Janik Galstian vs. Rajiv Thanaratnam

Case Background

On March 22, 2022, Janik Galstian filed an auto negligence lawsuit against Rajiv Thanaratnam after a rear-end motor vehicle accident at an intersection in California. The case was filed in the California Superior Court, Los Angeles County.

Judges Lawrence Cho, Anne Hwang, Michelle C. Kim, and Michael E. Whitaker presided over the case. [Case number: 22STCV10002]

Cause

On April 14, 2020, Plaintiff Janik Galstian stopped his vehicle at a red light at the intersection of San Fernando Boulevard and Providencia Avenue in Burbank, California. While waiting for the light to change, Defendant Rajiv Thanaratnam unexpectedly crashed into the rear of Mr. Galstian’s vehicle. The impact caused Mr. Galstian to be violently jolted back and forth several times. After the collision, Defendant immediately fled the scene, leaving Plaintiff injured, shocked, and helpless. Fortunately, a witness was able to take a photo of Defendant’s Honda Civic, capturing the license plate.

Injury

As a direct result of Defendant’s actions, Plaintiff suffered bodily injuries. These injuries caused Plaintiff to experience pain and suffering. She has to undergo chiropractic and medical treatment for the injuries she sustained.

Damages

As a result of the injuries, Plaintiff incurred medical and related expenses. In the future, Plaintiff will continue to face such expenses, causing further financial harm.

Additionally, Defendant’s actions directly caused damage to Plaintiff’s personal property. As a result, Plaintiff was unable to use the property, leading to further harm.

Furthermore, by fleeing the scene of the collision, Defendant’s conduct caused Plaintiff significant damages, including financial hardship, emotional distress, and oppression.

Plaintiff sought compensatory damages under Code of Civil Procedure Section 3333 for the harm caused. Plaintiff also requested general damages for pain, suffering, and emotional distress, both past and future, as proven at trial. Additionally, Plaintiff sought prejudgment interest under Civil Code § 3291, exemplary damages, and reimbursement for all costs incurred. Finally, Plaintiff requested any other relief the Court deemed just and appropriate to ensure fair and complete compensation.

Key Arguments and Proceedings

Legal Representation

  • Plaintiff(s): Janik Galstian
    • Counsel for Plaintiff(s): Vahag Matevosian
  • Defendant(s): Arun Ryan Thanaratnam
    • Counsel for Defendant(s): Jonathan Z. Morris

Claims

Plaintiff brought claims against Defendant for negligence, negligence per se, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and negligent infliction of emotional distress.

Defense

Defendant Arun Ryan Thanaratnam denied the allegations in the complaint and argued that Plaintiff sustained no damages due to Defendant’s actions. The defense asserted that Plaintiff’s own negligence contributed to the incident and any injuries, thus limiting or barring recovery. Additionally, Defendant claimed that the statute of limitations and other legal provisions precluded Plaintiff’s claims. Defendant further argued that if any damages were proven, they were caused by third parties, not Defendant and that any recovery should be limited under relevant laws.

Jury Verdict

On May 13, 2024, the jury found that Defendant’s actions were a substantial factor in causing harm to Plaintiff. The jury awarded $15,000 in past non-economic damages in this auto negligence case.

On June 25, 2024, Hon. Lawrence H. Cho passed a final judgment consistent with the verdict.

Court Documents:

Available upon request