This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 07/09/2019 at 04:56:42 (UTC).

VATCHE PAPAZIAN VS JACK BROWN ET AL

Case Summary

On 02/06/2018 VATCHE PAPAZIAN filed a Contract - Other Contract lawsuit against JACK BROWN. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are RICHARD FRUIN, HOLLY E. KENDIG and ELAINE LU. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****2993

  • Filing Date:

    02/06/2018

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Contract - Other Contract

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

RICHARD FRUIN

HOLLY E. KENDIG

ELAINE LU

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner

PAPAZIAN VATCHE

Defendants and Respondents

BROWN SUZANNE

DOES 1 TO 10

BROWN JACK

OYB CLOTHING LLC

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

FERNALD BRANDON ESQ.

FERNALD LAW GROUP LLP.

SANDE PAUL WEXLER

THIGPEN JORDANNA

Defendant Attorneys

BURT STEVEN W. ESQ.

BURT STEVEN WAYNE ESQ.

 

Court Documents

DERIVATIVE COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND EQUITABLE RELIEF: (1) BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY ;ETC

2/6/2018: DERIVATIVE COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND EQUITABLE RELIEF: (1) BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY ;ETC

SUMMONS

2/6/2018: SUMMONS

CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

6/19/2018: CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

Minute Order

7/3/2018: Minute Order

CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

7/3/2018: CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

GENERAL DENIAL

8/14/2018: GENERAL DENIAL

Minute Order

8/15/2018: Minute Order

Case Management Statement

10/24/2018: Case Management Statement

Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

10/24/2018: Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

Minute Order

11/7/2018: Minute Order

Notice of Case Reassignment and Order for Plaintiff to Give Notice

12/7/2018: Notice of Case Reassignment and Order for Plaintiff to Give Notice

Declaration

6/4/2019: Declaration

Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

6/4/2019: Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

GENERAL DENIAL

4/4/2018: GENERAL DENIAL

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

3/23/2018: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

Proof of Service

3/6/2018: Proof of Service

Proof of Service

3/6/2018: Proof of Service

Minute Order

2/28/2018: Minute Order

15 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 07/03/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 26, Elaine Lu, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to be Relieved as Counsel - Not Held - Taken Off Calendar by Party

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/02/2019
  • Substitution of Attorney; Filed by Vatche Papazian (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/04/2019
  • Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by Vatche Papazian (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/04/2019
  • Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel; Filed by Vatche Papazian (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/04/2019
  • Declaration (in Support of Attorney's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel); Filed by Vatche Papazian (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/19/2018
  • Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by Vatche Papazian (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/19/2018
  • Notice of Case Reassignment and Order for Plaintiff to Give Notice; Filed by Vatche Papazian (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/07/2018
  • Notice of Case Reassignment and Order for Plaintiff to Give Notice; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/07/2018
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 42, Holly E. Kendig, Presiding; Case Management Conference - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/07/2018
  • Case Management Order; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
28 More Docket Entries
  • 03/06/2018
  • Proof of Service

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/06/2018
  • Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by Vatche Papazian (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/28/2018
  • at 00:00 AM in Department 15; (Further Proceedings; Case is reassigned) -

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/28/2018
  • Minute order entered: 2018-02-28 00:00:00; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/28/2018
  • Minute Order

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/14/2018
  • Challenge To Judicial Officer - Peremptory (170.6); Filed by Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/06/2018
  • Complaint; Filed by Vatche Papazian (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/06/2018
  • DERIVATIVE COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND EQUITABLE RELIEF: (1) BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY ;ETC

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/06/2018
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/06/2018
  • Summons; Filed by Vatche Papazian (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC692993    Hearing Date: September 15, 2020    Dept: 26

IN ORDER TO IMPLEMENT PHYSICAL DISTANCING AND UNTIL FURTHER NOTICE, THE COURT STRONGLY ENCOURAGES ALL COUNSEL AND ALL PARTIES TO APPEAR REMOTELY FOR NON-TRIAL AND NON-EVIDENTIARY MATTERS, INCLUDING THIS MOTION.

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 26

VATCHE PAPAZIAN,

Plaintiff,

v.

JACK Brown, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: BC692993

Hearing Date: September 15, 2020

[TENTATIVE] order RE:

Plaintiff Vatche Papazian’s motion to compel OYB CLothing llc’s further responses to request for production Set one

Background

On February 6, 2018, plaintiff Vatche Papazian (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant derivative action against defendants Jack Brown, Suzanne Brown, OYB Clothing LLC, Does 1 through 10, and nominal defendants Herbal Solutions Pre ICO LLC and Herbal Cooperative Solutions Pre ICO, Inc.

On December 12, 2019, Plaintiff filed the instant motion to compel defendant OYB Clothing LLC’s (“OYB”) further responses to Plaintiff’s request for production. Plaintiff also requests sanctions in the sum of $4,260.00. No opposition has been filed.

Legal Standard

Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.310 provides, in pertinent part, as follows:

(a)

(1)

(2)

(3)

(b)

(1)

(2) .

Discussion

There are 63 requests for production at issue: Requests for Production Nos. 1-5, 8-65.

Timeliness

A party making a motion to compel further responses must do so within 45 days of service of the verified response unless the parties agree in writing and specify a later date. (CCP § 2031.310(c).) The 45-day limit is jurisdictional as the Court has no authority to grant late-filed papers. (See Sexton v. Superior Court (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1410.) However, this 45-day limit is extended if served by mail, overnight delivery, fax, or electronically. (See CCP §§ 1010.6(a)(4), 1013.)

Here, OYB served its response on October 15, 2019, by mail. (Paredes Decl. Ex. A, H.) Accordingly, Plaintiff had 50 days from service -- by December 4, 2019 -- to timely file the instant motion to compel further responses. Though Plaintiff’s Counsel states that the time to file this motion was extended by one week, this agreement appears to have occurred orally over the phone. (Paredes Decl. ¶ 5.) In order to be effective, the agreement must be in writing. (CCP § 2031.310(c).) Moreover, even if the verbal extension were deemed proper, the agreement would have only extended the deadline to file the instant motion to December 11, 2019. Plaintiff did not file this motion until December 12, 2019. The motion is therefore untimely, and the court lacks jurisdiction to grant this motion.

Reopening of Discovery

Pursuant to CCP § 2024.020 “[e]xcept as otherwise provided in this section, any party shall be entitled as a matter of right to complete discovery proceedings on or before the 30th day, and to have motions concerning discovery heard on or before the 15th day, before the date initially set for the trial of the action. Except as provided in subdivision (e), a continuance or postponement of the trial date does not operate to reopen discovery proceedings.”

Pursuant to a stipulation of the parties, the court entered an order on December 20, 2019 continuing the trial to October 5, 2020 and extending the discovery cut off based on the new trial date of October 5, 2020. In light of the COVID-19 pandemic, the court entered an order on July 28, 2020 continuing the trial further. The court’s July 28, 2020 order does not indicate whether discovery and motion cut off dates are extended with the new trial date of June 28, 2021. In light of the pandemic, which may have thwarted the parties’ efforts to pursue discovery for many months, the court hereby reopens discovery and motion cut-off so that they will follow the current trial date of June 28, 2021. If the parties mutually wish to cut-off discovery, the parties may file a stipulation signed by all counsel and proposed order stating that discovery is cut off as of a certain date.

CONCLUSIONS AND ORDER

Based on the forgoing, Plaintiff Vatche Papazian’s motion to compel OYB Clothing LLC’s further responses to Plaintiff’s request for production of documents set one is DENIED.

Plaintiff Vatche Papazian’s request for sanctions is DENIED.

In light of the pandemic, the court hereby reopens discovery and motion cut-off so that they will follow the current trial date of June 28, 2021. If the parties mutually wish to cut-off discovery, the parties may file a stipulation signed by all counsel and proposed order stating that discovery is cut off as of a certain date.

Moving Party is to provide notice and file proof of service of such.

DATED: September 15, 2020 ___________________________

Elaine Lu

Judge of the Superior Court

Case Number: BC692993    Hearing Date: July 14, 2020    Dept: 26

IN ORDER TO IMPLEMENT PHYSICAL DISTANCING AND UNTIL FURTHER NOTICE, THE COURT STRONGLY ENCOURAGES ALL COUNSEL AND ALL PARTIES TO APPEAR REMOTELY FOR NON-TRIAL AND NON-EVIDENTIARY MATTERS, INCLUDING THIS MOTION.

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 26

VATCHE PAPAZIAN,

Plaintiff,

v.

JACK Brown, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: BC692993

Hearing Date: July 14, 2020

[TENTATIVE] order RE:

Plaintiff Vatche Papazian’s motion to compel Herbal Solutions Pre ICO LLC’s further responses to request for production Set one

Background

On February 6, 2018, plaintiff Vatche Papazian (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant derivative action against defendants Jack Brown, Suzanne Brown, OYB Clothing LLC, Does 1 through 10, and nominal defendants Herbal Solutions Pre ICO LLC and Herbal Cooperative Solutions Pre ICO, Inc.

On December 12, 2019, Plaintiff filed the instant motion to compel further responses to Plaintiff’s request for production as to nominal defendant Herbal Solutions Pre ICO LLC (“Herbal LLC”). Plaintiff also requests sanctions in the sum of $4,260.00. No opposition has been filed.

Legal Standard

Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.310 provides, in pertinent part, as follows:

(a)

(1)

(2)

(3)

(b)

(1)

(2) .

Discussion

There are 63 requests for production at issue: Requests for Production Nos. 1-5, 8-65.

Timeliness

A party making a motion to compel further responses must do so within 45 days of service of the verified response unless the parties agree in writing and specify a later date. (CCP § 2031.310(c).) The 45-day limit is jurisdictional as the Court has no authority to grant late-filed papers. (See Sexton v. Superior Court (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1410.) However, this 45-day limit is extended if served by mail, overnight delivery, fax, or electronically. (See CCP §§ 1010.6(a)(4), 1013.)

Here, Herbal LLC served its response on October 15, 2019, by mail. (Paredes Decl. Ex. A, H.) Accordingly, Plaintiff had 50 days from service -- by December 4, 2019 -- to timely file the instant motion to compel further responses. Though Plaintiff’s Counsel states that the time to file this motion was extended by one week, this agreement appears to have occurred orally over the phone. (Paredes Decl. ¶ 5.) In order to be effective, the agreement must be in writing. (CCP § 2031.310(c).) Moreover, even if the verbal extension were deemed proper, the agreement would have only extended the deadline to file the instant motion to December 11, 2019. Plaintiff did not file this motion until December 12, 2019. The motion is therefore untimely, and the court lacks jurisdiction to grant this motion.

CONCLUSIONS AND ORDER

Based on the forgoing, Plaintiff Vatche Papazian’s motion to compel Herbal Solutions Pre ICO LLC’s further responses to Plaintiff’s request for production of documents set one is DENIED.

Plaintiff Vatche Papazian’s request for sanctions is DENIED.

The court’s Judicial Assistant is to provide notice of this order to all parties.

DATED: July 14, 2020 ___________________________

Elaine Lu

Judge of the Superior Court

Case Number: BC692993    Hearing Date: June 30, 2020    Dept: 26

IN ORDER TO IMPLEMENT PHYSICAL DISTANCING AND UNTIL FURTHER NOTICE, THE COURT STRONGLY ENCOURAGES ALL COUNSEL AND ALL PARTIES TO APPEAR REMOTELY FOR NON-TRIAL AND NON-EVIDENTIARY MATTERS, INCLUDING THESE MOTIONS.

Plaintiff Vatche Papazian’s motion to compel Herbal Cooperative Solutions Pre ICO, Inc.’s responses to request for production Set one

Due to the COVID-19 pandemic the hearing for Plaintiff Vatche Papazian’s Motion To Compel Herbal Cooperative Solutions Pre Ico, Inc.’s Responses To Request For Production (“RFP”) Set One was continued from April 23, 2020 to June 30, 2020. (Minute Order 4/21/20.) The court’s April 21, 2020 minute order required Plaintiff to give notice of the continuance. Plaintiff has not filed proof of service of notice of the continued (June 30, 2020) hearing date, and thus, it is unclear whether the responding party has ever received notice of the continued (June 30, 2020) hearing date

Apart from this defect in notice of the continuance of the motion, the court also notes that the proof of service of the requests for production at issue and the proof of service of the moving papers for the instant motion reflect service by U.S. mail on Jack Brown, agent for service of process for the responding party. Service by mail of these papers was improper as the responding party, Herbal Cooperative Solutions Pre Ico, Inc., has never appeared in this action.

Finally, even assuming that service of the requests for production at issue and the moving papers has been properly effected, the court notes a discrepancy in Plaintiff’s Counsel Robert Paredes’s declaration. Plaintiff’s Counsel states that his firm served Requests for Production of Documents (Set One) on defendant Herbal Cooperative Solutions Pre ICO, Inc. on September 10, 2019. (Paredes Decl. ¶ 2.) However, Exhibit A to the declaration, which Paredes states is a “true copy of the 9 September 10, 2019 Requests for Production of Documents (Set One) served on Defendant” is addressed to “HERBAL COOPERATIVE SOLUTIONSPREICO, LLC” – not “Herbal Cooperative Solutions Pre ICO, Inc.”

Therefore, Plaintiff Vatche Papazian’s Motion To Compel Herbal Cooperative Solutions Pre Ico, Inc.’s Responses To Request For Production Set One is denied without prejudice. Plaintiff may re-file this motion to compel after correcting the defects identified above.

Plaintiff to give notice.

_____________________________________________________________________________

Plaintiff Vatche Papazian’s motionS to compel DEFENDANTS JACK BROWN’S AND SUZANNE BROWN’S further responses to request for production Set Two

Background

On February 6, 2018, plaintiff Vatche Papazian (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant derivative action against defendants Jack Brown, Suzanne Brown[1], OYB Clothing LLC, Does 1 through 10, and nominal defendants Herbal Solutions Pre ICO LLC and Herbal Cooperative Solutions Pre ICO, Inc.

On December 12, 2019, Plaintiff filed the instant motions to compel further responses to Plaintiff’s request for production (“RFP”) and requests for sanctions. One motion seeks to compel defendant Jack Brown’s further responses. The other motion seeks to compel defendant Suzanne Brown’s further responses. Neither Suzanne Brown nor Jack Brown has filed an opposition.

Legal Standard

Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.310 provides, in pertinent part, as follows:

(a)

(1)

(2)

(3)

(b)

(1)

(2) .

Discussion

There are 44 requests for production at issue: Requests for Production Nos. 15-58.

Timeliness

A party making a motion to compel further responses must do so within 45 days of service of the verified response unless the parties agree in writing and specify a later date. (CCP § 2031.310(c).) The 45-day limit is jurisdictional as the Court has no authority to grant late-filed papers. (See Sexton v. Superior Court (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1410.) However, this 45-day limit is extended if served by mail, overnight delivery, fax, or electronically. (See CCP §§ 1010.6(a)(4), 1013.)

Here, Defendants Jack Brown and Suzanne Brown each served their response on October 15, 2019, by mail. (Paredes Decl. Exhibits A, H.) Accordingly, Plaintiff had 50 days from service -- by December 4, 2019 -- to timely file the instant motions to compel Defendants’ further responses. Thought Plaintiff’s Counsel states that the time to file these motions was extended by one week, this agreement appears to have occurred orally over the phone. (Paredes Decl. ¶ 5.) In order to be effective, an agreement to extend tine for filing a motion to compel further must be in writing. (CCP § 2031.310(c).) Moreover, even if the verbal extension were deemed proper and sufficient notwithstanding the express language of CCP § 2031.310(c), the agreement would have only extended the deadline to file the instant motions to December 11, 2019. Plaintiff did not file these motions until December 12, 2019. The motions are untimely, and the Court lacks jurisdiction to grant these motions.

CONCLUSIONS AND ORDER

Based on the forgoing, Plaintiff Vatche Papazian’s motions to compel defendants Jack Brown and Suzanne Brown’s further responses to the request for production of documents set two are DENIED. Plaintiff Vatche Papazian’s requests for sanctions are DENIED.

Moving Party is ordered to provide notice of this order and file proof of service of such.


[1] Jack Brown and Suzanne Brown are hereinafter collectively referred to as “Defendants.”

Case Number: BC692993    Hearing Date: June 29, 2020    Dept: 26

IN ORDER TO IMPLEMENT PHYSICAL DISTANCING AND UNTIL FURTHER NOTICE, THE COURT STRONGLY ENCOURAGES ALL COUNSEL AND ALL PARTIES TO APPEAR REMOTELY FOR NON-TRIAL AND NON-EVIDENTIARY MATTERS, INCLUDING THESE MOTIONS.

Plaintiff Vatche Papazian’s motion to compel Herbal Cooperative Solutions Pre ICO, Inc.’s responses to request for production Set one

Due to the COVID-19 pandemic the hearing for Plaintiff Vatche Papazian’s Motion To Compel Herbal Cooperative Solutions Pre Ico, Inc.’s Responses To Request For Production (“RFP”) Set One was continued from April 23, 2020 to June 30, 2020. (Minute Order 4/21/20.) The court’s April 21, 2020 minute order required Plaintiff to give notice of the continuance. Plaintiff has not filed proof of service of notice of the continued (June 30, 2020) hearing date, and thus, it is unclear whether the responding party has ever received notice of the continued (June 30, 2020) hearing date

Apart from this defect in notice of the continuance of the motion, the court also notes that the proof of service of the requests for production at issue and the proof of service of the moving papers for the instant motion reflect service by U.S. mail on Jack Brown, agent for service of process for the responding party. Service by mail of these papers was improper as the responding party, Herbal Cooperative Solutions Pre Ico, Inc., has never appeared in this action.

Finally, even assuming that service of the requests for production at issue and the moving papers has been properly effected, the court notes a discrepancy in Plaintiff’s Counsel Robert Paredes’s declaration. Plaintiff’s Counsel states that his firm served Requests for Production of Documents (Set One) on defendant Herbal Cooperative Solutions Pre ICO, Inc. on September 10, 2019. (Paredes Decl. ¶ 2.) However, Exhibit A to the declaration, which Paredes states is a “true copy of the 9 September 10, 2019 Requests for Production of Documents (Set One) served on Defendant” is addressed to “HERBAL COOPERATIVE SOLUTIONSPREICO, LLC” – not “Herbal Cooperative Solutions Pre ICO, Inc.”

Therefore, Plaintiff Vatche Papazian’s Motion To Compel Herbal Cooperative Solutions Pre Ico, Inc.’s Responses To Request For Production Set One is denied without prejudice. Plaintiff may re-file this motion to compel after correcting the defects identified above.

Plaintiff to give notice.

_____________________________________________________________________________

Plaintiff Vatche Papazian’s motionS to compel DEFENDANTS JACK BROWN’S AND SUZANNE BROWN’S further responses to request for production Set Two

Background

On February 6, 2018, plaintiff Vatche Papazian (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant derivative action against defendants Jack Brown, Suzanne Brown[1], OYB Clothing LLC, Does 1 through 10, and nominal defendants Herbal Solutions Pre ICO LLC and Herbal Cooperative Solutions Pre ICO, Inc.

On December 12, 2019, Plaintiff filed the instant motions to compel further responses to Plaintiff’s request for production (“RFP”) and requests for sanctions. One motion seeks to compel defendant Jack Brown’s further responses. The other motion seeks to compel defendant Suzanne Brown’s further responses. Neither Suzanne Brown nor Jack Brown has filed an opposition.

Legal Standard

Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.310 provides, in pertinent part, as follows:

(a)

(1)

(2)

(3)

(b)

(1)

(2) .

Discussion

There are 44 requests for production at issue: Requests for Production Nos. 15-58.

Timeliness

A party making a motion to compel further responses must do so within 45 days of service of the verified response unless the parties agree in writing and specify a later date. (CCP § 2031.310(c).) The 45-day limit is jurisdictional as the Court has no authority to grant late-filed papers. (See Sexton v. Superior Court (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1410.) However, this 45-day limit is extended if served by mail, overnight delivery, fax, or electronically. (See CCP §§ 1010.6(a)(4), 1013.)

Here, Defendants Jack Brown and Suzanne Brown each served their response on October 15, 2019, by mail. (Paredes Decl. Exhibits A, H.) Accordingly, Plaintiff had 50 days from service -- by December 4, 2019 -- to timely file the instant motions to compel Defendants’ further responses. Thought Plaintiff’s Counsel states that the time to file these motions was extended by one week, this agreement appears to have occurred orally over the phone. (Paredes Decl. ¶ 5.) In order to be effective, an agreement to extend tine for filing a motion to compel further must be in writing. (CCP § 2031.310(c).) Moreover, even if the verbal extension were deemed proper and sufficient notwithstanding the express language of CCP § 2031.310(c), the agreement would have only extended the deadline to file the instant motions to December 11, 2019. Plaintiff did not file these motions until December 12, 2019. The motions are untimely, and the Court lacks jurisdiction to grant these motions.

CONCLUSIONS AND ORDER

Based on the forgoing, Plaintiff Vatche Papazian’s motions to compel defendants Jack Brown and Suzanne Brown’s further responses to the request for production of documents set two are DENIED. Plaintiff Vatche Papazian’s requests for sanctions are DENIED.

Moving Party is ordered to provide notice of this order and file proof of service of such.


[1] Jack Brown and Suzanne Brown are hereinafter collectively referred to as “Defendants.”

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases represented by Lawyer FERNALD BRANDON CLAUS