On May 26, 2022 a
Motion-Secondary
was filed
involving a dispute between
Av Automotive, Inc.,
Vartanian, Arsen H,
Portillo, Edgar,
and
Does 1-60,
Does 1 Through 35,
Vartanian, Vahak,
for Fraud Unlimited
in the District Court of San Bernardino County.
Preview
‘ ’
Jgn 28.20g3 4:34pm DaVid L. PrinCG‘ ‘q.
4
“‘2342619 p2
\/ \J
F 5
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
DAVID L. PRINCE. ESQ, #1 13599 COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
SAN BERNA’RmNo DISTRICT
MILES L. PRINCE, ESQ, #298823
EVAN A. CLARK, ESQ, #309697 JUN 2 8
,
2023
1912 East Vernon Avenue, Suite 100
Los Angeles, California 90058
Tel. 323/234 _ 2989 Fax. 323/234 _ 2619 BY xedfi
LAURA BRUCK’ DEPUTY
Attorney for Defendant, VAHAK VARTANIAN
\OOONQUIA
SUPERIOR COURT 0F THE STATE 0F CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
1o
11 ARSEN H. VARTANIAN, cl u;fl$fi1‘i0.fi L1VbBZZlUb97
)
12 Plaintiff, DEFENDANT’S REPLY IN FURTHER
)
) SUPPORT OF THE DEMURRER TO THE
13 vs. FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
)
)
14 VAHAK VARTANIAN, ) DATE: July 6, 2023
) TIME: 8:30 A.M.
15 Defendants. DEPT: S33
)
)
16
17
18 Defendant, Vahak Vartanian, (“Defendant” or “Son”) submits the following
reply to
19 the opposition (the “Opposition”) to the demuner (the “Demurrcr”) to thc first amended
20 complaint (tho “FAC”) of Plaintiffs, Arsen H. Vartanian (“Father”) and AV Automative, Inc.
21 (the “Corporation”) (together, “Plaintiffs”).
22 OVERVIEW
23 The Demurrer sorts itself relatively neatly into two buckets: the Corporation’s
24 capacity to bring any claims whatsoever, and Father’s failure t0
adequately plead his own
25 individual claims. The Opposition fails to identify any-Icason wiry'tiw‘fiernun’er simuld not '
26 be sustained as to 'bofirivibTE'GVéfflie prposmon talled Its burden to explain how fithher
27 amendment is now warranted.
28 Defendant’s Reply in Further Support
l
anhr DPWMLE-r‘dflw
ONMHV fi
VlNHOa‘
Z Nflf
€202 6
Document Filed Date
June 28, 2023
Case Filing Date
May 26, 2022
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Preview
‘ ’ Jgn 28.20g3 4:34pm DaVid L. PrinCG‘ ‘q. 4 “‘2342619 p2 \/ \J F 5 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA DAVID L. PRINCE. ESQ, #1 13599 COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO SAN BERNA’RmNo DISTRICT MILES L. PRINCE, ESQ, #298823 EVAN A. CLARK, ESQ, #309697 JUN 2 8 , 2023 1912 East Vernon Avenue, Suite 100 Los Angeles, California 90058 Tel. 323/234 _ 2989 Fax. 323/234 _ 2619 BY xedfi LAURA BRUCK’ DEPUTY Attorney for Defendant, VAHAK VARTANIAN \OOONQUIA SUPERIOR COURT 0F THE STATE 0F CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO 1o 11 ARSEN H. VARTANIAN, cl u;fl$fi1‘i0.fi L1VbBZZlUb97 ) 12 Plaintiff, DEFENDANT’S REPLY IN FURTHER ) ) SUPPORT OF THE DEMURRER TO THE 13 vs. FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT ) ) 14 VAHAK VARTANIAN, ) DATE: July 6, 2023 ) TIME: 8:30 A.M. 15 Defendants. DEPT: S33 ) ) 16 17 18 Defendant, Vahak Vartanian, (“Defendant” or “Son”) submits the following reply to 19 the opposition (the “Opposition”) to the demuner (the “Demurrcr”) to thc first amended 20 complaint (tho “FAC”) of Plaintiffs, Arsen H. Vartanian (“Father”) and AV Automative, Inc. 21 (the “Corporation”) (together, “Plaintiffs”). 22 OVERVIEW 23 The Demurrer sorts itself relatively neatly into two buckets: the Corporation’s 24 capacity to bring any claims whatsoever, and Father’s failure t0 adequately plead his own 25 individual claims. The Opposition fails to identify any-Icason wiry'tiw‘fiernun’er simuld not ' 26 be sustained as to 'bofirivibTE'GVéfflie prposmon talled Its burden to explain how fithher 27 amendment is now warranted. 28 Defendant’s Reply in Further Support l anhr DPWMLE-r‘dflw ONMHV fi VlNHOa‘ Z Nflf €202 6