Tentative Rulings

Case Number: ****7388    Hearing Date: January 06, 2021    Dept: 32

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 32

Plaintiff Tigran Martirosyan (“Plaintiff”) moves to set aside the Court’s order dismissing this action. Plaintiff filed this action on December 19, 2017, and Defendant answered on May 15, 2019. Defendants filed a motion to compel the deposition of Plaintiffs Karo Martirosyan and Angela Martirosyan, which the Court granted on November 19, 2019. Subsequently, Plaintiffs dismissed Plaintiff Karo Martirosyan from the case. Nevertheless, on January 7, 2020, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss based upon the failure to complete the depositions. Plaintiffs did not oppose the motion, and the Court granted the motion. However, the Court erred in dismissing the entire case.

Based upon the foregoing, the Court grants Plaintiffs’ motion to set aside the dismissal with respect to all plaintiffs except for Plaintiff Karo Martirosyan. The Court sets the following dates:

Final Status Conference: May 3, 2022, at 10:00 a.m.

Trial: May 17, 2022, at 8:30 a.m.

The discovery and motions cut-off shall be based on the new trial date. Plaintiffs shall provide notice and file proof of such with the Court.

DATED: January 6, 2021 ___________________________

Stephen I. Goorvitch

Judge of the Superior Court

Case Number: ****7388    Hearing Date: March 02, 2020    Dept: 32

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 32

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: ****7388    Hearing Date: November 19, 2019    Dept: 5

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 5

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