# 10 TENTATIVE RULING 9:15 a.m., Thursday, April 1, 2021
VAYIGASH LTD. v. RUBEN DOKHANIAN, et al. [20STCV15264]
RULING ON DEMURRER OF DEFENDANT RUBEN DOKHANIAN TO PLAINTIFF’S FAC; and MOTION TO STRIKE
MEET & CONFER: DEFECTIVE- Counsel’s declaration doesn’t show that counsel met & conferred in person or by telephone
BACKGROUND:
TIMELINE:
On or about October 3, 2017: Plaintiff, an Isreali corp., allegedly entered into an oral agreement with Dokhanian whereby Plaintiff would purchase
certain real property in Isreal from defendant Dokhanian (a California
resident) and his nieces for $100,000. Defendant Shaul Basaz assisted Dokhanian in negotiating the Agreement. The Property was jointly owned by Dokhanian and his nieces, with Dokhanian holding an undivided 50% in the Property and each of his Nieces each owning an undivided 25% interest in the Property. The Property was adjacent to land that Plaintiff also intended to purchase, and Plaintiff allegedly “repeatedly informed Dokhanian
Hearing Date
April 01, 2021
Type
Other Real Property (not eminent domain, landlord/tenant, foreclosure) (General Jurisdiction)
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
# 10 TENTATIVE RULING 9:15 a.m., Thursday, April 1, 2021
VAYIGASH LTD. v. RUBEN DOKHANIAN, et al. [20STCV15264]
RULING ON DEMURRER OF DEFENDANT RUBEN DOKHANIAN TO PLAINTIFF’S FAC; and MOTION TO STRIKE
MEET & CONFER: DEFECTIVE- Counsel’s declaration doesn’t show that counsel met & conferred in person or by telephone
BACKGROUND:
TIMELINE:
On or about October 3, 2017: Plaintiff, an Isreali corp., allegedly entered into an oral agreement with Dokhanian whereby Plaintiff would purchase
certain real property in Isreal from defendant Dokhanian (a California
resident) and his nieces for $100,000. Defendant Shaul Basaz assisted Dokhanian in negotiating the Agreement. The Property was jointly owned by Dokhanian and his nieces, with Dokhanian holding an undivided 50% in the Property and each of his Nieces each owning an undivided 25% interest in the Property. The Property was adjacent to land that Plaintiff also intended to purchase, and Plaintiff allegedly “repeatedly informed Dokhanian