Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Grigor Marsikyan v. Porsche Cars North America

January 30, 2012

GRIGOR MARSIKYAN
v.
PORSCHE CARS NORTH AMERICA, INC., ET AL.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: The Honorable S. James Otero, United States District Judge

Priority Send Enter Closed JS-5/JS-6 Scan Only

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

PRESENT: THE HONORABLE S. JAMES OTERO, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Victor Paul Cruz Courtroom Clerk

COUNSEL PRESENT FOR PLAINTIFF:

Not Present

Not Present Court Reporter

COUNSEL PRESENT FOR DEFENDANT:

Not Present

PROCEEDINGS (in chambers): ORDER REMANDING CASE TO LOS ANGELES COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT [Docket No. 1]

On November 10, 2011, Defendant Porsche Cars North America, Inc. ("Defendant") removed this action from Los Angeles County Superior Court. (Notice of Removal ("Notice"), ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff Grigor Marsikyan ("Plaintiff") filed his Complaint in state court on September 28, 2011. (Notice Ex. 1 ("Compl.").) For the following reasons, the Court REMANDS this action to Los Angeles County Superior Court.

PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Plaintiff's Complaint alleges two causes of action against Defendant: general negligence and products liability. (Compl. 3.) On November 25, 2010, Plaintiff drove his 2003 Porsche Cayenne on the 210 Freeway near Carnelian Road and subsequently experienced a motor vehicle collision. (Compl. 4.) Plaintiff alleges that the car's airbag did not deploy upon collision. (Compl. 4.) Plaintiff argues that Defendant had a duty to ensure that his vehicle's features were in proper working condition and that Defendant breached this duty by failing to provide a car with a functioning airbag. (Compl. 4.)

As a result of the collision, Plaintiff contends that he suffered a loss of wages, hospital and medical expenses, and general damages. (Compl. 3.) The Complaint does not state any numerical figure regarding the amount of damages sought. (Compl. 3.) Under Question 14 on the Complaint form, which asks for the Plaintiff's prayer for relief, Plaintiff only requested that the amount of compensatory damages be "according to proof." (Compl. 3.) On November 9, 2011, Defendant filed an answer in state court, listing nineteen affirmative defenses in response to Plaintiff's allegations. (Notice Ex. 1 ("Answer").) On November 10, ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.