This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 06/08/2019 at 05:39:25 (UTC).

VAHE PETROSYAN VS FIT CONCEPT US INC ET AL

Case Summary

On 03/28/2017 VAHE PETROSYAN filed a Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury lawsuit against FIT CONCEPT US INC. 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.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****4493

  • Filing Date:

    03/28/2017

  • 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 Judge

STEPHEN I. GOORVITCH

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner

PETROSYAN VAHE

Defendants and Respondents

FIT CONCEPT

LIPSKY YON S.

FIT CONCEPT US INC

DOES 1 TO 100

CONCEPT FIT

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorney

OURFALIAN RAFI ESQ.

Defendant Attorney

JANG KEVIN

 

Court Documents

PLAINTIFF'S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER TO CONTINUE TRIAL DATE (AND TO CONTINUE RELATED DATES PERTAINING THERETO); OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE TO SHORTEN TIME TO HEAR SUCH MOTION; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS

9/11/2018: PLAINTIFF'S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER TO CONTINUE TRIAL DATE (AND TO CONTINUE RELATED DATES PERTAINING THERETO); OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE TO SHORTEN TIME TO HEAR SUCH MOTION; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS

Minute Order

9/11/2018: Minute Order

Proof of Service by Substituted Service

2/20/2019: Proof of Service by Substituted Service

Proof of Service by Substituted Service

2/20/2019: Proof of Service by Substituted Service

Answer

3/20/2019: Answer

Minute Order

3/28/2019: Minute Order

Notice

4/2/2019: Notice

Answer

5/3/2019: Answer

Minute Order

5/8/2019: Minute Order

Unknown

3/27/2018: Unknown

SUMMONS

3/28/2017: SUMMONS

COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY AND DAMAGES 1. NEGLIGENCE / GROSS NEGLIGENCE; ETC

3/28/2017: COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY AND DAMAGES 1. NEGLIGENCE / GROSS NEGLIGENCE; ETC

 

Docket Entries

  • 05/08/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 5, Stephen I. Goorvitch, Presiding; Order to Show Cause Re: (dismissal for failure to enter default as to Defendant Fit Concept and Trial Setting Conference) - Not Held - Vacated by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/08/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Order to Show Cause Re: dismissal for failure to enter defaul...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/03/2019
  • Answer (DEFENDANTS FIT CONCEPT US, INC., DBA FIT CONCEPT'S AMENDED ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY AND DAMAGES); Filed by Fit Concept US Inc (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/11/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 5, Stephen I. Goorvitch, Presiding; Jury Trial - Not Held - Advanced and Vacated

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/02/2019
  • Notice (NOTICE RE: TRIAL SETTING CONFERENCE AND OSC RE: DEFAULT OF FIT CONCEPT); Filed by Vahe Petrosyan (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/28/2019
  • at 10:00 AM in Department 5, Stephen I. Goorvitch, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Vacated by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/28/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 5, Stephen I. Goorvitch, Presiding; Hearing on Ex Parte Application (for an order to continue trial date (and to continue related dates pertaining thereto)) - Not Held - Taken Off Calendar by Party

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/28/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 5, Stephen I. Goorvitch, Presiding; (OSC RE Dismissal) - Not Held - Vacated by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/28/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Legacy Event Type : OSC RE Dismissal; Final Status Conference...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/20/2019
  • Answer; Filed by Fit Concept US Inc (Defendant); Yon S. Lipsky (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
2 More Docket Entries
  • 09/11/2018
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 5; Ex-Parte Proceedings - Held - Motion Granted

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/11/2018
  • PLAINTIFF'S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER TO CONTINUE TRIAL DATE (AND TO CONTINUE RELATED DATES PERTAINING THERETO); OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE TO SHORTEN TIME TO HEAR SUCH MOTION; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF; DECLARATION OF BEN

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/11/2018
  • Minute Order

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/11/2018
  • Ex-Parte Application; Filed by Vahe Petrosyan (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/11/2018
  • Minute order entered: 2018-09-11 00:00:00; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/27/2018
  • CIVIL DEPOSIT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/27/2018
  • Receipt; Filed by Vahe Petrosyan (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/28/2017
  • COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY AND DAMAGES 1. NEGLIGENCE / GROSS NEGLIGENCE; ETC

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/28/2017
  • Complaint; Filed by Vahe Petrosyan (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/28/2017
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC654493    Hearing Date: January 14, 2020    Dept: 5

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 5

vahe petrosyan,

Plaintiff,

v.

fit concept US inc., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: BC654493

Hearing Date: January 14, 2020

[TENTATIVE] order RE:

motionS to be relieved as counsel

NOTICE

The Court posts this tentative order on January 9, 2020, in advance of the hearing on January 14, 2020. The Court provides notice that it intends to continue the final status conference and trial dates to ensure Defendants are not prejudiced by the Court’s decision to allow their counsel to withdraw. If Plaintiff does not appear at the hearing, he shall waive the right to be heard on this trial continuance and shall submit to the new final status conference and trial dates.

TENTATIVE ORDER

Attorney Kevin H. Jang, Esq. (“Counsel”) moves to be relieved as counsel for Defendants Yon S. Lipsky and Fit Concept US, Inc. (“Defendants”). Counsel has filed forms MC-051 and MC-052 and has lodged with the Court copies of the proposed orders on form MC-053 as required. (Cal Rules of Court, rule 3.1362.) The basis for these motions is a breakdown in attorney-client communication, and Defendants’ failure to pay fees per the terms of their agreement with Counsel. These are valid bases for withdrawal. Accordingly, the motions are granted.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

The Court grants Counsel’s motion to withdraw. The Court advances and vacates the final status conference and trial dates and sets the following dates:

Final Status Conference: September 9, 2020, at 10:00 a.m.

Trial: September 23, 2020, at 8:30 a.m.

The discovery and motions cut-off shall be based on the new trial date.

Counsel should note that the order will become effective upon the filing of proof of service of signed copies of the orders on Defendants. Counsel will remain the attorney of record until Counsel files with the court proof of service of the signed orders. Counsel must serve copies of the signed orders (form MC-053) on Defendants within 10 days.

Counsel is to give notice, and file proof of service of such.

DATED: January 14, 2020 ___________________________

Stephen I. Goorvitch

Judge of the Superior Court

Case Number: BC654493    Hearing Date: December 09, 2019    Dept: 5

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 5

vahe petrosyan,

Plaintiff,

v.

fit concept US inc., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: BC654493

Hearing Date: December 9, 2019

[TENTATIVE] order RE:

motion to be relieved as counsel

Attorney Kevin H. Jang, Esq. (“Counsel”) moves to be relieved as counsel for Defendants Yon S. Lipsky and Fit Concept US, Inc. (“Defendants”). The motion is denied without prejudice.

Counsel has filed forms MC-051 and MC-052 and has lodged with the Court a copy of the proposed order on form MC-053 as required. (Cal Rules of Court, rule 3.1362.) The basis for this motion is a breakdown in the attorney-client communication, and Defendants’ failure to pay fees per the terms of her agreement with Counsel. These are valid bases for withdrawal.

Nevertheless, the Court must deny the motions. In his declarations, Counsel states that he has been unable to speak with Defendants for six months. But Counsel also states that he has confirmed that Defendants’ addresses are current within the last 30 days via conversations with Defendants. These statements directly contradict each other. The Court therefore cannot determine if Counsel confirmed Defendants’ addresses within 30 days, as required. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1362, subd. (d)(1)(B).) Accordingly, the motions are denied without prejudice. Counsel shall provide notice and file proof of such with the Court.

DATED: December 9, 2019 ___________________________

Stephen I. Goorvitch

Judge of the Superior Court