Judge: Melvin D. Sandvig, Case: 22CHCV00770, Date: 2023-03-15 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22CHCV00770 Hearing Date: March 15, 2023 Dept: F47
Dept. F47
Date: 3/15/23
Case #22CHCV00770
MOTION TO
COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES
(Special
Interrogatories, Set 1)
Motion filed on 1/12/23.
MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Armen Sefyan
RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant Gohar Khachatryan
NOTICE: ok
RELIEF REQUESTED: An order compelling
Defendant Gohar
Khachatryan (Khachatryan) to
serve verified further substantive responses, without objections, to Plaintiff
Armen Sefyan’s (Plaintiff) Special Interrogatories, Set 1, numbers 1-12. Additionally, Plaintiff requests sanctions in
the amount of $3,220.00 against Khachatryan and her
attorneys Areg Sarkissian and Lauren Landau.
RULING: The hearing will be continued.
This action arises out of an alleged breach of an oral
agreement to operate a childcare business.
Plaintiff Armen Sefyan (Plaintiff) contends that on or about 12/1/18
Defendants Gohar Khachatryan (Khachatryan) and Armen Artashyan (Artashyan)
(collectively, Defendants) entered into an oral agreement with Plaintiff and
his wife Annie Khostegyan to be partners in a childcare operated by Defendants
at property owned by Plaintiff and his wife.
Plaintiff contends that Defendants breached the agreement in or around
April of 2022 by unilaterally moving the childcare business to a property
Defendants had just purchased and claiming the business belonged solely to
Defendants.
On 9/19/22, Plaintiff and his wife filed the original
complaint against Defendants for: (1) Breach of Contract, (2) Fraud, (3)
Conspiracy to Commit Fraud, (4) Breach of Fiduciary Duty, (5) Embezzlement, (6)
Conspiracy to Commit Embezzlement, (7) Conversion of Funds, (8) Constructive
Trust, (9) Misappropriation of Funds, (10) Unjust Enrichment, (11) Quiet Title,
(12) Property Damage, (13) Punitive Damages and (14) Breach of Contract – Residential
Lease.
On 12/6/22, a First Amended Complaint was filed by
Plaintiff Armen Sefyan, only, against Defendants and Hayk Artashyan for: (1)
Breach of Contract, (2) Fraud, (3) Breach of Fiduciary Duty, (4) Embezzlement,
(5) Misappropriation of Funds, (6) Quiet Title, (7) Negligence and (8) Breach of Contract –
Residential Lease. On 12/21/22, Defendants
filed motions to quash service of summons.
On 12/23/22, Defendant Hayk Artashyan filed a motion to quash the
service of summons. The motions to quash
service of summons are now scheduled for hearing on 4/17/23 and 4/18/23. (See 2/10/23 Minute Order).
On 10/25/22, Plaintiff served Defendants with Special
Interrogatories, by mail, making responses due on or before 11/30/22. (See Sefyan Decl., Ex.1); CCP 2030.260(a). Defendants failed to serve responses by 11/30/22. (Sefyan Decl.). On 12/12/22, Plaintiff sent a meet and confer
letter requesting responses by 12/27/22.
(Sefyan Decl., Ex.2). On
12/14/22, Defendant served responses which contained only objections. (Sefyan Decl., Ex.3). Plaintiff found the objections to be without
merit. (Sefyan Decl.). Despite meet and confer efforts, the parties
were unable to resolve the discovery dispute.
(Sefyan Decl., Ex.4-8, 10-11).
However, further responses were served on 12/30/22, which reiterated the
prior objections and also provided additional information in response to some
of the interrogatories. (Sefyan Decl.,
Ex.9).
On 1/12/23, Plaintiff filed and served the instant motion
seeking an order compelling Defendant Gohar Khachatryan (Khachatryan) to serve
verified further substantive responses, without objections, to Plaintiff Armen
Sefyan’s (Plaintiff) Special Interrogatories, Set 1, numbers 1-12. Additionally, Plaintiff requests sanctions in
the amount of $3,220.00 against Khachatryan and her attorneys Areg Sarkissian
and Lauren Landau. The motion was
originally scheduled for hearing on 3/16/23.
On 2/10/23, the hearing on this motion was rescheduled to 3/15/23, along
with other motions to compel further responses.
(See 2/10/23 Minute Order).
Khachatryan has opposed the motion and Plaintiff has filed a reply to
the opposition.
CCP 2030.020(b) provides:
“A plaintiff may propound
interrogatories to a party without leave of court at any time that is 10 days
after the service of the summons on, or appearance by, that party, whichever
occurs first.”
Presumptively, the service of the summons must be proper
for the Court to obtain jurisdiction over the party to make an order regarding
discovery served on that party. The
opposition is based, in part, on the argument that the service of the summons
and complaint on Khachatryan was defective and therefore, the instant motion to
compel further responses to discovery from Khachatryan is premature. (See Opposition, p.5:6-p.9:10). As noted above, Khachatryan currently has a
motion to quash service of summons scheduled for hearing on 4/17/23 and/or
4/18/23. The Court finds that it must
determine Khachatryan’s motion to quash service of summons before ruling on the
merits of this motion to determine whether the Court has jurisdiction over Khachatryan. Plaintiff has failed to establish that the
motion to quash service of summons is irrelevant to the ruling on this motion
as claimed in the reply. The cases cited
by Plaintiff to support that proposition do not deal with motions to quash
service of summons. See Mattco
Forge Inc. (1990) 223 CA3d 1429, 1436, fn.3 citing Budget Finance Plan
(1973) 34 CA3d 794, 797 and Union Mutual Life Insurance Co. (1978) 80 CA3d 1, 12).
Based on the foregoing, the hearing on the instant motion
will be continued to 5/2/23.
Dept. F47
Date: 3/15/23
Case #22CHCV00770
MOTION TO
COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES
(Special
Interrogatories, Set 1)
Motion filed on 1/12/23.
MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Armen Sefyan
RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant Armen Artashyan
NOTICE: ok
RULING: The hearing will be continued.
This action arises out of an alleged breach of an oral
agreement to operate a childcare business.
Plaintiff Armen Sefyan (Plaintiff) contends that on or about 12/1/18
Defendants Gohar Khachatryan (Khachatryan) and Armen Artashyan (Artashyan)
(collectively, Defendants) entered into an oral agreement with Plaintiff and
his wife Annie Khostegyan to be partners in a childcare operated by Defendants
at property owned by Plaintiff and his wife.
Plaintiff contends that Defendants breached the agreement in or around
April of 2022 by unilaterally moving the childcare business to a property
Defendants had just purchased and claiming the business belonged solely to
Defendants.
On 9/19/22, Plaintiff and his wife filed the original
complaint against Defendants for: (1) Breach of Contract, (2) Fraud, (3)
Conspiracy to Commit Fraud, (4) Breach of Fiduciary Duty, (5) Embezzlement, (6)
Conspiracy to Commit Embezzlement, (7) Conversion of Funds, (8) Constructive
Trust, (9) Misappropriation of Funds, (10) Unjust Enrichment, (11) Quiet Title,
(12) Property Damage, (13) Punitive Damages and (14) Breach of Contract –
Residential Lease.
On 12/6/22, a First Amended Complaint was filed by
Plaintiff Armen Sefyan, only, against Defendants and Hayk Artashyan for: (1)
Breach of Contract, (2) Fraud, (3) Breach of Fiduciary Duty, (4) Embezzlement,
(5) Misappropriation of Funds, (6) Quiet Title, (7) Negligence and (8) Breach of Contract –
Residential Lease. On 12/21/22, Defendants
filed motions to quash service of summons.
On 12/23/22, Defendant Hayk Artashyan filed a motion to quash the
service of summons. The motions to quash
service of summons are now scheduled for hearing on 4/17/23 and 4/18/23. (See 2/10/23 Minute Order).
On 10/25/22, Plaintiff served Defendants with Special
Interrogatories, by mail, making responses due on or before 11/30/22. (See Sefyan Decl., Ex.1); CCP 2030.260(a). Defendants failed to serve responses by 11/30/22. (Sefyan Decl.). On 12/12/22, Plaintiff sent a meet and confer
letter requesting responses by 12/27/22.
(Sefyan Decl., Ex.2). On
12/14/22, Defendant served responses which contained only objections. (Sefyan Decl., Ex.3). Plaintiff found the objections to be without
merit. (Sefyan Decl.). Despite meet and confer efforts, the parties
were unable to resolve the discovery dispute.
(Sefyan Decl., Ex.4-8, 10-11).
However, further responses were served on 12/30/22, which reiterated the
prior objections as to the seven interrogatories at issue, rather than the
twelve objections/responses previously provided and also provided additional
information in response to some of the interrogatories. (Sefyan Decl., Ex.9).
On 1/12/23, Plaintiff filed and served the instant motion
seeking an order compelling Defendant Armen Artashyan (Artashyan) to serve
verified further substantive responses, without objections, to Plaintiff Armen
Sefyan’s (Plaintiff) Special Interrogatories, Set 1, numbers 1-7. Additionally, Plaintiff requests sanctions in
the amount of $2,940.00 against Artashyan and his attorneys Areg Sarkissian and
Lauren Landau. The motion was originally
scheduled for hearing on 3/17/23. On
2/10/23, the hearing on this motion was rescheduled to 3/15/23, along with
other motions to compel further responses.
(See 2/10/23 Minute Order).
Artashyan has opposed the motion and Plaintiff has filed a reply to the
opposition.
CCP 2030.020(b) provides:
“A plaintiff may propound
interrogatories to a party without leave of court at any time that is 10 days
after the service of the summons on, or appearance by, that party, whichever
occurs first.”
Presumptively, the service of the summons must be proper
for the Court to obtain jurisdiction over the party to make an order regarding
discovery served on that party. The
opposition is based, in part, on the argument that the service of the summons
and complaint on Artashyan was defective and therefore, the instant motion to
compel further responses to discovery from Artashyan is premature. (See Opposition, p.5:6-p.9:10). As noted above, Artashyan currently has a
motion to quash service of summons scheduled for hearing on 4/17/23 and/or
4/18/23. The Court finds that it must
determine Artashyan’s motion to quash service of summons before ruling on the
merits of this motion to determine whether the Court has jurisdiction over
Artashyan. Plaintiff has failed to
establish that the motion to quash service of summons is irrelevant to the
ruling on this motion as claimed in the reply.
The cases cited by Plaintiff to support that proposition do not deal
with motions to quash service of summons.
See Mattco Forge Inc. (1990) 223 CA3d 1429, 1436, fn.3
citing Budget Finance Plan (1973) 34 CA3d 794, 797 and Union Mutual
Life Insurance Co. (1978) 80 CA3d 1,
12).
Based on the foregoing, the hearing on the instant motion
will be continued to 5/2/23.
Dept. F47
Date: 3/15/23
Case #22CHCV00770
MOTION TO
COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES
(Requests for
Production of Documents, Set 1)
Motion filed on 1/12/23.
MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Armen Sefyan
RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant Gohar Khachatryan
NOTICE: ok
RELIEF REQUESTED: An order compelling
Defendant Gohar
Khachatryan to serve verified further substantive responses, without
objections, to Plaintiff Armen Sefyan’s (Plaintiff) Requests for Production of
Documents, Set 1, numbers 1-17. Additionally, Plaintiff requests sanctions in
the amount of $3,085.00 against Khachatryan and her attorneys Areg Sarkissian
and Lauren Landau.
RULING: The hearing will be continued.
This action arises out of an alleged breach of an oral
agreement to operate a childcare business.
Plaintiff Armen Sefyan (Plaintiff) contends that on or about 12/1/18
Defendants Gohar Khachatryan (Khachatryan) and Armen Artashyan (Artashyan)
(collectively, Defendants) entered into an oral agreement with Plaintiff and
his wife Annie Khostegyan to be partners in a childcare operated by Defendants
at property owned by Plaintiff and his wife.
Plaintiff contends that Defendants breached the agreement in or around
April of 2022 by unilaterally moving the childcare business to a property
Defendants had just purchased and claiming the business belonged solely to
Defendants.
On 9/19/22, Plaintiff and his wife filed the original
complaint against Defendants for: (1) Breach of Contract, (2) Fraud, (3)
Conspiracy to Commit Fraud, (4) Breach of Fiduciary Duty, (5) Embezzlement, (6)
Conspiracy to Commit Embezzlement, (7) Conversion of Funds, (8) Constructive
Trust, (9) Misappropriation of Funds, (10) Unjust Enrichment, (11) Quiet Title,
(12) Property Damage, (13) Punitive Damages and (14) Breach of Contract –
Residential Lease.
On 12/6/22, a First Amended Complaint was filed by
Plaintiff Armen Sefyan, only, against Defendants and Hayk Artashyan for: (1)
Breach of Contract, (2) Fraud, (3) Breach of Fiduciary Duty, (4) Embezzlement,
(5) Misappropriation of Funds, (6) Quiet Title, (7) Negligence and (8) Breach of Contract –
Residential Lease. On 12/21/22, Defendants
filed motions to quash service of summons.
On 12/23/22, Defendant Hayk Artashyan filed a motion to quash the
service of summons. The motions to quash
service of summons are now scheduled for hearing on 4/17/23 and 4/18/23. (See 2/10/23 Minute Order).
On 10/25/22, Plaintiff served Defendants with Requests
for Production of Documents, by mail, making responses due on or before 11/30/22. (See Sefyan Decl., Ex.1); CCP 2030.260(a). Defendants failed to serve responses by 11/30/22. (Sefyan Decl.). On 12/12/22, Plaintiff sent a meet and confer
letter requesting responses by 12/27/22.
(Sefyan Decl., Ex.2). On
12/14/22, Defendant served responses which contained only objections. (Sefyan Decl., Ex.3). Plaintiff found the objections to be without
merit. (Sefyan Decl.). Despite meet and confer efforts, the parties
were unable to resolve the discovery dispute.
(Sefyan Decl., Ex.4-8, 10-11).
On 1/12/23, Plaintiff filed and served the instant motion
seeking an order compelling Defendant Gohar Khachatryan to serve verified
further substantive responses, without objections, to Plaintiff Armen Sefyan’s
(Plaintiff) Requests for Production of Documents, Set 1, numbers 1-17. Additionally, Plaintiff requests sanctions in
the amount of $3,085.00 against Khachatryan and her attorneys Areg Sarkissian
and Lauren Landau. Khachatryan has
opposed the motion and Plaintiff has filed a reply to the opposition.
CCP 2031.020(b) provides:
“A plaintiff may make a demand for
inspection, copying, testing, or sampling without leave of court at any time
that is 10 days after the service of the summons on, or appearance by, that
party, whichever occurs first.”
Presumptively, the service of the summons must be proper
for the Court to obtain jurisdiction over the party to make an order regarding
discovery served on that party. The
opposition is based, in part, on the argument that the service of the summons
and complaint on Khachatryan was defective and therefore, the instant motion to
compel further responses to discovery from Artashyan is premature. (See Opposition, p.5:2-p.9:4). As noted above, Kachatryan currently has a
motion to quash service of summons scheduled for hearing on 4/17/23 and/or
4/18/23. The Court finds that it must
determine Kachatryan’s motion to quash service of summons before ruling on the
merits of this motion to determine whether the Court has jurisdiction over Kachatryan. Plaintiff has failed to establish that the
motion to quash service of summons is irrelevant to the ruling on this motion
as claimed in the reply. The cases cited
by Plaintiff to support that proposition do not deal with motions to quash
service of summons. See Mattco
Forge Inc. (1990) 223 CA3d 1429, 1436, fn.3 citing Budget Finance Plan
(1973) 34 CA3d 794, 797 and Union Mutual Life Insurance Co. (1978) 80 CA3d 1, 12).
Based on the foregoing, the hearing on the instant motion
will be continued to 5/2/23.
Dept. F47
Date: 3/15/23
Case #22CHCV00770
MOTION TO
COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES
(Requests for
Production of Documents, Set 1)
Motion filed on 1/12/23.
MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Armen Sefyan
RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant Armen Artashyan
NOTICE: ok
RELIEF REQUESTED: An order compelling
Defendant Armen Artashyan (Artashyan) to serve verified further substantive
responses, without objections, to Plaintiff Armen Sefyan’s (Plaintiff) Requests
for Production of Documents, Set 1, numbers 1-9.
Additionally, Plaintiff requests sanctions in the amount of $2,810.00
against Artashyan and his attorneys Areg Sarkissian and Lauren Landau.
RULING: The hearing will be continued.
This action arises out of an alleged breach of an oral
agreement to operate a childcare business.
Plaintiff Armen Sefyan (Plaintiff) contends that on or about 12/1/18
Defendants Gohar Khachatryan (Khachatryan) and Armen Artashyan (Artashyan)
(collectively, Defendants) entered into an oral agreement with Plaintiff and
his wife Annie Khostegyan to be partners in a childcare operated by Defendants
at property owned by Plaintiff and his wife.
Plaintiff contends that Defendants breached the agreement in or around
April of 2022 by unilaterally moving the childcare business to a property
Defendants had just purchased and claiming the business belonged solely to
Defendants.
On 9/19/22, Plaintiff and his wife filed the original
complaint against Defendants for: (1) Breach of Contract, (2) Fraud, (3)
Conspiracy to Commit Fraud, (4) Breach of Fiduciary Duty, (5) Embezzlement, (6)
Conspiracy to Commit Embezzlement, (7) Conversion of Funds, (8) Constructive
Trust, (9) Misappropriation of Funds, (10) Unjust Enrichment, (11) Quiet Title,
(12) Property Damage, (13) Punitive Damages and (14) Breach of Contract –
Residential Lease.
On 12/6/22, a First Amended Complaint was filed by
Plaintiff Armen Sefyan, only, against Defendants and Hayk Artashyan for: (1)
Breach of Contract, (2) Fraud, (3) Breach of Fiduciary Duty, (4) Embezzlement,
(5) Misappropriation of Funds, (6) Quiet Title, (7) Negligence and (8) Breach of Contract –
Residential Lease. On 12/21/22, Defendants
filed motions to quash service of summons.
On 12/23/22, Defendant Hayk Artashyan filed a motion to quash the
service of summons. The motions to quash
service of summons are now scheduled for hearing on 4/17/23 and 4/18/23. (See 2/10/23 Minute Order).
On 10/25/22, Plaintiff served Defendants with Requests
for Production of Documents, by mail, making responses due on or before 11/30/22. (See Sefyan Decl., Ex.1); CCP 2030.260(a). Defendants failed to serve responses by 11/30/22. (Sefyan Decl.). On 12/12/22, Plaintiff sent a meet and confer
letter requesting responses by 12/27/22.
(Sefyan Decl., Ex.2). On
12/14/22, Defendant served responses which contained only objections. (Sefyan Decl., Ex.3). Plaintiff found the objections to be without
merit. (Sefyan Decl.). Despite meet and confer efforts, the parties
were unable to resolve the discovery dispute.
(Sefyan Decl., Ex.4-8, 10-11).
On 1/12/23, Plaintiff filed and served the instant motion
seeking an order compelling Defendant Armen Artashyan (Artashyan) to serve
verified further substantive responses, without objections, to Plaintiff Armen
Sefyan’s (Plaintiff) Requests for Production of Documents, Set 1, numbers
1-9. Additionally, Plaintiff requests
sanctions in the amount of $2,810.00 against Artashyan and his attorneys Areg
Sarkissian and Lauren Landau. Artashyan
has opposed the motion and Plaintiff has filed a reply to the opposition.
CCP 2031.020(b) provides:
“A plaintiff may make a demand for
inspection, copying, testing, or sampling without leave of court at any time
that is 10 days after the service of the summons on, or appearance by, that
party, whichever occurs first.”
Presumptively, the service of the summons must be proper
for the Court to obtain jurisdiction over the party to make an order regarding
discovery served on that party. The
opposition is based, in part, on the argument that the service of the summons
and complaint on Artashyan was defective and therefore, the instant motion to
compel further responses to discovery from Artashyan is premature. (See Opposition, p.5:2-p.9:4). As noted above, Artashyan currently has a
motion to quash service of summons scheduled for hearing on 4/17/23 and/or
4/18/23. The Court finds that it must
determine Artashyan’s motion to quash service of summons before ruling on the
merits of this motion to determine whether the Court has jurisdiction over Artashyan. Plaintiff has failed to establish that the
motion to quash service of summons is irrelevant to the ruling on this motion
as claimed in the reply. The cases cited
by Plaintiff to support that proposition do not deal with motions to quash
service of summons. See Mattco
Forge Inc. (1990) 223 CA3d 1429, 1436, fn.3 citing Budget Finance Plan
(1973) 34 CA3d 794, 797 and Union Mutual Life Insurance Co. (1978) 80 CA3d 1, 12).
Based on the foregoing, the hearing on the instant motion
will be continued to 5/2/23.