Case Background
Gayane Barsegyan lived in Los Angeles County. On November 1, 2021, she walked along Burbank Boulevard in Valley Village. At around 6:45 p.m., she approached a business property located at 12032 Burbank Boulevard. The property belonged to Adar Properties, LLC. The City of Los Angeles managed the surrounding sidewalk.
Cause
As she walked, Barsegyan tripped on a defective, uneven sidewalk. The pavement was cracked and raised, creating a dangerous walking surface. The City of Los Angeles controlled and inspected the sidewalk but failed to repair or warn of the hazard. Adar Properties, as the property owner, also failed to maintain or warn about the dangerous condition. Barsegyan believed both parties knew or should have known of the defect. Their failure to act created foreseeable and unreasonable risks to pedestrians.
Injury
Barsegyan fell forward and sustained serious injuries. She required medical treatment and incurred related expenses. The accident caused her physical harm and distress. She alleged her injuries were a direct result of the unsafe condition of the sidewalk and the negligence of both defendants.
Damages
Barsegyan sought general damages for pain and suffering. She claimed compensation for her medical expenses and future treatment costs. She also requested recovery of interest, attorney’s fees, and litigation costs. She argued the defendants’ negligence left her with financial and personal burdens.
Key Arguments and Proceedings
Legal Representation
Plaintiff(s): Gayane Barsegyan
Counsel for Plaintiff: Sam Nordean
Defendant(s): Adar Properties LLC | City of Los Angeles, a municipal entity | Moes 1 through 50 inclusive
Counsel for Defendants: Wakako Urtiani
Claims
Barsegyan brought three claims. First, she sued the City of Los Angeles for maintaining a dangerous public property under Government Code §835. Second, she claimed premises liability against Adar Properties, LLC for failing to maintain a safe sidewalk. Third, she asserted general negligence against Adar Properties, LLC for breaching their duty of care. She asked the court to hold both defendants jointly and severally liable.
Defense
In its answer, Adar Properties, LLC entered a general denial under California Code of Civil Procedure § 431.30(d), rejecting all allegations and disputing that the plaintiff suffered any injury or damages caused by its conduct. The defendant further asserted that the complaint failed to state a valid cause of action.
Adar Properties raised numerous affirmative defenses, including that the plaintiff failed to exercise ordinary care and to mitigate damages, that third parties or unforeseeable intervening acts caused the alleged harm, and that the claims were barred by statutes of limitation, laches, estoppel, waiver, and unclean hands. The defendant also argued that the alleged conditions were open and obvious, beyond its ownership or control, or the result of pre-existing injuries, inevitable accidents, or acts of God. In essence, Adar maintained it acted with reasonable care, bore no liability for plaintiff’s injuries, and that any recovery should be barred or substantially reduced.
Settlement
The case was resolved through settlement in July 2024, shortly before the scheduled trial date of August 5, 2024. Plaintiff’s counsel, Sam Nordean, filed a Notice of Settlement of Entire Case with the Los Angeles Superior Court, confirming that the parties had reached an agreement. The settlement was reported as conditional, with dismissal to follow upon completion of certain terms by January 2025. This resolution allowed the parties to avoid further litigation, including a pending motion for summary judgment and trial proceedings.
Court Documents
Court documents are available for purchase upon request at [email protected]
