendant to drive over that ledge and crash. (Defendant’s Separate Volume of Exhibits in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment, Exhibit 3, pp. 92-96.)

Based upon this testimony, Defendant relies on the holding in Distefano v. Forester: “We hold that although driving fast up and down blind hills in the middle of a dirt trail and attempting to become airborne at the crests of such hills is careless conduct, for reasons already discussed it is an integral part of the sport of off-roading . . . .” (Distefano, supra, 85 Cal.App.4th at 1273-1274.) Plaintiff’s testimony is sufficient to satisfy Defendant’s burden to show that the accident stemmed from conduct that was within the range of ordinary off-roading activity such that the primary assumption of the risk doctrine bars Plaintiff’s claim.

First, Plaintiff argues that the Court should deny the motion under Code of Civil Procedure section 437c(h) because Plaintiff failed to appear twice for a deposition, on September 19 and November 7, 2018. (Declaration of Aren Manukyan, Exh. #2.) However, Plaintiff’s deposition was taken on January 23, 2019. (Declaration of Rajeev S. Patel, Exh. A.) During that deposition, Plaintiff’s counsel concluded by saying, “All right. I don’t have any more questions.” (Id., Exh. A., at p. 78:15-16.) Plaintiff never sought leave of the Court to take a second deposition of Defendant, and there is no evidence of a stipulation to do so. Therefore, Plaintiff’s argument has no merit.

Plaintiff also argues that Defendant unreasonable increased the risks involved in riding a dune-buggy. However, all of the facts identified by Plaintiff, like the speed and the manner of driving, are all inherent in driving a dune-buggy in off-road conditions. (Distefano, supra, 85 Cal.App.4th at 1273-1274.) Simply, Plaintiff alleges no evidence suggesting that Defendant intentionally harmed Plaintiff or acted so recklessly to fall outside the normal range of activity associated with driving a dune-buggy in off-road conditions. Therefore, Defendant’s motion is granted.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Defendant’s motion for summary judgment is granted. Defendant shall provide notice and file proof of such with the Court.

DATED: October 29, 2019 ___________________________

Stephen I. Goorvitch

Judge of the Superior Court