Gumrikyan v. Kesheshyan

Filed 9/19/06 Gumrikyan v. Kesheshyan CA2/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

SARKIS GUMRIKYAN et al.,

Plaintiffs and Appellants,

KHACHIK KESHESHYAN et al.,

Defendants and Respondents.

B191462

(Los Angeles County

Super. Ct. No. EC036378)

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Charles W. Stoll, Judge. Dismissed.

No appearance for Plaintiffs and Appellants.

Michael P. Rubin & Associates and Michael P. Rubin for Defendants and Respondents.

_________________________

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

Sarkis Gumrikyan, etc. (plaintiffs) are attempting to appeal an order entered by the trial court approving sale by the court appointed receiver of the receivership real property. The subject of the appeal is substantially identical to a prior appeal in which plaintiffs attempted to appeal an order giving the receiver authority to sell the receivership business and real property. We granted the motion to dismiss the prior appeal and dismissed the petition for writ of supersedeas as moot. We denied the motion for sanctions, but awarded costs to defendants.

In connection with the current appeal, plaintiffs filed a second petition for writ of supersedeas. As in the prior matter, defendants Khachik Kesheshyan and Hamlet Derhovanessian (defendants) filed a motion to dismiss the appeal and requested sanctions and attorney fees.

DISCUSSION

1. Factual and Procedural Background.

Plaintiffs filed this action seeking dissolution of the partnership, an accounting, rescission of contract, and tortious interference with prospective business advantage. The complaint alleged that defendants induced plaintiffs to enter into a business relationship to develop a banquet hall to be known as â€

Description	plaintiffs are attempting to appeal an order entered by the trial court approving sale by the court appointed receiver of the receivership real property. The subject of the appeal is substantially identical to a prior appeal in which plaintiffs attempted to appeal an order giving the receiver authority to sell the receivership business and real property. Court granted the motion to dismiss the prior appeal and dismissed the petition for writ of supersedeas as moot. Court denied the motion for sanctions, but awarded costs to defendants. In connection with the current appeal, plaintiffs filed a second petition for writ of supersedeas. As in the prior matter, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the appeal and requested sanctions and attorney fees.
Rating	0/5 1 2 3 4 5 0/5 based on 0 votes.