Judge: Teresa A. Beaudet, Case: 22STCV37960, Date: 2023-10-05 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV37960    Hearing Date: December 19, 2023    Dept: 50

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 50

Background

Plaintiffs Albert Arutyunov, Luiza Arutyunova, and Albert Arutyunov and Luiza Arutyunova as Successors in Interest to Decedent, Spartak Arutyunov filed this action on December 6, 2022 against Defendants Exodus Recovery, Inc. dba the Dr. David L. Murphy Sobering Center, Social Model Recovery Systems dba Rena B, Pedro Manzano, Roger Coapes, and Brandon James. The Complaint alleges causes of action for (1) wrongful death based on negligence, and (2) dependent adult neglect.

Albert Arutyunov and Luiza Arutyunova (jointly, “Plaintiffs”) now move “for an Order for Release / to Produce the Records and Documents relating to their son, Spartak Arutyunov, generated as a result of his violation of probation, his subsequent incarceration in County Jail, and release to Rena B, a recovery center.” The motion is unopposed. 

Discussion

As set forth above, Plaintiffs state that they “move the Court for an Order for Release / to Produce the Records and Documents relating to their son, Spartak Arutyunov, generated as a result of his violation of probation, his subsequent incarceration in County Jail, and release to Rena B, a recovery center.” (Mot. at p. 1:26-28.)

More specifically, Plaintiffs state that they “seek the production of all records and documents maintained and possessed by the Los Angeles County Probation Department relating to the violation by Spartak Arutyunov (hereinafter ‘Decedent’) of the terms of his probation in Los Angeles Superior Court Criminal Case No. 1VW03588 which occurred during 2021, and subsequent referral to Diversion.” (Mot. at p. 2:1-4.) In addition, Plaintiffs state that they “further seek all Records and Documents relating to the determination by the Probation Department and the Los Angeles Superior Court to release Decedent directly to the custodial care of Social Model Recovery Systems (hereinafter ‘Social’) at it’s now closed recovery facility, Rena B, and more specifically all Records and Documents provided by the Los Angeles County Probation Department and the Los Angeles Superior Court upon Decedent’s release from custody to Rena B and Social relating to his violation of probation, subsequent incarceration in County Jail and release to Rena B and Social.” (Mot. at p. 2:5-11.)  

Plaintiffs state that the motion is “made pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §§187 and 128…” (Mot. at p. 2:12.)

Code of Civil Procedure section 187 provides that “[w]hen jurisdiction is, by the Constitution or this Code, or by any other statute, conferred on a Court or judicial officer, all the means necessary to carry it into effect are also given; and in the exercise of this jurisdiction, if the course of proceeding be not specifically pointed out by this Code or the statute, any suitable process or mode of proceeding may be adopted which may appear most conformable to the spirit of this Code.”

Code of Civil Procedure section 128, subdivision (a) provides that “[e]very court shall have the power to do all of the following:

(1) To preserve and enforce order in its immediate presence.

(2) To enforce order in the proceedings before it, or before a person or persons empowered to conduct a judicial investigation under its authority.

(3) To provide for the orderly conduct of proceedings before it, or its officers.

(4) To compel obedience to its judgments, orders, and process, and to the orders of a judge out of court, in an action or proceeding pending therein.

(5) To control in furtherance of justice, the conduct of its ministerial officers, and of all other persons in any manner connected with a judicial proceeding before it, in every matter pertaining thereto.

(6) To compel the attendance of persons to testify in an action or proceeding pending therein, in the cases and manner provided in this code.

(7) To administer oaths in an action or proceeding pending therein, and in all other cases where it may be necessary in the exercise of its powers and duties.

(8) To amend and control its process and orders so as to make them conform to law and justice. An appellate court shall not reverse or vacate a duly entered judgment upon an agreement or stipulation of the parties unless the court finds both of the following:

(A) There is no reasonable possibility that the interests of nonparties or the public will be adversely affected by the reversal.

(B) The reasons of the parties for requesting reversal outweigh the erosion of public trust that may result from the nullification of a judgment and the risk that the availability of stipulated reversal will reduce the incentive for pretrial settlement.”

The Court does not find that Plaintiffs have shown that Code of Civil Procedure section 187 or Code of Civil Procedure section 128 authorize the Court to issue the requested order “for Release/to Produce the Records and Documents relating to their son, Spartak Arutyunov, generated as a result of his violation of probation, his subsequent incarceration in County Jail, and release to Rena B, a recovery center.” (Mot. at p. 1:26-28.) Plaintiffs appear to seek discovery from nonparties, but do not cite or apply any legal authority applicable to such discovery.

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiffs’ motion is denied.

Plaintiffs are ordered to give notice of this Order.

DATED:  December 19, 2023                        ________________________________

Hon. Rolf M. Treu

Judge, Los Angeles Superior Court