Judge: Michael Shultz, Case: 20STCV07228, Date: 2025-01-14 Tentative Ruling

DEPARTMENT 40 - MICHAEL J. SHULTZ  - LAW AND MOTION RULINGS
The Court issues tentative rulings on certain motions.The tentative ruling will not become the final ruling until the hearing [see CRC 3.1308(a)(2)]. If the parties wish to submit on the tentative ruling and avoid a court appearance, all counsel must agree and choose which counsel will give notice. That counsel must 1) email Dept 40 by 8:30 a.m. on the day of the hearing (smcdept40@lacourt.org) with a copy to the other party(ies) and state that all parties will submit on the tentative ruling, and 2) serve notice of the ruling on all parties. If any party declines to submit on the tentative ruling, then no email is necessary and all parties should appear at the hearing in person or by Court Call. 

Case Number: 20STCV07228    Hearing Date: January 14, 2025    Dept: 40

20STCV07228 Bagrat Ogannes, et al. v. Armen Kavoukjian, et al.

Tuesday, January 14, 2025

[TENTATIVE] ORDER GRANTING THE MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE BY DEFENDANT, ARMEN KAVOUKJIAN

I.       BACKGROUND

      This action arises from the alleged malicious prosecution of an underlying action pursued by Armen Kavoukjian (“Kavoukjian”) and Greeneden, LLC against Organic America, LLC and Bagrat Ogannes (“Ogannes”) among other Defendants that resulted in a judgment in favor of Ogannes and other Defendants (the “Fraud Action”). Plaintiffs allege one cause of action for malicious prosecution of the Fraud Action bearing Case No. BC596896 Armen Kavoukjian, et al. v. Organic America, LLC, et al.

      On April 14, 2022, the Hon. Michael Linfield related this matter to 21BBCV00732 Bagrat Ogannes v. Armen Kovoukjian wherein Plaintiff alleged that Defendant maliciously prosecuted the same underlying action involved in this matter. Judge Linfield reassigned both matters to Department 34 at the Stanley Mosk Courthouse, and designated 20STCV07228 as the lead matter. After Judge Linfield accepted a peremptory challenge, Department 1 determined that both cases remained related and transferred both matters to the Hon. David Sotelo in Department 40 of the Stanley Mosk Courthouse.

II.     ARGUMENTS

      Defendant Kavoukjian moves to consolidate the related matters for all purposes including trial as both cases involve the same issues of fact and law and will rely on the same witnesses. A single trial will avoid unnecessary costs and delays and will serve judicial economy and convenience.

      In opposition, Defendant Harutiun Kassakhian (“Kassakhian”), a Defendant in the lead matter but not the related matter argues that there is insufficient verified information on which the court can make an informed decision about whether the cases should be consolidated. He was not a party in the Fraud Action, either, but rather was substituted into the Fraud Action as counsel at the last minute. Kassakhian contends he will suffer prejudice by being denied the right to independently defend the lead matter against him while incurring additional expenses to defend in the related matter where there are multiple other defendants not involving him.

      The only common fact between the related cases is that Plaintiffs here prevailed in the Fraud Action, which does not justify forcing Kasskhian to have to defend against additional, prejudicial allegations involving other Defendants in the related matter.

      In reply, Kavoukjhian argues that the key point is that both the lead and related matter involve the prosecution of the underlying Fraud Action. He was still involved in the prosecution of the underlying Fraud Action. While it would have been helpful for moving party to attach copies of the underlying complaints, it is not mandatory, and moving party apologizes.

III.    DISCUSSION

      The decision to consolidate is a matter for the court’s discretion. (Muller v. Robinson (1959) 174 Cal.App.2d 511, 515.) Consolidation is appropriate where common questions of law or fact are pending and in order to avoid unnecessary costs or delay. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1048 subd. (a).)  The court has discretion to order “a consolidation for purposes of trial only, where the two actions remain otherwise separate; and a complete consolidation or consolidation for all purposes, where the two actions are merged into a single proceeding under one case number and result in only one verdict or set of findings and one judgment.”(Hamilton v. Asbestos Corp., Ltd. (2000) 22 Cal.4th 1127, 1147.) Consolidation is appropriate whenever it can be done “without prejudice to a substantial right." (Jud Whitehead Heater Co. v. Obler (1952) 111 Cal.App.2d 861, 867.)

      The court takes judicial notice on its own motion of the court records in the Fraud Action and the lead and related matters. (Scott v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 743, 752 [The court has discretion to take judicial notice of documents absent a party’s formal request and “on its own volition.”].)  The lead and related matters involve common issue of facts between the same parties, which occurred during the same time period.  The October 6, 2015, complaint commenced by Kavoukjian and Greeneden against Ogannes and others alleged that Ogannes and others perpetrated fraud in a purported scheme to “con” Kavoukjian into investing more than $250,000 into a greenhouse business. Judgment was entered in that matter on February 20, 2019, in favor of Ogannes and others and against Kavoukjian and Greeneden. (Complaint in BC596896 ¶15; Jgmt. 2/20/19.)

      The court’s record in the Fraud Action reflects that while Kassakhian was not a party, he was involved as counsel for Kavoukjian, who pursued the Fraud Action against Ogannes and others. The court’s record reflects that Kassakhian is a defendant in the lead matter, having answered on September 22, 2020. However, Kassakhian is  not a party in the related matter. Regardless, Kassakhian’s involvement in the original Fraud Action as counsel for Kavoukjian, and that he is a named defendant in the lead matter involving the prosecution of the Fraud Action creates a sufficient overlap of facts, issues, and law that warrant consolidation of the related matters for trial.

      While Kassakhian claims he will suffer prejudice from being “lumped in” with other Defendants in a matter in which he is not a party, the prejudice can be mitigated with instructions to the jury by the court. Consolidation will promote judicial economy, avoid unnecessary costs and delay, and promote the convenience of the parties and witnesses who are likely to be the same as the same underlying litigation is involved in both matters.

V.   CONCLUSION

      Based on the foregoing, the motion to consolidate by Defendant, Armen Kavoukjian, is GRANTED.