Preview
Electronically FILED by Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles on 01/28/2019 11:59 AM Sherri R. Carter, Executive Officer/Clerk of Court, by F. Ochoa,Deputy Clerk
1 Aram Rostomyan, Esq., State Bar No. 299893
aram@rostomyanlaw.com
2 ROSTOMYAN LAW, P.C.
790 East Colorado Boulevard, Ninth Floor
3 Pasadena, California 91101
Telephone Number: (626) 440-1007
4 Facsimile Number: (844) 273-9007
5 Carney R. Shegerian, Esq., State Bar No. 150461
CShegerian@Shegerianlaw.com
6 Anthony Nguyen, Esq., State Bar No. 259154
ANguyen@Shegerianlaw.com
7 SHEGERIAN & ASSOCIATES, INC.
225 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 700
8 Santa Monica, California 90401
Telephone Number: (310) 860-0770
9 Facsimile Number: (310) 860-0771
10 Attorneys for Plaintiff,
ANAHIT SHIRVANYAN
11
12
13
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
14
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, CENTRAL DISTRICT
15
16
ANAHIT SHIRVANYAN, ) Case No.: BC 633 224
17 )
) The Honorable Stephanie M. Bowick
18 )
Plaintiff, ) NOTICE OF ENTRY OF JUDGMENT
19 ) FOR PLAINTIFF ANAHIT
) SHIRVANYAN
20 vs. )
)
21 )
LOS ANGELES COMMUNITY )
22 COLLEGE DISTRICT, )
)
23 ) Judgment Entered: January 20, 2019
Defendant. ) Trial: December 4, 2018
24 ) Action Filed: September 8, 2016
25
26
27
28
NOTICE OF ENTRY OF JUDGMENT FOR PLAINTIFF ANAHIT SHIRVANYAN
1 TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
2 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that judgment in this matter in favor of plaintiff Anahit
3 Shirvanyan was entered on January 20, 2019 as follows:
4 That plaintiff, Anahit Shirvanyan, have and recover from defendant Los Angeles
5 Community College District, the sum of $2,899,670.00, along with attorneys’ fees and
6 costs to be determined by the Court, all amounts with interest thereon at the rate of ten
7 percent per annum, along with prejudgment interest and interest as damages to be
8 determined by the Court.
9 Plaintiff was ordered to give notice of entry of judgment.
10 A true and correct copy of said judgment is attached as Exhibit 1 and incorporated
11 herein by reference.
12
13 Dated: January 28, 2019 SHEGERIAN & ASSOCIATES, INC.
14
15 By:
Carney R. Shegerian, Esq.
16
Attorneys for Plaintiff,
17 ANAHIT SHIRVANYAN
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2-
NOTICE OF ENTRY OF JUDGMENT FOR PLAINTIFF ANAHIT SHIRVANYAN
EXHIBIT 1
1
2 JAN 2 5 2019
3
4
5 RECE\\/E.D
6 D EC , g i o , e
D OW
F\UNG \J\HN
7
8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
9 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT
10
11 ANAHIT SHIRVANYAN, Case No.: BC 633 224
12
Plaintiff,
13 The Honorable Stephanie M. Bowick
14 vs. fPfiO��lJUDGMENT ON
GENERAL VERDICT
15
LOS ANGELES COMMUNITY
16 COLLEGE DISTRICT,
17
Defendant.
18
19
20 Dept.: 19
21
22 This action came on regularly for trial on December 3, 2018, in Department
23 19 of the above-entitled Court, the Honorable Stephanie M. Bowick, Judge of the
24 Superior Court, presiding. Attorneys Anthony Nguyen, Mark Lim, and Mahru Majidi
25 of Shegerian & Associates, Inc. appeared for plaintiff Anahit Shirvanyan. Attorneys
26 Charles Messer and Grace Felipe of Carlson & Messer, LLP appeared for defendant
27 the Los Angeles Con1111unity College District.
28
JUDGMENT ON SPECIAL VERDICT
1 A jury of twelve persons was regularly impaneled and sworn and agreed to try
2 the cause. Witnesses were sworn and testified. After hearing the evidence and
3 arguments of counsel, the jury was duly instructed by the Court and the cause was
4 submitted to the jury with directions to return a special verdict. The jury deliberated
5 and thereafter returned to court with its special verdict on the issues submitted and
6 the answers given thereto by the jury, which verdict was in words and figures as
7 follows:
8 GENERAL VERDICT
9
1o We, the jury in the above action, find the following General Verdict on the
11 questions submitted to us:
12 For each of the Question Numbers 1, 2, and 3 below, select one of the two
13 options listed.
14 l. On Plaintiff Anahit Shirvanyan's cause of action for Failure to Engage
15 m the Interactive Process against Defendant Los Angeles Community College
16 District:
17 ✓ We find in favor of Anahit Shirvanyan against the Los Angeles
18 Community College District.
19 __ We find in favor of the Los Angeles Community College District against
20 Anahit Shirvanyan.
21
22 2. On Plaintiff Anahit Shirvanyan's cause of action for Failure to Provide
23 a Reasonable Accommodation against Defendant Los Angeles Community College
24 District:
25 ✓ We find in favor of Anahit Shirvanyan against the Los Angeles
26 Community College District.
27 __ We find in favor of the Los Angeles Community College District against
28 Anahit Shirvanyan.
2
JUDGMENT ON GENERAL VERDICT
1 3. On Plaintiff Anahit Shirvanyan' s cause of action for Discrimination on
2 the Basis of Disability against Defendant Los Angeles Community College District:
3 __ We find in favor of Anahit Shirvanyan against the Los Angeles
4 Community College District.
5 ✓ We find in favor of the Los Angeles Community College District against
6 Anahit Shirvanyan.
7 If you found for Anahit Shirvanyan on any of the above Question Numbers 1,
8 2, or 3, answer Question Number 4 and indicate the amount of damages to be
9 awarded if any. If you found for Los Angeles Community College District on all of
10 the above Question Numbers 1, 2, and 3, answer no further questions. Have the
11 foreperson date and sign this verdict fonn and notify the Court attendant. (Note: If
12 you decide that Anahit Shirvanyan prevails on more than one of the above causes of
13 action and if the damages she suffered on different causes of action are identical,
14 count that damage only once. Do not award duplicative damages.)
15 4. Please indicate the amount of damages to be awarded, if any:
16 a. Past economic loss: $57,639
17 b. Future economic loss: $67,031
18 c. Past non-economic loss: $1,400,000
19 d. Future non-economic loss: $1,375,000
20 e. TOTAL: $2,899,670
21
22 You have now completed this verdict form. Please have the foreperson date
23 and sign below and notify the Court Attendant that you have concluded.
24
Dated: 12/18/18 Isl Esme Levy
25 Foreperson
Please Print Name
26
27
28
3
JUDGMENT ON GENERAL VERDICT
'@,0tp331M
1 NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that
2 plaintiff, Anahit Shirvanyan, have and recover from defendant Los Angeles
3
. . . /Ls i,rl/tq_, v10.ao,
Commumty College D1stnct, along with attorney's fees and costs to determmed by
4 the Court, all amounts with interest thereon at the rate of ten percent per annum,
5 along with prejudgment interest and interest as damages to be deten11ined by the
6 Court.
7 IT IS SO ORDERED.
8
9
10 The Honorable Stephanie M. Bowick
Judge of the Superior Court
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
- 22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
JUDGMENT ON GENERAL VERDJCT
1 SHIRVANYAN v. LACCD LASC CASE NO.: BC 633 224
2 PROOF OF SERVICE
3 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
4 I am an employee in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. I am over the
age of 18 and not a party to the within action; my business address is 225 Santa Monica
5 Boulevard, Suite 700, Santa Monica, California 90401.
6 On January 28, 2019, I served the foregoing document, described as “NOTICE OF
ENTRY OF JUDGMENT FOR PLAINTIFF ANAHIT SHIRVANYAN,” on all
7 interested parties in this action by placing true copies thereof in sealed envelopes,
addressed as follows:
8
Charles Messer, Esq. Aram Rostomyan, Esq.
9 J. Grace Felipe, Esq. ROSTOMYAN LAW, P.C.
CARLSON & MESSER, LLP 790 East Colorado Boulevard, Ninth
10 5901 W. Century Blvd., Suite 1200 Floor
Los Angeles, California 90045 Pasadena, California 91101
11
Stuart W. Rudnick, Esq.
12 Cheryl A. Orr, Esq.
Musick, Peeler & Garrett LLP
13 One Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 2000
Los Angeles, California 90017
14
15
(BY MAIL) As follows:
16
I placed such envelopes, with postage thereon prepaid, in the United States mail at
17 Santa Monica, California.
18 I am “readily familiar” with the firm’s practice of collecting and processing corre-
spondence for mailing. Under that practice, it would be deposited with the U.S.
19 Postal Service on that same day, with postage thereon fully prepaid, at Santa Monica,
California, in the ordinary course of business. I am aware that, on motion of the party
20 served, service is presumed invalid if the postal cancellation or postage meter date is
more than one day after the date of deposit for mailing in this affidavit.
21
(BY PERSONAL SERVICE) I caused such envelope to be delivered by hand to
22 the attorney at the offices of the addressee.
23 (STATE) I declare, under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of
California, that the above is true and correct.
24
Executed on January 28, 2019, at Santa Monica, California.
25
26
27 Jose Castro
28
Preview
Electronically FILED by Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles on 01/28/2019 11:59 AM Sherri R. Carter, Executive Officer/Clerk of Court, by F. Ochoa,Deputy Clerk 1 Aram Rostomyan, Esq., State Bar No. 299893 aram@rostomyanlaw.com 2 ROSTOMYAN LAW, P.C. 790 East Colorado Boulevard, Ninth Floor 3 Pasadena, California 91101 Telephone Number: (626) 440-1007 4 Facsimile Number: (844) 273-9007 5 Carney R. Shegerian, Esq., State Bar No. 150461 CShegerian@Shegerianlaw.com 6 Anthony Nguyen, Esq., State Bar No. 259154 ANguyen@Shegerianlaw.com 7 SHEGERIAN & ASSOCIATES, INC. 225 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 700 8 Santa Monica, California 90401 Telephone Number: (310) 860-0770 9 Facsimile Number: (310) 860-0771 10 Attorneys for Plaintiff, ANAHIT SHIRVANYAN 11 12 13 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 14 FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, CENTRAL DISTRICT 15 16 ANAHIT SHIRVANYAN, ) Case No.: BC 633 224 17 ) ) The Honorable Stephanie M. Bowick 18 ) Plaintiff, ) NOTICE OF ENTRY OF JUDGMENT 19 ) FOR PLAINTIFF ANAHIT ) SHIRVANYAN 20 vs. ) ) 21 ) LOS ANGELES COMMUNITY ) 22 COLLEGE DISTRICT, ) ) 23 ) Judgment Entered: January 20, 2019 Defendant. ) Trial: December 4, 2018 24 ) Action Filed: September 8, 2016 25 26 27 28 NOTICE OF ENTRY OF JUDGMENT FOR PLAINTIFF ANAHIT SHIRVANYAN 1 TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: 2 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that judgment in this matter in favor of plaintiff Anahit 3 Shirvanyan was entered on January 20, 2019 as follows: 4 That plaintiff, Anahit Shirvanyan, have and recover from defendant Los Angeles 5 Community College District, the sum of $2,899,670.00, along with attorneys’ fees and 6 costs to be determined by the Court, all amounts with interest thereon at the rate of ten 7 percent per annum, along with prejudgment interest and interest as damages to be 8 determined by the Court. 9 Plaintiff was ordered to give notice of entry of judgment. 10 A true and correct copy of said judgment is attached as Exhibit 1 and incorporated 11 herein by reference. 12 13 Dated: January 28, 2019 SHEGERIAN & ASSOCIATES, INC. 14 15 By: Carney R. Shegerian, Esq. 16 Attorneys for Plaintiff, 17 ANAHIT SHIRVANYAN 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -2- NOTICE OF ENTRY OF JUDGMENT FOR PLAINTIFF ANAHIT SHIRVANYAN EXHIBIT 1 1 2 JAN 2 5 2019 3 4 5 RECE\\/E.D 6 D EC , g i o , e D OW F\UNG \J\HN 7 8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 9 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT 10 11 ANAHIT SHIRVANYAN, Case No.: BC 633 224 12 Plaintiff, 13 The Honorable Stephanie M. Bowick 14 vs. fPfiO��lJUDGMENT ON GENERAL VERDICT 15 LOS ANGELES COMMUNITY 16 COLLEGE DISTRICT, 17 Defendant. 18 19 20 Dept.: 19 21 22 This action came on regularly for trial on December 3, 2018, in Department 23 19 of the above-entitled Court, the Honorable Stephanie M. Bowick, Judge of the 24 Superior Court, presiding. Attorneys Anthony Nguyen, Mark Lim, and Mahru Majidi 25 of Shegerian & Associates, Inc. appeared for plaintiff Anahit Shirvanyan. Attorneys 26 Charles Messer and Grace Felipe of Carlson & Messer, LLP appeared for defendant 27 the Los Angeles Con1111unity College District. 28 JUDGMENT ON SPECIAL VERDICT 1 A jury of twelve persons was regularly impaneled and sworn and agreed to try 2 the cause. Witnesses were sworn and testified. After hearing the evidence and 3 arguments of counsel, the jury was duly instructed by the Court and the cause was 4 submitted to the jury with directions to return a special verdict. The jury deliberated 5 and thereafter returned to court with its special verdict on the issues submitted and 6 the answers given thereto by the jury, which verdict was in words and figures as 7 follows: 8 GENERAL VERDICT 9 1o We, the jury in the above action, find the following General Verdict on the 11 questions submitted to us: 12 For each of the Question Numbers 1, 2, and 3 below, select one of the two 13 options listed. 14 l. On Plaintiff Anahit Shirvanyan's cause of action for Failure to Engage 15 m the Interactive Process against Defendant Los Angeles Community College 16 District: 17 ✓ We find in favor of Anahit Shirvanyan against the Los Angeles 18 Community College District. 19 __ We find in favor of the Los Angeles Community College District against 20 Anahit Shirvanyan. 21 22 2. On Plaintiff Anahit Shirvanyan's cause of action for Failure to Provide 23 a Reasonable Accommodation against Defendant Los Angeles Community College 24 District: 25 ✓ We find in favor of Anahit Shirvanyan against the Los Angeles 26 Community College District. 27 __ We find in favor of the Los Angeles Community College District against 28 Anahit Shirvanyan. 2 JUDGMENT ON GENERAL VERDICT 1 3. On Plaintiff Anahit Shirvanyan' s cause of action for Discrimination on 2 the Basis of Disability against Defendant Los Angeles Community College District: 3 __ We find in favor of Anahit Shirvanyan against the Los Angeles 4 Community College District. 5 ✓ We find in favor of the Los Angeles Community College District against 6 Anahit Shirvanyan. 7 If you found for Anahit Shirvanyan on any of the above Question Numbers 1, 8 2, or 3, answer Question Number 4 and indicate the amount of damages to be 9 awarded if any. If you found for Los Angeles Community College District on all of 10 the above Question Numbers 1, 2, and 3, answer no further questions. Have the 11 foreperson date and sign this verdict fonn and notify the Court attendant. (Note: If 12 you decide that Anahit Shirvanyan prevails on more than one of the above causes of 13 action and if the damages she suffered on different causes of action are identical, 14 count that damage only once. Do not award duplicative damages.) 15 4. Please indicate the amount of damages to be awarded, if any: 16 a. Past economic loss: $57,639 17 b. Future economic loss: $67,031 18 c. Past non-economic loss: $1,400,000 19 d. Future non-economic loss: $1,375,000 20 e. TOTAL: $2,899,670 21 22 You have now completed this verdict form. Please have the foreperson date 23 and sign below and notify the Court Attendant that you have concluded. 24 Dated: 12/18/18 Isl Esme Levy 25 Foreperson Please Print Name 26 27 28 3 JUDGMENT ON GENERAL VERDICT '@,0tp331M 1 NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that 2 plaintiff, Anahit Shirvanyan, have and recover from defendant Los Angeles 3 . . . /Ls i,rl/tq_, v10.ao, Commumty College D1stnct, along with attorney's fees and costs to determmed by 4 the Court, all amounts with interest thereon at the rate of ten percent per annum, 5 along with prejudgment interest and interest as damages to be deten11ined by the 6 Court. 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 9 10 The Honorable Stephanie M. Bowick Judge of the Superior Court 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 - 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4 JUDGMENT ON GENERAL VERDJCT 1 SHIRVANYAN v. LACCD LASC CASE NO.: BC 633 224 2 PROOF OF SERVICE 3 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES 4 I am an employee in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. I am over the age of 18 and not a party to the within action; my business address is 225 Santa Monica 5 Boulevard, Suite 700, Santa Monica, California 90401. 6 On January 28, 2019, I served the foregoing document, described as “NOTICE OF ENTRY OF JUDGMENT FOR PLAINTIFF ANAHIT SHIRVANYAN,” on all 7 interested parties in this action by placing true copies thereof in sealed envelopes, addressed as follows: 8 Charles Messer, Esq. Aram Rostomyan, Esq. 9 J. Grace Felipe, Esq. ROSTOMYAN LAW, P.C. CARLSON & MESSER, LLP 790 East Colorado Boulevard, Ninth 10 5901 W. Century Blvd., Suite 1200 Floor Los Angeles, California 90045 Pasadena, California 91101 11 Stuart W. Rudnick, Esq. 12 Cheryl A. Orr, Esq. Musick, Peeler & Garrett LLP 13 One Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 2000 Los Angeles, California 90017 14 15 (BY MAIL) As follows: 16 I placed such envelopes, with postage thereon prepaid, in the United States mail at 17 Santa Monica, California. 18 I am “readily familiar” with the firm’s practice of collecting and processing corre- spondence for mailing. Under that practice, it would be deposited with the U.S. 19 Postal Service on that same day, with postage thereon fully prepaid, at Santa Monica, California, in the ordinary course of business. I am aware that, on motion of the party 20 served, service is presumed invalid if the postal cancellation or postage meter date is more than one day after the date of deposit for mailing in this affidavit. 21 (BY PERSONAL SERVICE) I caused such envelope to be delivered by hand to 22 the attorney at the offices of the addressee. 23 (STATE) I declare, under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California, that the above is true and correct. 24 Executed on January 28, 2019, at Santa Monica, California. 25 26 27 Jose Castro 28