Judge Ralph C. Hofer, Case EC068370 2023-04-14 Tentative Ruling

Plaintiff Vehanoosh Grigorian brings this legal malpractice action against her former attorneys, defendants Alex Megeredchian and his law practice entities, alleging that during their representation of plaintiff and other partners in a real estate investment joint venture transaction, defendants failed to appropriately advise the parties, and continued representation despite conflicts of interests arising between the partners, ultimately resulting in plaintiff funding the entire real estate purchase, with no written contract to protect plaintiff from the circumstance that two of the other partners’ names remained as purchasers in whom title would vest at closing, and could fail to pay their share of the funding after closing. The partners failed to pay, and the complaint also alleges that although the partners agreed to execute and executed a notarized Reconveyance Grant Deed to plaintiff to facilitate a potential sale of the property, defendant falsely claimed that the deed had been forged, and sent a false letter making such allegations to escrow, and other involved parties, clouding title and derailing plaintiff’s efforts to sell the property and mitigate her damages.

Plaintiff also alleges that in breach of their duties and ethical obligations to plaintiff, their client, and plaintiff’s spouse, also their client, defendants have filed a civil suit against plaintiff and her spouse on behalf of the other two partners, seeking to quiet title to the property in favor of the other partners according to their purported 50% interest. Plaintiff also alleges that in the course of that lawsuit, defendants are improperly using confidential information derived from plaintiff in the course of defendants’ representation of plaintiff.

On October 25, 2019, the court heard a motion brought by defendants Alex Megeredchian, Megeredchian Law, and Law Offices of Alex Megeredchian to lift the stay in this matter, arguing that the Van Nuys action had been unsatisfactorily delayed. The motion was denied, the court finding that defendants had not shown good cause to lift the stay.

These motions were originally scheduled to be heard on September 25, 2020. The minute order indicates that at the hearing, counsel represented to the court that they had lost their Mandatory Settlement Conference date and Trial Date in the Van Nuys action. The court continued the matters to January 22, 2021 as a “Place Holder Date.” On January 22, 2021, the court again found that the motions were stayed, and continued the matters for “hearing/rescheduling” to October 22, 2021. On that date the parties submitted a Stipulation and Order to Continue the hearings and the matters were continued to November 12, 2021. At that hearing counsel for plaintiff reported that the Van Nuys action was scheduled for closing argument in February, and the matters were continued to February 18, 2021. On February 18, the court noted that no ruling or statement of decision had been filed in the Van Nuys case, and the matters were continued to April 22, 2022. On April 15, the court signed and filed a Stipulation of the parties to continue the matters to August 26, 2022. On August 24, 2022, the court signed and filed a Stipulation and Order to continue the hearings to January 13, 2023. On January 10, 2023, the court signed and filed a Stipulation and Order to continue the hearings to this date, April 14, 2023.

A review of the docket in the Van Nuys case, LC 106885, shows that the parties participated in a non-jury trial in October and November of 2021, and filed written closing argument briefs in February of 2022. On April 20, 2022, the Van Nuys court filed an order setting a further hearing, concerning the trial for May 25, 2022, requesting that the parties meet and confer in advance about issues raised by the court’s tentative interim ruling on limited issues included in that order, with the issues to be orally addressed at the hearing with reference to evidence presented at trial. The order also removed the case from the Submitted Matters list.

At the hearing on May 25, 2022, the Van Nuys court ordered additional briefing regarding the issues set forth in the April 20, 2022 order. Supplemental Trial Briefs were filed in June and July of 2022. The July 8, 2022, the Van Nuys on a Non-appearance Case Review noted that briefs had been submitted as ordered and took the Non-Appearance Case Review (Re: Supplemental Briefs) under submission.

On September 26, 2022, the Van Nuys court filed a Tentative Statement of Decision. On October 14, 2022, plaintiffs and cross-defendants filed objections and request for clarification of the tentative statement of decision. On October 17, 2022, defendants and cross-complainants filed a response to the objections and request for clarification filed by plaintiffs.

In the Van Nuys action, plaintiff in this action, Vehanoosh Grigorian, had been sued as a defendant by plaintiffs in that action, Robert Ter-Oganesyan and Meghedy Bandary, along with Zaven Grigorian as defendant. Defendants in that action, the Grigorians, filed a cross complaint to quiet title to the Skytop property as against plaintiffs in that action as cross-defendants.

Judgment was entered in favor of defendants in the Van Nuys action, the Grigorians, on the Second Amended Complaint, with plaintiffs in that action, Ter-Oganesyan and Bandary to take nothing by their complaint. Defendants were deemed the prevailing parties, with costs to defendants pursuant to memorandum of costs and attorney fees to defendants, if allowed by statute or contract, by noticed motion.

Judgment was entered in favor of cross-complainants in the Van Nuys action, the Grigorians, on the First Amended Cross-Complaint, the Van Nuys court declaring that cross-complainants were the 100% owners of the Skytop property, quieting title in favor of cross-complainants, and declaring that cross-defendants in that action, Ter-Oganesyan and Bandary, have no rights, legal or equitable interest in, or title to the Skytop property. The Van Nuys court granted rescission and restitution on cross-complainant’s breach of contract claim. The Van Nuys court awarded monetary damages in favor of cross-complainants in that case, the Grigorians, against cross-defendants Ter-Oganesyan and Bandary, jointly and severally, in the sum of economic damages in the amount of $751,489.29 plus $129,026.22 prejudgment interest (tort claims) plus $195,200.10 (breach of contract claims), for a total of $1,075,715.61.

It appears from the file in the Van Nuys action that on January 10, 2023, defendants and cross-complainants, the Grigorians, filed a reply in support of their motion for attorney’s fees, for the hearing date of January 18, 2023. On January 17, 2023, plaintiffs filed a Notice of Stay of Proceedings, indicating that the matter was stayed pursuant to an automatic stay caused by the filing in another court of a bankruptcy petition filed in the United States Bankruptcy Court by Robert Ter-Oganesyan and Meghedy Bandary.

On January 18, 2023, the motion for attorney fees was called for hearing, and the minute order indicates that the case had been stayed by filing of bankruptcy proceedings by plaintiffs. The hearing on the motion for attorney fees was continued to July 17, 2023, and the matter was set for a Status Conference Re: Status of Bankruptcy the same date.

The bankruptcy petitioners, Ter-Oganesyan and Bandary, are not parties to this action, but third parties, although one of the motions before this court is for orders compelling Ter-Oganesyan to comply with a deposition subpoena issued in this case. This matter does not appear to be subject to any automatic bankruptcy stay. This matter may accordingly now be ripe for having the stay in this case lifted, and the matters set for hearing this date set for hearing and further briefing.

It appears from the file in this matter that there had been no opposition filed to the motion to compel answers to specially prepared interrogatories. It also appears that in connection with the motion for compliance with subpoena and other relief, opposition and a supplemental declaration have been filed, but no reply papers have yet been filed. The matters are accordingly not yet fully briefed.

The court will hear argument concerning what is the current status of this action in connection with the parties and various causes of action in light of the judgment entered in favor of plaintiffs in this matter as defendants and cross-complainants in the Van Nuys action, and in light of the bankruptcy stay now in place in that action. The court will also hear from the parties whether briefing is required with respect to the current status of this action in light of the judgment in the Van Nuys action, particularly with respect to the necessity for the currently outstanding discovery, and the effect of the filing of the bankruptcy petition by non-parties to this case on this action.

It appearing to the Court that the Van Nuys action has been resolved pursuant to Judgment entered on December 5, 2022, the Court will hear argument concerning whether the bankruptcy stay in that action has any effect on this action, and whether the stay of this action should be lifted and the subject motions permitted to proceed to be set for hearing.

Is there any expectation that the Judgment in Van Nuys action will be appealed once the stay is lifted? Is it necessary for the parties to brief for this Court the impact of the Van Nuys Judgment on this action, and particularly the impact on any need for the outstanding discovery which is the subject of the pending discovery motions?

The Court is inclined if the motions are re-set for hearing to require that the moving papers and any oppositions also be refiled with the new hearing date, with courtesy copies to be delivered to the Department on the date of filing, and any outstanding opposition or reply papers to be filed and served according to Code in connection with the new hearing date. The new hearing date for both these motions are set for July 28, 2023.

Motion to Compel Answers to Specially Prepared Interrogatories is CONTINUED to permit the defendants to file a motion to lift the stay in light of the Judgment entered in the Van Nuys Action, which motion needs to be filed within thirty (30) days or no later than May 12, 2023.

Plaintiff’s Motion for an OSC Re Order to Compel Compliance with Subpoena for Attendance and Testimony Against Robert Ter-Oganesyan is CONTINUED to permit the defendants to file a motion to lift the stay in light of the Judgment entered in the Van Nuys Action, which motion needs to be filed within thirty (30) days, or no later than May 12, 2023.

Please make arrangement in advance if you wish to appear via LACourtConnect/Microsoft Teams by visiting www.lacourt.org to schedule a remote appearance. Please note that LACourtConnect/Microsoft Teams offers free audio and video appearance. Counsel and parties (including self-represented litigants) are encouraged not to personally appear. With respect to the wearing of face masks, Department D recognizes that currently, the Los Angeles Department of Public Health strongly recommends masks indoors, especially when interacting with individuals whose vaccination status is unknown; for individuals who have a health condition that puts them at higher risk for severe illness; individuals who live with someone who is at higher risk; and for individuals who are around children who are not yet eligible for vaccines. In accordance with this guidance, it is strongly recommended that anyone personally appearing in Department D wear a face mask. The Department D Judge and court staff will continue to wear face masks. If no appearance is set up through LACourtConnect/Microsoft Teams, or otherwise, then the Court will assume the parties are submitting on the tentative.