On 12/19/2017 TIGRAN MARTIROSYAN filed a Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle lawsuit against ARON UNIS. 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 Pending - Other Pending.
****7388
12/19/2017
Pending - Other Pending
Los Angeles County Superior Courts
Stanley Mosk Courthouse
Los Angeles, California
STEPHEN I. GOORVITCH
MARTIROYAN TIGRAN
AVAGYAN LUSINE
UNIS ARON
UNIS BELIS
DOES 1 TO 10
MARTIROSYAN ANGELA
MARTIROSYAN KARO
ARMAN SAHAKYAN & ASSOCIATES
NETTELS CHARLES F.
1/11/2018: APPLICATION AND ORDER FOR APPOINTMENT OF GUARDIAN AD LITEM?CIVIL
1/11/2018: APPLICATION AND ORDER FOR APPOINTMENT OF GUARDIAN AD LITEM?CIVIL
3/9/2018: SUMMONS
3/28/2018: Proof of Personal Service
11/7/2018: Unknown
2/1/2019: Request for Dismissal
2/1/2019: Request for Entry of Default / Judgment
2/1/2019: Unknown
2/1/2019: Declaration
2/1/2019: Declaration
2/1/2019: Other -
2/1/2019: Unknown
3/26/2019: Motion for Order
4/22/2019: Reply
5/2/2019: Minute Order
5/7/2019: Notice of Ruling
5/15/2019: Answer
12/19/2017: COMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)
Answer; Filed by Aron Unis (Defendant)
Demand for Jury Trial; Filed by Aron Unis (Defendant)
Notice of Ruling; Filed by Aron Unis (Defendant)
at 1:30 PM in Department 5, Stephen I. Goorvitch, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Default and Default Judgment (CCP 473.5) - Held - Motion Granted
Minute Order ( (Hearing on Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Default and Default Jud...)); Filed by Clerk
Reply (TO PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO SET ASIDE DEFAULT JUDGMENT); Filed by Aron Unis (Defendant)
Opposition (to Motion to Set Aside Entry of Default Judgment); Filed by Tigran Martiroyan (Plaintiff); Lusine Avagyan (Plaintiff)
Motion for Order (SETTING ASIDE AND VACATING DEFAULT JUDGMENTS AND GRANTING DEFENDANT LEAVE TO DEFEND; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATIONS OF DEFENDANT ARON UNIS AND MINDI C. GRANT, ESQ.; EXHIBITS "Au-"B); Filed by Aron Unis (Defendant)
Declaration (OF PLAINTIFF LUSINE AVAGYAN); Filed by Tigran Martiroyan (Plaintiff); Lusine Avagyan (Plaintiff); Angela Martirosyan (Plaintiff) et al.
Judgment (- Default Judgment By Court - Before Trial - 02/04/2019 entered for Plaintiff Martiroyan, Tigran against Defendant Unis, Aron.); Filed by Clerk
Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by Tigran Martiroyan (Plaintiff); Lusine Avagyan (Plaintiff); Angela Martirosyan (Plaintiff) et al.
Proof of Personal Service
Summons; Filed by Tigran Martiroyan (Plaintiff)
SUMMONS
Application ; Filed by Plaintiff/Petitioner
APPLICATION AND ORDER FOR APPOINTMENT OF GUARDIAN AD LITEM CIVIL
Application ; Filed by Plaintiff/Petitioner
APPLICATION AND ORDER FOR APPOINTMENT OF GUARDIAN AD LITEM CIVIL
COMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)
Complaint; Filed by Tigran Martiroyan (Plaintiff); Lusine Avagyan (Plaintiff); Angela Martirosyan (Plaintiff) et al.
Case Number: BC687388 Hearing Date: March 02, 2020 Dept: 32
|
tigran martirosyan, et al.,
Plaintiffs, v.
aaron unis, et al.,
Defendants.
|
Case No.: BC687388
Hearing Date: March 2, 2020
[TENTATIVE] order RE: Motion to dismiss |
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff Karo Martirosyan (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendant Aaron Unis (“Defendant”) following a motor vehicle collision. Defendant moves to dismiss the complaint as a terminating sanction. The unopposed motion is granted.
LEGAL STANDARD
The court has discretion to impose terminating sanction when a party willfully disobeys a discovery order. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2023.010, subd. (g), 2030.290, subd. (c).) The court may impose a terminating sanction by striking a party’s pleading. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.030, subd. (d)(1).)
DISCUSSION
In its order of November 19, 2019, the Court ordered Plaintiff to appear for deposition within 20 days of notice of the order. Defendant gave Plaintiff notice of the order on November 21, 2019 by mail. Plaintiff thus had until December 16, 2019 to appear for deposition. Plaintiff has not yet appeared for deposition. Further, Plaintiff has not opposed this motion, and there is nothing in the record suggesting that Plaintiff has submitted to a deposition. Also, Plaintiff attempted to dismiss the complaint via a defective request for dismissal. The Court therefore concludes Plaintiff does not intend to maintain this action. Accordingly, the motion is granted.
CONCLUSION AND ORDER
Defendant’s motion is granted. Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed with prejudice. Defendant shall provide notice and file proof of such with the Court.
DATED: March 2, 2020 ___________________________
Stephen I. Goorvitch
Judge of the Superior Court
Case Number: BC687388 Hearing Date: November 19, 2019 Dept: 5
|
tigran martirosyan, et al.,
Plaintiffs, v.
aaron unis, et al.,
Defendants.
|
Case No.: BC687388
Hearing Date: November 19, 2019
[TENTATIVE] order RE: Motions to compel depositions of PLAINTIFFS |
BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs Karo Martirosyan and Angela Martirosyan (“Plaintiffs”) filed this action against Defendant Aaron Unis (“Defendant”) following a motor vehicle collision. Defendant moves to compel the depositions of Plaintiffs, which plaintiffs oppose. The motions are 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
Defendant has the right to take Plaintiffs’ depositions without leave of the Court. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.210, subd. (a).) Here, Plaintiffs have refused to appear for deposition on the basis that they are minors. Plaintiffs cite no authority for the proposition that they need not appear for deposition if they have not yet reached the age of majority. Indeed, Plaintiffs have put their injuries at issue by filing this lawsuit, so they cannot now refuse to submit to depositions. If Plaintiffs contend their depositions would result in “unwarranted annoyance, embarrassment, or oppression, or undue burden and expense . . . ,” Plaintiffs should have filed a motion for protective order. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.420.) Plaintiffs did not do so. Nor would the Court be inclined to grant such a motion because Plaintiffs are parties to the case, meaning they chose to put their injuries at issue, and they are percipient witnesses to the underlying collision. Accordingly, the motions to compel are granted.
Defendant seeks sanctions against Plaintiffs and counsel-of-record in the amount of $961.65. The Court finds Plaintiffs’ failure to appear for deposition a misuse of the discovery process. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.010, subd. (d).) Simply, Plaintiffs’ opposition has no merit, and the Court is surprised that a motion on this issue was necessary. Therefore, the Court orders Plaintiffs and their counsel-of-record, Arman Saakyan, to pay sanctions in the amount of $961.65, which is reasonable under the circumstances.
CONCLUSION AND ORDER
The Court grants the motion to compel Plaintiffs’ depositions. Plaintiffs shall submit to depositions within twenty (20) days of notice of this order. The Court orders Plaintiffs and their counsel-of-record, Arman Saakyan, to pay sanctions in the amount of $961.65 within twenty (20) days of notice of this order. Defendant shall provide notice and file proof of such with the Court.
DATED: November 19, 2019 ___________________________
Stephen I. Goorvitch
Judge of the Superior Court