arrow left
arrow right
  • SAUL LOPEZ ET AL VS SHANT ARIS NAZARYAN ET AL Motor Vehicle - Personal Injury/Property Damage/Wrongful Death (General Jurisdiction) document preview
  • SAUL LOPEZ ET AL VS SHANT ARIS NAZARYAN ET AL Motor Vehicle - Personal Injury/Property Damage/Wrongful Death (General Jurisdiction) document preview
						
                                

Preview

Electronically FILED by Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles on 10/16/2019 03:37 PM Sherri R. Carter, Executive Officer/Clerk of Court, by L. Coreas,Deputy Clerk JONATHAN H. COLMAN (SBN 93652) DENNIS S. NEWITT (SBN 243276) COLMAN LAW G P 500 North Brand Boulevard, Suite 2200 Glendale, California 9120. TELEPHONE FACSIMILE é 818)546-8686 8 18)546-8787 Attorneys for Defendants SHANT ARIS NAZARYAN; RAZMIK NAZARYAN; MARINE NAZARYAN SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES — SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE 10 11 SAUL LOPEZ; and ADELA LOPEZ, Case No.: BC678211 12 Complaint Filed: 10/2/2017 Plaintiffs, Assigned to Dept. 4B — Spring Street 13 VS. DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO 14 PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION IN LIMINE NUMBER 9 TO EXCLUDE MENTION OF ka 15 SHANT ARIS NAZARYAN; RAZMIK PLAINTIFFS’ COUNSEL’S FIRM NAME NAZARYAN; and DOES 1 to 25 Inclusive, OR ITS INDIVIDUAL ATTORNEYS 16 Defendants. Trial Date: November 19, 2019 17 18 19 20 Defendants SHANT NAZARYAN, RAZMIK NAZARYAN and MARINE NAZARYAN 21 hereby oppose Plaintiffs’ Motion in Limine Number 9 to exclude mention of plaintiffs’ counsel’s 22 firm name or its individual attorneys, as follows. 23 During the course of expert and treating health care provider depositions in this case, defense 24 counsel made the reasonable inquiry of these witnesses whether they had worked with or were 25 retained by the Vaziri firm, or were working with the firm on cases currently. Some of the witnesses 26 have indeed worked with plaintiffs’ counsel on other matters, or have other cases currently with the 27 firm. This is on-the-record testimony which defendants are entitled to inquire about at trial, so it 28 may be that plaintiffs’ counsel’s firm would be mentioned in the course of cross-examining these 1 “ DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION IN LIMINE NUMBER 9