Motion to Compel Further Responses
Browse all Motion to Compel Further Responses rulings statewide →
Case No.: 24STCV10426 Matter: Motion to Compel Further Responses Moving Party: Plaintiff Antonyan Vardan Responding Party: Defendant Kriger & Schuber, APC Notice: OK Ruling: The Motion is denied. Moving party to give notice. The Court encourages all parties to appear remotely via LA CourtConnect. If submitting on the Court's tentative
ruling, please follow the instructions provided above. On May 28, 2025, Plaintiff Antonyan Vardan filed the operative Second Amended Complaint ("SAC") asserting 24 causes of action. Plaintiff alleges that after he objected to an unpermitted gate, Defendant "Kazamel orchestrated a retaliatory and procedurally invalid vote to remove him [from the HOA board]. That marked the beginning of a targeted effort to silence and eliminate Plaintiff. Over the following years, he faced illegal vehicle tows, wage garnishment, perjured testimony in court, denial of HOA election rights, and mass defamatory communications--all designed to isolate him socially and professionally.
Coordinated actions by HOA members, attorneys, and vendors--under Kazamel's leadership-- culminated in Plaintiff's job loss, failed businesses, and personal bankruptcy in 2025." Plaintiff now seeks to compel further responses to his requests for production, set three, from Defendant Kriger & Schuber, APC. The Motion is denied because a separate statement was not provided. Additionally, it appears Plaintiff improperly seeks discovery that the Court previously found Plaintiff to have forfeited via a late motion to compel.
Plaintiff is sanctioned $500, payable within 30 days. Moving party to give notice.
Judge Kevin C. Brazile Department 20 Hearing Date: August 14, 2026 Case Name: Anwar v. AC General Construction, et al.
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”