DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
24VECV03080·la·Civil·Probate
Hearing todayDiscrepancies noted

In the Matter of Narek and Ruzan

Petition

Hearing date
Aug 18, 2026
Department
O
Prevailing
N/A

Motion type

Browse all Petition rulings statewide →

Monetary amounts referenced

$1,205.81$1,162.86$2,020.00$1,273.25$1,590.00$2,455.81$4,045.81$1,250.00

Ruling

/// /// /// V. CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing, the Court DENIES CR&R's Motion for Sanctions. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: August 18, 2026 Hon. Michael R. Amerian Judge, Superior Court | [1] All statutory references are to California codes unless stated otherwise.

discrepancies in the Petitions before it. As to Narek: Proposed Order Item 8(a)(2): Lists medical payments as $1,205.81.00 but lacks receipts to prove same. Proposed Order Item 8(a)(3): Lists medical payments as $1,162.86, but no receipts are provided to show same. Proposed Order Item 8(a)(3): Lists medical payments as $1,162.86, but on Petition item 13, the same amount is listed under "other than medical expenses" category. Petition provides a chiropractor receipt for $2,020.00, but that amount is not directly represented in the Proposed Order.

As to Ruzan: Proposed Order Item 8(a)(3): Lists medical payments as $1,273.25, but the listed providers total $1,590.00. (600+990) Proposed Order Item 8(a)(5): Lists total fees and expenses as $2,455.81, but the correct total is $4,045.81. Petition Item 13(a): Requests $1,250.00 in attorney's fees, but attorney declaration not attached. | Home -->)" -->

Cited authorities

Extracting citations from the ruling text…
Verify against the source PDF — LLM extraction may miss or mis-normalize citations.

Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities

Ask about this ruling

Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”

Answers reference only this ruling's text. Not legal advice — always verify against the source PDF.

Find similar rulings

Source

Share