DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
25VECV00274·la·Civil·Personal Injury
Hearing todayCONTINUED

Kegeyan v Gruenfeld

120 day continuance of trial

Hearing date
Sep 2, 2026
Department
T
Judge
Prevailing
N/A

Motion type

Browse all Other rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffKegeyan
DefendantGruenfeld

Ruling

Malicious Prosecution for costs of suit which he alleged incurred after the dismissal of the Complaint of Shabnam Akhoundzadeh in this action.

Any and all evidence that Richard is legally entitled to recover damages under the Fifteenth Cause of Action for Malicious Prosecution for any emotional distress he allegedly suffered after the dismissal of the Complaint of Shabnam Akhoundzadeh in this action.

Any and all evidence that Richard suffered damage to reputation as a result of any misconduct by Shabnam Akhoundzadeh for which he seeks recovery under the Fifteenth Cause of Action for Malicious Prosecution.

Any and all evidence of any expenses that Richard allegedly incurred with respect to the real property located at 18175 Karen Dr., Tarzana, CA 91356 were the result of any misconduct by Shabnam Akhoundzadeh for which he seeks recovery under the Fifteenth Cause of Action for Malicious Prosecution.

Any and all evidence that any expenses Richard allegedly paid with respect to the real property located at 18175 Karen Dr., Tarzana, CA 91356 were the result of any misconduct by Shabnam Akhoundzadeh for which he seek recovery under the Fifteenth Cause of Action for Malicious Prosecution.

Any and all evidence that Richard was prescribed Escitalopram as a result of any wrongful conduct by Shabnam Akhoundzadeh upon which he bases the Fifteenth Cause of Action for Malicious Prosecution.

Any and all evidence that the dosage of Escitalopram Richard was allegedly prescribed was changed as a result of any conduct by Shabnam Akhoundzadeh upon which you base the Fifteenth Cause of Action for Malicious Prosecution.

Any and all evidence that Richard was prescribed Rosuvastatin as a result of any conduct by Shabnam Akhoundzadeh upon which he bases the Fifteenth Cause of Action for Malicious Prosecution.

Any and all evidence that the dosage of Escitalopram Richard was allegedly prescribed was changed as a result of any conduct by Shabnam Akhoundzadeh upon which he bases the Fifteenth Cause of Action for Malicious Prosecution.

Any and all evidence that Richard produced any medical records which evidence he suffered any emotional distress for which he would be legally entitled to recover damages under the Fifteenth Cause of Action for Malicious Prosecution.

Any and all evidence that Richard suffered any monetary loss as a result of any loss of earning capacity for which he seeks recovery under the Fifteenth Cause of Action for Malicious Prosecution.

As for Cross-Defendant's request for monetary sanctions for the above misuse of discovery, the Court finds the amount requested to be excessive and unreasonable because the time expended on the matter is excessive based upon Attorney Kevin Kammer's extensive experience as an attorney. The Court finds that Mr. Kammer's hourly rate of $430.00 to be reasonable. The Court reduces the monetary sanctions to $3,700.00. The motion for monetary sanctions against Cross-Complainants and Counsel is GRANTED at the reduced amount of $3,700.00. IT IS SO ORDERED, CLERK TO GIVE NOTICE.

Case Number: 25VECV00274 Hearing Date: September 2, 2026 Dept: T 25VECV00274 Kegeyan v Gruenfeld

Defendant seeks a 120 day continuance of trial. Defendant scheduled the defense medical exam of plaintiff two months before trial. Plaintiff did not attend. The trial can take place no later than 2 months from the rescheduled defense medical exam, which would be December 2026. The court will consider, also, an order to plaintiff to appear for examination on October 26th.

Case Number: 26VECV02585 Hearing Date: September 2, 2026 Dept: T 26VECV02585 Alipanahi v Hyundai [TENTATIVE] ORDER: Defendant Hyundai Motor America's Motion to Compel Arbitration and Stay the Action are DENIED as to the request based on the "Owner's Handbook" as there is no evidence that plaintiff received

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