On October 03, 2012 a
Order
was filed
involving a dispute between
Mardikian, George,
Mardikian, Lillian,
and
Wawanesa General Insurance Company,
Wawanesa General Insurane Company,
for (06) Unlimited Breach of Contract/Warranty
in the District Court of San Mateo County.
Preview
FILED
SAhl MATEO COUNTY
Au 7 2013
E ~8
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN MATEO
10 GEORGE MARDIKIAN Case No. CIV 517132
11 Plaintiff, [K==-= =- '] ORDER
DEFENDANT WAWANKSAGENERAL
GRANTING
12 INSURANCE COMPANY'S MOTION
TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO
13 WAWANESA GENERAL INSURANCE QUESTIONS NOT ANSWERED AT
COMPANY, a California corporation; and DEPOSITION
14 DOES 1 to 50, inclusive,
Date: July 15, 2013
15 Defendants. Time: 9:00 a.m,
Dept: Law and Motion
16
Date Filed: October 3, 2012
17 Trial Date: November 12, 2013
18
19
20
21 After considering all papers filed in connection with the motion, having heard the
arguments of counsel, and good cause appearing therefor:
23 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant Wawanesa General Insurance Company's
24 Motion to Compel Further Responses to deposition questions is GRANTED. Objections based on
relevance alone are improper in the course of deposition testimony. During a deposition,
relevance objections should be held in abeyance until an attempt is made to use the testimony at
trial. Stewart v.Colonial 8'estern Agency, Inc. (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 1006, 1015.
I
IPROPOSED1 ORDER COMPELLING RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS NOT ANSWERED AT DEPO
+~
O~+~
r~|-p
EPr
+
Defendant has also demonstrated that the questions are relevant to the underlying action.
First, as to questions to provide information relating to his 1997 Chevrolet Camaro vehicle, they
are relevant as to whether plaintiff's claim is excluded by the fraud and misrepresentation portion
of plaintiffs insurance policy. Defendant's 9th affirmative defense asserts that plaintiffmaterially
breached the terms and conditions of the policy by misrepresenting that the Cadillac Eldorado
was a replacement vehicle for his Chevrolet Camaro at the time he added it to the policy and also
after the denial of his claim in an effort to obtain coverage for the loss. Second, as to questions to
provide information relating to the storage of his vehicle, they are relevant to defendant's 3rd
affirmative defense as to whether plaintiff mitigated his damages. Third, as to questions to
10 provide information regarding the three other legal claims he was making for damages arising out
of the vehicle fire, they are relevant as payments by one tortfeasor in the settlement of claims also
12 prosecuted against an alleged joint tortfeasor entitles the non-settling defendant to an offset
13 against any verdict or judgment subsequently entered against that non-settling defendant. Plaintiff
14 is to provide additional responses to these questions by July 29, 2013.
15 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant's Request for Sanctions isGRANTED in the
16 amount of $ 500.00 to be paid by July 29, 2013.
17 IT IS SO ORDERED.
18
19
20 DATED:
UDGE O~E SUPERIOR COURT
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
fPROPOSEDJ ORDER COMPELLING RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS NOT ANSWERED AT DEPO
George Mardikian v. Wawanesa General Ins. Co., et al. Case No. CIV 517132
I i
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN MATEO
PROOF OF SERVICE
C.C.P. $ 1013a, C.R.C. 2.300, et seq.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
) ss.
7 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO )
8 I am employed in the aforesaid County, State of California. 1 am over the age of 18 years and not
a party to the within action; my business address is16516 Bernardo Center Drive, Suite 210, San Diego,
9
California 92128.
10
On July 16, 2013, I served the following document(s) described as:
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT WAWANKSAGENKRAI.
12 INSURANCE COMPANY'S MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS
NOT ANSWERED AT DEPOSITION
13
on the interested parties in this action by:
14
[X] Placing the original X a true copy thereof, enclosed in a sealed envelope,
15
addressed as follows.
16 Facsimile transmission as stated below.
[ ]
17 Counsel for Plaintiff
Mantle S. Day, Esq.
18
Day Law Offices
1235 Casa Palermo Circle
19
Henderson, Nevada 89011-3144
T: (208) 280-3766
20
F: (800) 219-2901
21
msdavesa@aoLcom
22 [X] 'BY MAIL:1 am "readily familiar" with the firm's practice of collection and processing
correspondence for mailing. Under that practice, it would be deposited with the United States
23 Postal Service on that same day, with postage thereon fully prepaid at San Diego, California in
24 the ordinary course of business. 1 am aware that on motion of the party served, service is
presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one day after
25 date of deposit for mailing an affidavit.
26
27
Proof o( Service
[X] BY E-MAII'omsdavesa@aol.corn (Courtesy Copy Only.)
[X] STATE: I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California
that the above is true and correct.
3
Executed on July 16, 2013, at San Diego, California.
Guerrero
Q Jan
10
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
Proof of Service
Document Filed Date
August 07, 2013
Case Filing Date
October 03, 2012
Category
(06) Unlimited Breach of Contract/Warranty
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Preview
FILED SAhl MATEO COUNTY Au 7 2013 E ~8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN MATEO 10 GEORGE MARDIKIAN Case No. CIV 517132 11 Plaintiff, [K==-= =- '] ORDER DEFENDANT WAWANKSAGENERAL GRANTING 12 INSURANCE COMPANY'S MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO 13 WAWANESA GENERAL INSURANCE QUESTIONS NOT ANSWERED AT COMPANY, a California corporation; and DEPOSITION 14 DOES 1 to 50, inclusive, Date: July 15, 2013 15 Defendants. Time: 9:00 a.m, Dept: Law and Motion 16 Date Filed: October 3, 2012 17 Trial Date: November 12, 2013 18 19 20 21 After considering all papers filed in connection with the motion, having heard the arguments of counsel, and good cause appearing therefor: 23 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant Wawanesa General Insurance Company's 24 Motion to Compel Further Responses to deposition questions is GRANTED. Objections based on relevance alone are improper in the course of deposition testimony. During a deposition, relevance objections should be held in abeyance until an attempt is made to use the testimony at trial. Stewart v.Colonial 8'estern Agency, Inc. (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 1006, 1015. I IPROPOSED1 ORDER COMPELLING RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS NOT ANSWERED AT DEPO +~ O~+~ r~|-p EPr + Defendant has also demonstrated that the questions are relevant to the underlying action. First, as to questions to provide information relating to his 1997 Chevrolet Camaro vehicle, they are relevant as to whether plaintiff's claim is excluded by the fraud and misrepresentation portion of plaintiffs insurance policy. Defendant's 9th affirmative defense asserts that plaintiffmaterially breached the terms and conditions of the policy by misrepresenting that the Cadillac Eldorado was a replacement vehicle for his Chevrolet Camaro at the time he added it to the policy and also after the denial of his claim in an effort to obtain coverage for the loss. Second, as to questions to provide information relating to the storage of his vehicle, they are relevant to defendant's 3rd affirmative defense as to whether plaintiff mitigated his damages. Third, as to questions to 10 provide information regarding the three other legal claims he was making for damages arising out of the vehicle fire, they are relevant as payments by one tortfeasor in the settlement of claims also 12 prosecuted against an alleged joint tortfeasor entitles the non-settling defendant to an offset 13 against any verdict or judgment subsequently entered against that non-settling defendant. Plaintiff 14 is to provide additional responses to these questions by July 29, 2013. 15 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant's Request for Sanctions isGRANTED in the 16 amount of $ 500.00 to be paid by July 29, 2013. 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. 18 19 20 DATED: UDGE O~E SUPERIOR COURT 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 fPROPOSEDJ ORDER COMPELLING RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS NOT ANSWERED AT DEPO George Mardikian v. Wawanesa General Ins. Co., et al. Case No. CIV 517132 I i SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN MATEO PROOF OF SERVICE C.C.P. $ 1013a, C.R.C. 2.300, et seq. STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ss. 7 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO ) 8 I am employed in the aforesaid County, State of California. 1 am over the age of 18 years and not a party to the within action; my business address is16516 Bernardo Center Drive, Suite 210, San Diego, 9 California 92128. 10 On July 16, 2013, I served the following document(s) described as: [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT WAWANKSAGENKRAI. 12 INSURANCE COMPANY'S MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS NOT ANSWERED AT DEPOSITION 13 on the interested parties in this action by: 14 [X] Placing the original X a true copy thereof, enclosed in a sealed envelope, 15 addressed as follows. 16 Facsimile transmission as stated below. [ ] 17 Counsel for Plaintiff Mantle S. Day, Esq. 18 Day Law Offices 1235 Casa Palermo Circle 19 Henderson, Nevada 89011-3144 T: (208) 280-3766 20 F: (800) 219-2901 21 msdavesa@aoLcom 22 [X] 'BY MAIL:1 am "readily familiar" with the firm's practice of collection and processing correspondence for mailing. Under that practice, it would be deposited with the United States 23 Postal Service on that same day, with postage thereon fully prepaid at San Diego, California in 24 the ordinary course of business. 1 am aware that on motion of the party served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one day after 25 date of deposit for mailing an affidavit. 26 27 Proof o( Service [X] BY E-MAII'omsdavesa@aol.corn (Courtesy Copy Only.) [X] STATE: I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and correct. 3 Executed on July 16, 2013, at San Diego, California. Guerrero Q Jan 10 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Proof of Service