DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
25STCV32544·la·Civil·Civil Litigation
Hearing todayOFF CALENDAR

Shyan Pawl v. Alexander Mardirossian, Esq., et al.

Demurrer and Motion to Strike (multiple)

Hearing date
Sep 9, 2026
Department
513
Prevailing
N/A

Motion type

Browse all Demurrer rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffShyan Pawl
DefendantTeni Amadian
DefendantAlexander Mardirossian
DefendantArtur Kamalimasihi

Ruling

Franco ("Plaintiff") moves the court for an order compelling defendant FCA US, LLC ("Defendant") to produce documents in accordance with its statement of compliance in its response to Plaintiff's Requests for Production of Documents, Set One, and for sanctions. The court denies the motion as moot because Defendant has demonstrated that it produced documents responsive to Plaintiff's requests for production on January 28, 2026. (Cicierski Decl. P. 4; Ex. B; Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 2031.320.) The court grants Plaintiff's request for sanctions. (Code Civ.

Proc., Sec. 2031.320, subd. (b).) "The court may award sanctions under the Discovery Act in favor of a party who files a motion to compel discovery, even though . . . the requested discovery was provided to the moving party after the motion was filed." (Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 3.1348(a).) The court finds that $962.50 (2.5 hours x $385 per hour = $962.50 attorney's fees) is a reasonable amount of sanctions to impose on Defendant. (Rucker Decl. P. 11.) ORDER The court denies plaintiff Diane Franco's motion to compel production in accordance with statement of compliance.

The court orders defendant FCA US, LLC to pay sanctions in the amount of $962.50 to plaintiff Diane Franco within 30 days of the date of service of this order. The court orders plaintiff Diane Franco to give notice of this ruling. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: September 9, 2026 _____________________________ Robert B. Broadbelt III Judge of the Superior Court

County of Los Angeles - Central District Department 513 SHYAN PAWL; Plaintiff, vs. ALEXANDER MARDIROSSIAN, ESQ, et al.; Defendants. | Case No.: |

| | | Hearing Date: | September 9, 2026 | | | Time: | 10:00 a.m. | | | [tentative] Order RE: (1) DEFENDANT TENI AMADIAN'S DEMURRER AND MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF COMPLAINT (2) DEFENDANT ALEXANDER MARDIROSSIAN'S DEMURRER AND MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF COMPLAINT (3) DEFENDANT ARTUR KAMALIMASiHI'S DEMURRER AND MOTION TO STRIKE COMPLAINT | MOVING PARTY: (1)-(3) Defendants Teni Amadian, Alexander Mardirossian, and Artur Kamalimashi RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff Shyan Pawl (1) Defendant Teni Amadian's Demurrer and Motion to Strike Portions of Complaint (2) Defendant Alexander Mardirossian's Demurrer and Motion to Strike Portions of Complaint (3) Defendant Artur Kamalimasihi's Demurrer and Motion to Strike Complaint The court considered the moving papers and the first amended complaint filed in

connection with this motion. DISCUSSION On July 31, 2026, plaintiff Shyan Pawl ("Plaintiff") filed his first amended complaint. Because Plaintiff filed the amended complaint before the date oppositions to the demurrers were due, August 26, 2026, the demurrers and motions to strike the original complaint are moot. (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 472 ["A party may amend its pleading once without leave of the court . . . after a demurrer or motion to strike is filed but before the demurrer or motion to strike is heard if the amended pleading is filed and served no later than the date for filing an opposition to the demurrer or motion to strike"].)

ORDER The court therefore orders defendants Teni Amadian, Alexander Mardirossian, and Artur Kamalimasihi's demurrers and motions to strike the complaint off calendar as moot. The court orders plaintiff Shyan Pawl to give notice of this ruling. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: September 9, 2026 _____________________________ Robert B. Broadbelt III Judge of the Superior Court Case Number: 26STCP01981 Hearing Date: September 9, 2026 Dept: 513 Superior Court of California County of Los Angeles - Central District Department 513 Boca reserve group, llc; Petitioner, and galilea mejia; Real Party in Interest. | Case No.: | 26STCP01981 | | | Hearing

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