Search

Attributes

This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 03/17/2021 at 04:58:19 (UTC).

RAJEEV MALHOTRA VS EFRAIN NAVARRO

Case Summary

On 11/28/2018 RAJEEV MALHOTRA filed a Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury lawsuit against EFRAIN NAVARRO. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Spring Street Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is JON R. TAKASUGI. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *******4350

  • Filing Date:

    11/28/2018

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Spring Street Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Judge

JON R. TAKASUGI

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

MALHOTRA RAJEEV

Defendant

NAVARRO EFRAIN

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

LIBMAN MICHAEL JACOB

Defendant Attorney

MAHLSTEDT JOY L

 

Court Documents

Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion to Compel PLAINTIFF'S COMPLIANCE WITH DEMAN...)

3/15/2021: Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion to Compel PLAINTIFF'S COMPLIANCE WITH DEMAN...)

Ex Parte Application (name extension) - Ex Parte Application EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDER CONTINUING TRIAL DATE; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATIONS OF JOY L. MAHLSTEDT, ESQ. AND MAI

12/1/2020: Ex Parte Application (name extension) - Ex Parte Application EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDER CONTINUING TRIAL DATE; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATIONS OF JOY L. MAHLSTEDT, ESQ. AND MAI

Opposition (name extension) - Opposition TO DEFENDANTS EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL; DECLARATION OF MICHAEL J. LIBMAN

12/2/2020: Opposition (name extension) - Opposition TO DEFENDANTS EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL; DECLARATION OF MICHAEL J. LIBMAN

Motion to Compel (name extension) - Motion to Compel MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF COMPLIANCE WITH DEMAND FOR PHYSICAL EXAMINATION

12/8/2020: Motion to Compel (name extension) - Motion to Compel MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF COMPLIANCE WITH DEMAND FOR PHYSICAL EXAMINATION

Opposition (name extension) - Opposition PLAINTIFFS OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF TO SUBMIT TO DEFENSE MEDICAL EXAMINATION; REQUEST FOR RELIEF FROM WAIVER; DECLARATION OF MICHA

1/12/2021: Opposition (name extension) - Opposition PLAINTIFFS OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF TO SUBMIT TO DEFENSE MEDICAL EXAMINATION; REQUEST FOR RELIEF FROM WAIVER; DECLARATION OF MICHA

Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion to Compel PLAINTIFF'S COMPLIANCE WITH DEMAN...)

1/26/2021: Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion to Compel PLAINTIFF'S COMPLIANCE WITH DEMAN...)

Stipulation and Order (name extension) - Stipulation and Order Proposed Order And Stipulation To Continue Trial Fsc And Related Motion/discovery Dates Personal Injury Courts Only Central District

7/10/2020: Stipulation and Order (name extension) - Stipulation and Order Proposed Order And Stipulation To Continue Trial Fsc And Related Motion/discovery Dates Personal Injury Courts Only Central District

Stipulation and Order (name extension) - Stipulation and Order to Continue Trial and Related Motion/Discovery Dates

3/16/2020: Stipulation and Order (name extension) - Stipulation and Order to Continue Trial and Related Motion/Discovery Dates

Summons - Summons on Complaint

11/30/2018: Summons - Summons on Complaint

Civil Case Cover Sheet - Civil Case Cover Sheet

11/30/2018: Civil Case Cover Sheet - Civil Case Cover Sheet

Answer - Answer

2/25/2019: Answer - Answer

Demand for Jury Trial - Demand for Jury Trial

2/25/2019: Demand for Jury Trial - Demand for Jury Trial

Complaint

11/30/2018: Complaint

Civil Case Cover Sheet - Civil Case Cover Sheet

11/28/2018: Civil Case Cover Sheet - Civil Case Cover Sheet

Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case - Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case

11/28/2018: Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case - Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case

Summons - Summons on Complaint

11/28/2018: Summons - Summons on Complaint

Complaint - Complaint

11/28/2018: Complaint - Complaint

15 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 07/27/2021
  • Hearing07/27/2021 at 08:30 AM in Department 25 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Jury Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/17/2021
  • Hearing05/17/2021 at 10:00 AM in Department 25 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Hearing on Motion to Compel (name extension)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/15/2021
  • DocketHearing on Motion to Compel PLAINTIFF'S COMPLIANCE WITH DEMAND FOR PHYSICAL EXAMINATION scheduled for 05/17/2021 at 10:00 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/15/2021
  • DocketNotice of Ruling; Filed by: EFRAIN NAVARRO (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/15/2021
  • DocketMinute Order (Hearing on Motion to Compel PLAINTIFF'S COMPLIANCE WITH DEMAN...)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/15/2021
  • DocketOn the Court's own motion, Hearing on Motion to Compel PLAINTIFF'S COMPLIANCE WITH DEMAND FOR PHYSICAL EXAMINATION scheduled for 03/15/2021 at 10:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25 Held - Continued was rescheduled to 05/17/2021 10:00 AM

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/16/2021
  • DocketSeparate Statement; Filed by: EFRAIN NAVARRO (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/26/2021
  • DocketHearing on Motion to Compel PLAINTIFF'S COMPLIANCE WITH DEMAND FOR PHYSICAL EXAMINATION scheduled for 03/15/2021 at 10:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/26/2021
  • DocketMinute Order (Hearing on Motion to Compel PLAINTIFF'S COMPLIANCE WITH DEMAN...)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/26/2021
  • DocketOn the Court's own motion, Hearing on Motion to Compel PLAINTIFF'S COMPLIANCE WITH DEMAND FOR PHYSICAL EXAMINATION scheduled for 01/26/2021 at 10:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25 Held - Continued was rescheduled to 03/15/2021 10:30 AM

    Read MoreRead Less
27 More Docket Entries
  • 11/30/2018
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by: RAJEEV MALHOTRA (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/30/2018
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by: RAJEEV MALHOTRA (Plaintiff); As to: EFRAIN NAVARRO (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/29/2018
  • DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 05/27/2020 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/29/2018
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service scheduled for 12/01/2021 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/29/2018
  • DocketCase assigned to Hon. Jon R. Takasugi in Department 94 Stanley Mosk Courthouse

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/28/2018
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by: RAJEEV MALHOTRA (Plaintiff); As to: EFRAIN NAVARRO (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/28/2018
  • DocketSummons on Complaint; Issued and Filed by: RAJEEV MALHOTRA (Plaintiff); As to: EFRAIN NAVARRO (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/28/2018
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by: RAJEEV MALHOTRA (Plaintiff); As to: EFRAIN NAVARRO (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/28/2018
  • DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/28/2018
  • DocketFirst Amended Standing Order; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: 18STLC14350    Hearing Date: March 15, 2021    Dept: 25

HEARING DATE:    Mon., March 15, 2021 JUDGE /DEPT: Blancarte/25

CASE NAME Malhotra v. Navarro COMP. FILED: 11-28-18

CASE NUMBER    18STLC14350 DISC. C/O: 06-27-21

NOTICE: OK MOTION C/O: 07-12-21

TRIAL DATE: 07-27-21

PROCEEDINGS    MOTION FOR AN ORDER COMPELLING PLAINTIFF’S COMPLIANCE WITH DEMAND FOR PHYSICAL EXAMINATION AND REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS

MOVING PARTY:   Defendant Efrain Navarro

RESP. PARTY: Plaintiff Rajeev Malhotra

MOTION TO COMPEL INDEPENDENT MEDICAL EXAMINATION

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendant Efrain Navarro’s Motion for an Order Compelling Plaintiff’s Compliance with Demand for Physical Examination is CONTINUED TO MAY 17, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. in Department 25 at the SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE. Defendant’s request to compel Plaintiff’s medical examination will be re-evaluated in light of the COVID-19 conditions at the time of the continued hearing.

SERVICE

[X] Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC, rule 3.1300) OK

[X] Correct Address (CCP §§ 1013, 1013a) OK

[X] 16/21 Court Days Lapsed (CCP §§ 12c, 1005(b)) OK

OPPOSITION: Filed on January 12, 2021 [   ] Late [   ] None

REPLY: None filed as March 11, 2021  [   ] Late [X] None

ANALYSIS:

  1. Background

On November 28, 2018, Plaintiff Rajeev Malhotra (“Plaintiff”) filed an action for motor vehicle negligence and general negligence against Defendant Efrain Navarro (“Defendant”). Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint on November 30, 2018, and Defendant filed his Answer on February 25, 2019.

On December 8, 2020, Defendant filed the instant Motion for an Order Compelling Plaintiff’s Compliance with Demand for Physical Examination and Request for Monetary Sanctions (the “Motion”). Plaintiff filed an Opposition on January 12, 2021. No reply brief was filed.

At the initial hearing on January 26, the Court continued the hearing and ordered the parties to submit supplemental papers. (1/26/21 Minute Order.) Plaintiff filed supplemental papers on February 16, 2021. Plaintiff did not file any supplemental papers. 

  1. Legal Standard

In a case where a plaintiff seeks recovery for personal injuries, any defendant may demand one physical examination of the plaintiff if both of the following are satisfied: “(1) The examination does not include any diagnostic test or procedure that is painful, protracted or intrusive. (2) The examination is conducted at a location within 75 miles of the residence of the examinee.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2032.220, subd. (a).) “A demand under subdivision (a) shall specify the time, place, manner, conditions, scope, and nature of the examination, as well as the identity and specialty, if any, of the physician who will perform the examination” and must be scheduled for a date that is at least 30 days from service of the demand. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2032.220, subds. (c), (d).)

The plaintiff upon whom a demand has been made must respond within 20 days stating that he or she will (1) comply with the demand in its entirety, (2) comply as specifically modified, or (3) refuses to comply for the reasons specified in the response. (Code Civ. Proc., 2032.230, subds. (a), (b).) A plaintiff who fails to timely respond to a demand for physical examination waives any objection to the demand. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2032.240, subd. (a).) If a defendant in receipt of a response deems a plaintiff’s request for modifications or refusal to submit to the demand are not warranted, the defendant may file a motion to compel compliance with the demand, which must be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration. (Code Civ. Proc., §2032.250, subd. (a).) Sanctions must be imposed on the party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel compliance with a demand for physical examination unless it finds that the one subject to sanctions acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of sanctions unjust. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2032.250, subd. (b).)

  1. Discussion

On July 31, 2020, Defendant’s counsel served Plaintiff’s counsel with a Demand for Physical Examination (the “Demand”) via email. (Mot., Mahlstedt Decl., ¶ 5, Exh. A.) The physical examination was scheduled for November 10, 2020. (Id.) Plaintiff served a response to the Demand on August 3, 2020, and Defendant served an objection to the response on August 6, 2020. (Id. at ¶¶ 6-7, Exhs. B, C.) On November 6, 2020, only four days before the scheduled examination, Plaintiff served a second response and objection to Defendant’s Demand, which included conditions and concerns not raised in the initial August 3rd response. (Id. at ¶ 8, Exh.  D.) Plaintiff’s second response included six additional conditions for Plaintiff to appear for the examination, which arise from Plaintiff’s concerns regarding contracting COVID-19 given that he is 60 years old. (Id., p. 3:10-12, 22-28.) The additional conditions include:

  1. Plaintiff will be allowed to take the examination in a hazmat suit, safety goggles, mask, face shield, and gloves to be provided by the defense by a secured carrier certified to deliver sanitary safety products;

  2. The safety gear will also be provided to Plaintiff’s observer;

  3. The examining physician will wear the same safety gear as Plaintiff for the duration of the examination;

  4. The examining physician and the observer will maintain a distance of 6 feet at all times;

  5. The examining physician and anyone at the office at the time of examination is required to present a certificate or medical record that they have tested negative for COVID-19 at least twice up to 24 hours before the examination; and

  6. Defendant shall provide a sterilized room or facility at the location of the examination for Plaintiff and his observer to disrobe the hazmat suits and safety gear.

(Id., Mahlstead Decl., ¶ , Exh. D.)

After filing this Motion, on December 11, 2020, Defendant served Plaintiff with an Amended Demand for Physical Examination (the “Amended Demand”) noticing the exam for February 16, 2021 at 3:00 p.m. (Oppo., Libman Decl., ¶ 5, Exh.  4.) Plaintiff timely served Defendant with a Response and Objection to the Amended Demand on December 17, 2020. (Id. at ¶ 6, Exh. 5.) The December 17 response included the same COVID-19 related conditions noted above. (Id.)

As noted at the previous hearing, Defendant is correct that Plaintiff’s second response to the initial Demand is untimely under Code of Civil Procedure section 2032.230, subdivision (b). (Mot., p. 5:18-23.) However, the Court has discretion to relieve a party that fails to timely respond to a demand for physical examination where (1) “[t]he plaintiff has subsequently served a response that is in substantial compliance with Section 2032.230” and (2) “[t]he plaintiff’s failure to serve a timely response was the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2032.240, subd. (a).) Plaintiff’s second response stating he will comply with the demand for a physical examination on six additional conditions is in substantial compliance with Section 2032.230, subdivision (a). The Court notes that at the previous hearing, Plaintiff was ordered to file and serve supplemental papers explaining why he did not raise the COVID-19 related concerns in his initial August 3rd response. (1/26/21 Minute Order.) Plaintiff did not file any supplemental papers.

Defendant argues that Plaintiff has seen multiple health care providers during the course of the COVID-19 pandemic and thus the conditions he seeks to impose on Defendant for this IME are unreasonable. (Mot., p. 4:13-20; 2/16/21 Sep. Stmt, p. 6:13-21.) The Court agrees that Plaintiff’s conditions, including the demand for hazmat suits and for two COVID-19 negative test results for everyone in the office on the day of his visit, are somewhat excessive. However, the Court cannot dismiss Plaintiff’s concern for contracting the virus, especially because, as a 60-year old, he is at higher risk of complications.

  1. Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reasons, Defendant Efrain Navarro’s Motion for an Order Compelling Plaintiff’s Compliance with Demand for Physical Examination is CONTINUED TO MAY 17, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. in Department 25 at the SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE. Defendant’s request to compel Plaintiff’s medical examination will be re-evaluated in light of the COVID-19 conditions at the time of the continued hearing.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.

Case Number: 18STLC14350    Hearing Date: January 26, 2021    Dept: 25

HEARING DATE: Tue., January 26, 2021 JUDGE /DEPT: Blancarte/25

CASE NAME: Malhotra v. Navarro COMP. FILED: 11-28-18

CASE NUMBER: 18STLC14350 DISC. C/O: 06-27-21

NOTICE: OK MOTION C/O: 07-12-21

TRIAL DATE: 07-27-21

PROCEEDINGS: MOTION FOR AN ORDER COMPELLING PLAINTIFF’S COMPLIANCE WITH DEMAND FOR PHYSICAL EXAMINATION AND REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS

MOVING PARTY: Defendant Efrain Navarro

RESP. PARTY: Plaintiff Rajeev Malhotra

MOTION TO COMPEL INDEPENDENT MEDICAL EXAMINATION

(CCP § 2032.210, et seq.)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendant Efrain Navarro’s Motion for an Order Compelling Plaintiff’s Compliance with Demand for Physical Examination is CONTINUED TO MARCH 15, 2021 at 10:30 a.m. in department 25 at the SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE. At least 16 court days before the next scheduled hearing, both parties must file and serve supplemental papers addressing the deficiencies noted herein. Failure to do so may result in the Motion being placed off calendar or denied.

SERVICE:

[X] Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC, rule 3.1300) OK

[X] Correct Address (CCP §§ 1013, 1013a) OK

[X] 16/21 Court Days Lapsed (CCP §§ 12c, 1005(b)) OK

OPPOSITION: Filed on January 12, 2021 [ ] Late [ ] None

REPLY: None filed as January 22, 2021 [ ] Late [X] None

ANALYSIS:

  1. Background

On November 28, 2018, Plaintiff Rajeev Malhotra (“Plaintiff”) filed an action for motor vehicle negligence and general negligence against Defendant Efrain Navarro (“Defendant”). Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint on November 30, 2018, and Defendant filed his Answer on February 25, 2019.

On December 8, 2020, Defendant filed the instant Motion for an Order Compelling Plaintiff’s Compliance with Demand for Physical Examination and Request for Monetary Sanctions (the “Motion”). Plaintiff filed an Opposition on January 12, 2021. No reply brief was filed.

  1. Legal Standard

In a case where a plaintiff seeks recovery for personal injuries, any defendant may demand one physical examination of the plaintiff if both of the following are satisfied: “(1) The examination does not include any diagnostic test or procedure that is painful, protracted or intrusive. (2) The examination is conducted at a location within 75 miles of the residence of the examinee.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2032.220, subd. (a).) “A demand under subdivision (a) shall specify the time, place, manner, conditions, scope, and nature of the examination, as well as the identity and specialty, if any, of the physician who will perform the examination” and must be scheduled for a date that is at least 30 days from service of the demand. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2032.220, subds. (c), (d).)

The plaintiff upon whom a demand has been made must respond to within 20 days stating that he or she will (1) comply with the demand in its entirety, (2) comply as specifically modified, or (3) refuses to comply for the reasons specified in the response. (Code Civ. Proc., 2032.230, subds. (a), (b).) A plaintiff who fails to timely respond to a demand for physical examination waives any objection to the demand. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2032.240, subd. (a).) If a defendant in receipt of a response deems a plaintiff’s request for modifications or refusal to submit to the demand are not warranted, the defendant may file a motion to compel compliance with the demand, which must be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration. (Code Civ. Proc., §2032.250, subd. (a).) Sanctions must be imposed on the party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel compliance with a demand for physical examination. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2032.250, subd. (b).)

  1. Discussion

On July 31, 2020, Defendant’s counsel served Plaintiff’s counsel with a Demand for Physical Examination (the “Demand”) via email. (Mot., Mahlstedt Decl., ¶ 5, Exh. A.) The physical examination was scheduled for November 10, 2020. (Id.) Plaintiff served a response to the Demand on August 3, 2020, and Defendant served an objection to the response on August 6, 2020. (Id. at ¶¶ 6-7, Exhs. B, C.) On November 6, 2020, only four days before the scheduled examination, Plaintiff served a second response and objection to Defendant’s Demand, which included conditions and concerns not raised in the initial August 3rd response. (Id. at ¶ 8, Exh. D.) Plaintiff’s second response included six additional conditions for Plaintiff to appear for the examination. (Id.) The conditions arise from Plaintiff’s concerns regarding contracting COVID-19 at the physical examination given that she is 60 years old. (Oppo., p. 3:10-12; 22-28.)

After filing this Motion, on December 11, 2020, Defendant served Plaintiff with an Amended Demand for Physical Examination (the “Amended Demand”) noticing the exam for February 16, 2021 at 3:00 p.m. (Oppo., Libman Decl., ¶ 5, Exh. 4.) Plaintiff timely served Defendant with a Response and Objection to the Amended Demand on December 17, 2020. (Id. at ¶ 6, Exh. 5.)

Defendant is correct that Plaintiff’s second response to the initial Demand is untimely under Code of Civil Procedure section 2032.230, subdivision (b). (Mot., p. 5:18-23.) However, the Court has discretion to relieve a party that fails to timely respond to a demand for physical examination where (1) “[t]he plaintiff has subsequently served a response that is in substantial compliance with Section 2032.230” and (2) “[t]he plaintiff’s failure to serve a timely response was the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2032.240, subd. (a).) Here, Plaintiff’s second response stating he will comply with the demand for a physical examination on six additional conditions is in substantial compliance with Section 2032.230, subdivision (a). However, Plaintiff’s counsel did not attempt to explain why these concerns were not raised the initial response served on August 3rd.

In addition, because Plaintiff served an objection to both demands, Defendant must file a separate statement. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1345, subd. (a)(6).)

Thus, the parties are ordered to file and serve supplemental papers addressing the deficiencies noted above.

  1. Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reasons, Defendant Efrain Navarro’s Motion for an Order Compelling Plaintiff’s Compliance with Demand for Physical Examination is CONTINUED TO MARCH 15, 2021 at 10:30 a.m. in department 25 at the SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE. At least 16 court days before the next scheduled hearing, both parties must file and serve supplemental papers addressing the deficiencies noted herein. Failure to do so may result in the Motion being placed off calendar or denied.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases represented by Lawyer MAHLSTEDT JOY