Judge: Cherol J. Nellon, Case: 20STCV36066, Date: 2023-10-13 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV36066    Hearing Date: March 11, 2024    Dept: 14

Setoyan vs Pashyan

Case Background       

Plaintiff alleges that Defendant failed to pay them for work done on Defendant’s house. Defendant alleges that Plaintiff, along with several other contractors, failed to do adequate work. Defendant also alleges that the contractor he hired to fix Plaintiff’s work actually compounded the original errors, leaving the whole project stalled.

Complaint

            On September 21, 2020, Plaintiff Mkrtich Setoyan dba MK Construction Co. filed their Complaint for (1) Foreclosure of Mechanic’s Lien, (2) Breach of Written Contract, and (3) Quantum Meruit against Defendants Hovanes Pashyan aka Hovhannes Pashyan (“Hovanes”) and DOES 1-25.

On December 24, 2020, Defendant Hovanes filed his Answer.

On January 3, 2024, Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed Defendant DOES 1-25, without prejudice.

Pashyan Cross-Complaint

            On May 4, 2022, Defendant Hovanes and Armine Pashyan (“Armine”) (collectively “Pashyans”) filed their Third Amended Cross-Complaint for (1) Breach of Contract; (2)-(4) Negligence, (5) Breach of Implied Warranty; and (6) Enforcement of Claim on License Bond against Plaintiff and Cross-Defendants ARPA Technology Group (“ARPA”), MCR Construction, Inc. (“MCR”), Hudson Insurance Company (“Hudson”), J&S Electrical Services, Inc. (“J&S”), Majestic Blue Pools, Inc. (“Majestic”), Magic Brush Painting, Inc. (“Magic”), Glendale Fire Protection, Inc. (“Glendale”), Danny’s Crane, Inc. (“Danny’s”), Darling Plastering, Inc. (“Darling”), JMB Stainless Steel, Inc. (“JMB”), Giniani Corp. dba Los Angeles Cast Stone (“Giniani”), GV Roofing, Inc. (“GV”), SIS Air, Inc. (“SIS”), C&C Concrete Works (“C&C”), and ROES 1-50.

On February 2, 2021, Plaintiff had filed its Answer to the original Cross-Complaint.

On December 3, 2021, Cross-Defendant Hudson had filed its Answer to the first amended Cross-Complaint.

On February 16, 2022, Cross-Defendant ARPA had filed its Answer to the second amended Cross-Complaint.

On February 25, 2022, Cross-Defendant ARPA filed a Notice of Settlement between it and Cross-Complainant Hovanes.

On May 26, 2022, Cross-Complainant Pashyans voluntarily dismissed Cross-Defendant ARPA, with prejudice.

On June 7, 2022, Cross-Defendant MCR filed its Answer.

On July 11, 2022, Cross-Defendant Darling filed its Answer.

On July 14, 2022, Cross-Complainant Pashyans filed an “Amendment to Complaint” substituting Cross-Defendant SureTec Insurance Company (“SureTec”) in lieu of ROE 1.

On July 20, 2022, Cross-Defendants J&S and Glendale filed their respective Answers.

Also on July 20, 2022, the defaults of Cross-Defendants Majestic, Danny’s, and SIS were entered.

On July 22, 2022, Cross-Defendant Giniani filed its Answer.

On July 29, 2022, Cross-Complainant Pashyans voluntarily dismissed the 1^st-5^th causes of action as asserted against Cross-Defendant SureTec, without prejudice.

On September 27, 2022, Cross-Defendant SureTec filed its Answer.

On March 29, 2023, Cross-Defendant Glendale filed a Notice of Settlement between it and Cross-Complainant Pashyans.

On April 25, 2023, Cross-Defendant Pashyans voluntarily dismissed their claims against Cross-Defendant Danny’s, with prejudice.

On May 15, 2023, Cross-Defendant Pashyans voluntarily dismissed their claims against Cross-Defendant J&S, with prejudice.

On May 31, 2023, Cross-Defendant Pashyans voluntarily dismissed their claims against Cross-Defendant Glendale, with prejudice.

On September 7, 2023, Cross-Complainant Pashyans filed an “Amendment to Complaint” substituting Cross-Defendant California Construction Group, Inc. (“California Construction”) in lieu of ROE 2. Proof of service was filed on September 29, 2023, indicating service on September 20, 2023.

On October 31, 2023, Cross-Defendant Pashyans voluntarily dismissed their claims against Cross-Defendants JMB and ROES 3-50, without prejudice.

On November 8, 2023, Cross-Defendant Pashyans voluntarily dismissed their claims against Cross-Defendant SureTec, with prejudice.

On the same date, the default of Defendant California Construction was entered.

On January 12, 2024, the defaults of Defendants Magic, GV, and C&C were entered.

All parties remaining on this cross-complaint have either answered or been defaulted. Those who have answered are: Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant, MCR, Hudson, Darling, and Giniani. Those in default are: Majestic, Magic, GV, SIS, C&C, and California Construction

ARPA Cross-Complaint

            On February 24, 2021, Cross-Defendant ARPA filed its Cross-Complaint for (1) Breach of Contract — Express Indemnification; (2) Breach of Contract — Duty to Defend; (3) Declaratory Relief — Indemnification (4) Declaratory Relief — Duty of Defend; (5) Declaratory Relief; (6) Equitable Indemnity; (7) Contribution/Apportionment of Fault; and (8) Declaratory Relief against Plaintiff and Cross-Defendants Ecumena Design Studio dba Gary Akopian (“Ecumena”) and DOES 1-75.

On March 29, 2021, Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant filed his Answer.

On September 10, 2021, Cross-Complainant ARPA voluntarily dismissed Defendant Ecumena, without prejudice.

            On August 8, 2021, Cross-Complainant ARPA filed an “Amendment to Complaint” substituting Cross-Defendant MCR in lieu of DOE 2.

            On June 6, 2022, Cross-Complainant ARPA voluntarily dismissed its entire Cross-Complaint, without prejudice.

MCR Cross-Complaint

            On February 14, 2022, Cross-Defendant MCR filed its Cross-Complaint for (1) Breach of Contract, (2) Fraud, (3) Negligent Misrepresentation, and (4) Declaratory Relief against Cross-Defendant Pashyan, Ara Amyan dba ArtDesign USA (“Amyan”), and DOES 1-50.

            On March 11, 2022, Cross-Defendant Pashyan filed his Answer.

            On February 21, 2024, Cross-Defendant Amyan filed his Answer.

Glendale Cross-Complaint

            On July 20, 2022, Cross-Defendant Glendale filed its Cross-Complaint for (1) Implied and Equitable Indemnity, (2) Contribution and Apportionment, and (3) Declaratory Relief against MOES 1-20.

SureTec Cross-Complaint

            On September 27, 2022, Cross-Defendant SureTec filed its Cross-Complaint for (1) Express Indemnity, (2) Implied Indemnity, (3) Statutory Reimbursement, and (4) Contribution against Cross-Defendants MCR, Mark Rolph (“Rolph”) and MOES 1-50.

            On January 17, 2023, Cross-Defendants MCR and Rolph filed their joint Answer.

Trial Date

            Jury trial is currently set for March 11, 2024.

Instant Motion

            Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant now moves this court for an order continuing trial by six months, with discovery deadlines to track the new date.

Decision

            The motion is GRANTED. Trial is continued to September 23, 2024, at 9:00 am. Final Status Conference is set for September 12, 2024, at 10:00 am. All counsel are to appear IN PERSON at the Final Status Conference. All discovery-related deadlines will track the new date, as well as the deadlines for motions in limine and the preparation of trial documents.

Discussion

California Rules of Court Rule 3.1332(a) provides that trial dates are to be treated as firm. However, Rule 3.1332(c) provides that, although continuances are “disfavored,” requests should be considered on an individual basis. That subsection also includes a non-exhaustive list of possible grounds for a continuance.

            Defendants base their motion on Rule 3.1332(c)(5), which provides for a continuance if a new party has been added to the case. That subdivision applies here.

            Cross-Defendant Amyan joined this case by filing an answer to the MCR Cross-Complaint less than three weeks before the present trial date. He is entitled to conduct discovery and prepare his defense.

            The court currently has 5 other trials scheduled for March 11, another case trailing pending long cause submission, and still another trailing to March 18. Of those, three are older than this case. Therefore, the court’s calendar also compels a continuance.

            Finally, counsel should note that this case will be four years old in September of this year. It has now been continued on two separate occasions because a new party has been added on a cross-complaint immediately prior to trial. Counsel should be advised that the court has no present intention of giving another continuance. If a new party should once again be added on a cross-complaint, the court’s inclination will be to sever that cross-complaint and proceed with the remainder of the case.

Conclusion

            Because a new party has recently been brought into the case and because the court’s own calendar is impacted, the motion for a continuance is GRANTED. Trial is continued to September 23, 2024, at 9:00 am. Final Status Conference is set for September 12, 2024, at 10:00 am. All counsel are to appear IN PERSON at the Final Status Conference. All discovery-related deadlines will track the new date, as well as the deadlines for motions in limine and the preparation of trial documents.