Viasphere International , Inc v. Vardaryan

Filing 292

ORDER by Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd granting in part and denying in part 284 Viasphere's Motion to Enforce Judgment; denying as moot 291 defendant's Motion to Appear by Telephone. 5/16/2017 motion hearing is vacated. (hrllc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/12/2017)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 SAN JOSE DIVISION United States District Court Northern District of California 11 VIASPHERE INTERNATIONAL , INC, 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. 14 ARAM VARDARYAN, 15 Defendant. 16 Case No.5:12-cv-01536-HRL ORDER (1) GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART VIASPHERE’S MOTION TO ENFORCE JUDGMENT; AND (2) DENYING AS MOOT MOTION FOR TELEPHONE APPEARANCE Re: Dkt. Nos. 284, 291 17 Viasphere International, Inc. (Viasphere) moves to enforce judgment re rescission. The 18 19 matter is deemed suitable for determination without oral argument.1 Civ. L.R. 7-1(b). Upon 20 consideration of the moving and responding papers, Viasphere’s motion is granted in part and 21 denied in part as follows: 1. Vardanyan/Aroustamian do not offer arguments refuting Viasphere’s contentions that 22 23 the shares of common stock are subject to certain restrictions and conditions re transfer, 24 which were not met here. Moreover, there is no dispute as to rescission, and 25 Vardanyan has no objection to the cancellation of the common stock. Accordingly, 26 Aroustamian has no enforceable lien as to the common stock, and he is not a 27 28 1 Defendant’s request to appear by phone at the motion hearing is denied as moot. 1 shareholder or any form of equity or other claim or interest holder relative to 2 Viasphere’s common stock. 3 2. Tender has been made. See generally Magnus v. Morrison, 93 Cal. App.2d 1, 3, 208 4 P.2d 407, 408 (1949) (“Tender is an offer of performance, not performance itself.”). 5 The record indicates that the $1,713 is ready and available at Artashes Kakoyan’s 6 office, and has been for quite some time. There is no indication that Vardanyan ever 7 objected to the form of the tender, so any objections have been waived. See generally 8 Hunt v. Mahoney, 82 Cal. App.2d 540, 546, 187 P.2d 43 (1947) (“A failure to object to 9 the form of the tender constituted a waiver.”). As discussed above, Vardanyan does not object to the cancellation of the common stock, which apparently has already been 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 10 accomplished. Accordingly, Vardanyan is no longer the owner of any shares of 12 common stock in Viasphere. 13 3. Within 10 days from the date of this order, Vardanyan and his agents shall (a) deliver 14 to Viasphere the share certificates for the common shares; and (b) file appropriate 15 termination or amendment statements in Washington D.C. and wherever else any 16 financing statements or notices of lien were filed as to the common shares. 17 4. Viasphere’s request for sanctions is denied. 18 SO ORDERED. 19 Dated: May 12, 2017 20 21 HOWARD R. LLOYD United States Magistrate Judge 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 1 5:12-cv-01536-HRL Notice has been electronically mailed to: 2 Ara Aroustamian 3 Armen Shaghzo 4 Christopher Joseph Sargent 5 Fenn C. Horton , III fhorton@pahl-mccay.com, jrogers@pahl-mccay.com, laustin@pahlmccay.com, mgarcia@pahl-mccay.com 6 7 ara@lawaa.com as@shaghzolaw.com Helene Anastasia Simvoulakis laustin@pahl-mccay.com csargent@computerlaw.com, ecf@computerlaw.com hsimvoulakis@pahl-mccay.com, echavarria@pahl-mccay.com, 8 9 Servando R. Sandoval ssandoval@pahl-mccay.com, echavarria@pahl-mccay.com Sonia Sanjit Shah 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 10 Stephen Donald Pahl spahl@pahl-mccay.com, hsimvoulakis@pahl-mccay.com, laustin@pahlmccay.com, tmeek@pahl-mccay.com 12 13 Varand Vartanian sshah@pahl-mccay.com Varand@lawaa.com 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?