Aghajanyan v. Galstyan, et al.

whole or in part." (Sinaiko, supra, 148 Cal.App.4th at 409.) The burden is on the party subject to sanctions to show substantial justification or injustice. (Mattco Forge, Inc. v. Arthur Young & Co. (1990) 223 Cal.App.3d 1429, 1436.)

Plaintiff requests sanctions in the amount of $3,676.00. The amount requested is high, given that the motion is granted as to only 1 of the 6 discovery requests. The sanctions are adjusted accordingly. Sanctions are awarded as follows: 5 hours at $600.00 per hour for a total of $3,000.00.

RULING: Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories is GRANTED as to FROG No. 15.1, and MOOT as to the remaining requests. Defendant Martin Vera is ordered to provide a full, Code-compliant, verified response to FROG No. 15.1 within 20 days of this order.

Monetary sanctions sought by the moving party: Utilizing a lodestar approach, and in view of the totality of the circumstances, the Court finds that the total and reasonable amount of attorney's fees and costs incurred for the work performed in connection with the pending motion is $3,000.00 (5 hours @ $600.00/hour [7.2 hours requested] plus $96.00 in filing fees [Amount Requested $3,676.00], which sum is to be awarded in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant Martin Vera and counsel Philip H. Lo and Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani LLP, jointly and severally, payable within 20 days. (CCP, Sec. 2030.300, subd. (d); CRC Rule 3.1348(a).)

Counsel for moving party is ordered to prepare an order for sanctions and submit it on eCourt by noon today in accordance with this order.

DEPARTMENT D IS CONTINUING TO CONDUCT AND ENCOURAGE VIDEO APPEARANCES If you wish to appear remotely on LACourtConnect, you may register by visiting www.lacourt.ca.gov to schedule a remote appearance. Please note that LACourtConnect offers free audio and video appearances. Department D is now requiring either live or VIDEO appearances, not audio appearances.

Calendar: 4 Date: August 21, 2026 Case No: 25NNCV08623 Trial Date: Not yet set Case Name: Aghajanyan v. Galstyan, et al. DEMURRER [CCP Sec. 430.30] Moving Party: Defendant, Zaven Galstyan Responding Party: Plaintiff, Tigran Aghajanyan [Unopposed] RELIEF REQUESTED: Sustain demurrer to the Complaint CAUSES OF ACTION: from Form Complaint 1) Motor Vehicle

SUMMARY OF FACTS: This action arises from an alleged motor vehicle accident occurring on December 4, 2023 near Kenwood and Harvard Street in Glendale, CA 91205 between Tigran Aghajanyan ("Plaintiff") and Zaven Galstyan ("Defendant"). The Complaint alleges that Defendant negligently operated a motor vehicle, causing injury and damages to Plaintiff.

ANALYSIS: A demurrer is an objection to a pleading, the grounds for which are apparent from either the face of the complaint or a matter of which the court may take judicial notice. (CCP, Sec. 430.30, subd. (a); see also Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318.)

In ruling on a demurrer, the court "assumes the truth of all well-pleaded facts, as well as those that are judicially noticeable, but not contentions, deductions or conclusions of fact or law." (Van de Kamps Coalition v. Board of Trustees of Los Angeles Community College Dist. (2012) 206 Cal. App. 4th 1036, 1045.)

Defendant demurs to the Complaint on the ground that he is the plaintiff in another action pending between the same parties here and arising from the same incident. Defendant filed an action against Plaintiff on September 20, 2024, in LASC Case No. 24NNCV04464. (Demurrer, p. 4:19-23.) Defendant asserts that "the issues alleged in the Complaint merely swap those pled in the pending action." (Demurrer, p. 4:19-23.) Defendant argues that this action is thus barred because Plaintiff failed to file a cross-complaint in that earlier action. (Demurrer, p. 5:6-7.)

A demurrer lies where "[t]here is another action pending between the same parties on the same cause of action." (CCP, Sec. 430.10 subd. (c).) Furthermore, "if a party against whom a complaint has been filed and served fails to allege in a cross-complaint any related cause of action which (at the time of serving his answer to the complaint) he has against the plaintiff, such party may not thereafter in any other action assert against the plaintiff the related cause of action not pleaded." (CCP. Sec. 426.30.) "Thus, a party cannot by negligence or design withhold issues and litigate them in successive actions; he may not split his demands or defenses; he may not submit his case in piecemeal fashion." (Align Technology, Inc. v.

Tran (2009) 179 Cal.App.4th 949, 959.) A compulsory cross-claim is one that "arises out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences as the cause of action which the plaintiff alleges in his complaint." (Id. at p. 960.)

Assuming Plaintiff's motor vehicle cause of action arises from the same facts and transactions as the claims in the prior action, Plaintiff was required to assert these claims in a cross-complaint in the prior action. However, Defendant has not provided the Court with a copy of the complaint in the prior action, submitted a request for judicial notice, or described the allegations in the prior action with any particularity. Accordingly, the Court is unable to definitively determine that Plaintiff's claims here should have been asserted as a compulsory cross-claim in LASC Case No. 24NNCV04464.

Thus, the demurrer is OVERRULED, without prejudice to Defendant refiling the demurrer with a sufficient showing, such as through a request for judicial notice of the complaint in the prior action, that the claims asserted here arise from the same facts and transactions as those alleged in the previously filed action.

RULING: Defendant Zaven Galstyan's Demurrer is OVERRULED, without prejudice

DEPARTMENT D IS CONTINUING TO CONDUCT AND ENCOURAGE VIDEO APPEARANCES If you wish to appear remotely on LACourtConnect, you may register by visiting www.lacourt.ca.gov to schedule a remote appearance. Please note that LACourtConnect offers free audio and video appearances. Department D is now requiring either live or VIDEO appearances, not audio appearances.

Case Number: 25NNCV08939 Hearing Date: August 21, 2026 Dept: D TENTATIVE RULING Calendar: 1 Date: August 21, 2026 Case No: 25NNCV08939 Trial Date: Not yet set Case Name: Al-Jamal v. Qatar Airways Group, et al. MOTION TO VACATE DEFAULT [CCP Sec. 473 subd. (b)] Moving Party: Defendant, Qatar Airways Group Responding Party: Plaintiffs, Aya Al-Jamal, Abdelrahman Al-Jamal, Emaan Al-Jamal, and Omar Al-Jamal, by and through their guardian ad Litem, Mohammad Al-Jamal RELIEF REQUESTED: Vacate the default entered against Defendant Qatar Airways Group CAUSES OF ACTION: from Complaint 1) Violation of the Montreal Convention