Judge Cherol J. Nellon, Case Number: 21STCV24899, Date: 2024-03-18 Tentative Ruling

Plaintiffs allege that Defendants embezzled funds from Plaintiffs and then covered it up by “loaning” the money back to Plaintiffs as if it were Defendants’ own. In response, Defendants claim that it was Plaintiffs who defrauded them.

On April 18, 2022, Plaintiffs filed their verified Third Amended Complaint (“TAC”) for (1) Fraud by Concealment, (2) Conversion, (3) Unfair Competition, (4) Specific Performance, and (5) Quiet Title against Defendants Shant Aram Dashjian (“Shant”), Dashjian Funding (“Funding”),[1] Hariton Dashjian (“Hariton”), Hovig Khatchadourian (“Khatchadourian”), Laurie Alread (“Alread”), and DOES 1-100. The fourth cause of action is asserted against Defendant Shant only.

On July 17, 2023, counsel Armen Shahgzo was relieved as counsel for Plaintiff Steve Kessedjian. He did not file a motion to be relieved as counsel for Plaintiff Immediate Funding, Inc., and therefore remains counsel of record for Plaintiff Immediate Funding, Inc.

On October 18, 2023, Defendants Khatchadourian and Alread filed their joint Answer.

On October 30, 2023, Plaintiff Kessedjian, acting in pro per, filed two Amendments to Complaint, substituting Defendants Old Republic Title Co. (“Old Republic”) and Sarkis Stepan Khatcharaourian (“Khatcharaourian”) in lieu of DOES 1-2.

On November 1, 2023, Plaintiff Kessedjian, acting in pro per, filed an Amendment to Complaint, substituting Defendant Charles Anthony Vaughan (“Vaughan”) in lieu of DOE 3.

On November 13, 2023, Defendants Shant and Funding filed their joint Answer. On the same date, Defendant Hariton also filed his Answer.

On November 16, 2023, Plaintiff Kessedjian, acting in pro per, filed an Amendment to Complaint, substituting Defendant Michael Kells (“Kells”) in lieu of DOE 4.

On November 21, 2023, Plaintiff Kessedjian, acting in pro per, filed an Amendment to Complaint, substituting Defendant Shakay Dashjian (“Shakay”) in lieu of DOE 5.

On March 16, 2023, Defendants Shant and Funding filed their Cross-Complaint for (1) Fraudulent Conveyance, (2) Monies Had and Received, (3) Quiet Title, and (4) Cancellation of Instruments against Plaintiffs and ROES 1-10.

On May 22, 2023, Plaintiffs/Cross-Defendants filed their joint Answer to the Cross-Complaint.

Plaintiff in pro per, Steve Kessedjian, now moves this court for an order continuing trial for six to nine months.

The motion is GRANTED. Trial is continued to September 16, 2024, at 9:00 am. Final Status Conference is set for September 4, 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.

The court sets an OSC re: Dismissal of DOES 6-100 for July 9, 2024, at 8:30 am. The court also sets an OSC re: Entry of Default as to Defendants Khatcharaourian, Kells, and Shakay for July 9, 2024, at 8:30 am.

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.

Plaintiff bases his motion in part 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.

Defendants Old Republic, Khatcharaourian, Vaughan, Kells, and Shakay were brought into this case in October and November of last year. All have been served, and Old Republic and Vaughan filed their answers within the past 1-3 months. They are entitled to conduct discovery and prepare their defenses.

The court currently has 7 other trials scheduled for March 18, and another case trailing pending long cause submission. Of those, four are older than this case. Therefore, the court’s calendar also compels a continuance.

Finally, this case will be three years old on July 6, 2024. That is the deadline by which Plaintiffs must identify and serve all DOE Defendants. See Inversiones Papaluchi S.A.S. v. Superior Court (2018) 20 Cal.App.5^th 1055, 1061. If Plaintiffs have not done so, the court is required to dismiss the DOE Defendants. Id. That point also makes for a reasonable deadline by which Plaintiff should enter the default of any Defendant who has been served but has not answered.

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 16, 2024, at 9:00 am. Final Status Conference is set for September 4, 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.

[1] Plaintiff filed his complaint against “Shant Aram Dashjian individually and dba Dashjian Funding, a business organization form unknown.” This label is ambiguous because a dba designation merely identifies a trade name; it does not necessarily correspond to a legally separate entity. The Answer filed on November 13, 2023, clarifies that Dashjian Funding is a separate legal entity, though it does not identify the corporate form it has taken.