This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 06/08/2019 at 02:05:38 (UTC).

ANGELIQUE SMITH VS HIROMI LEVY

Case Summary

On 06/06/2016 ANGELIQUE SMITH filed a Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle lawsuit against HIROMI LEVY. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is BOBBI TILLMON. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****3004

  • Filing Date:

    06/06/2016

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

BOBBI TILLMON

 

Party Details

Petitioner and Plaintiff

SMITH ANGELIQUE

Respondents and Defendants

LEVY HIROMI

DOES 1 TO 10

Other

WOOD SMITH HENNING & BERMAN

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Petitioner and Plaintiff Attorneys

SALEM LAW FIRM APLC. THE

GEORGE VICTOR LIGHT

SALEM EDMOND E.

MACHTINGER JOHN FREDRIC

Defendant Attorneys

FORD WALKER HAGGERTY & BEHAR

BODEN RACHEL E.

GIBBS PATRICK J.

POUSH KEVIN DANIEL

BODEN RACHEL EVANGELINE

 

Court Documents

PLAINTIFF ANGELIQUE SMITH?S EX PARTE APPLICATION TO VACATE THE TRIAL DATE OF OCTOBER 17, 2018, AND RESET TO APRIL 4, 2018; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATIONS OF SAMY M. HARMOUSH, ESQ.

1/31/2018: PLAINTIFF ANGELIQUE SMITH?S EX PARTE APPLICATION TO VACATE THE TRIAL DATE OF OCTOBER 17, 2018, AND RESET TO APRIL 4, 2018; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATIONS OF SAMY M. HARMOUSH, ESQ.

ORDER APPOINTING COURT APPROVED REPORTER AS OFFICIAL REPORTER PRO TEMPORE

2/21/2018: ORDER APPOINTING COURT APPROVED REPORTER AS OFFICIAL REPORTER PRO TEMPORE

Reply

8/22/2018: Reply

Stipulation

10/10/2018: Stipulation

Unknown

1/30/2019: Unknown

Unknown

1/30/2019: Unknown

DECLARATION OF SAMY M. HARMOUSH, ESQ. RE: OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S EX PARTE APPLICATION TO COMPEL MULTIPLE PHYSICAL EXAMINATIONS OF PLAINTIFF

1/24/2018: DECLARATION OF SAMY M. HARMOUSH, ESQ. RE: OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S EX PARTE APPLICATION TO COMPEL MULTIPLE PHYSICAL EXAMINATIONS OF PLAINTIFF

PLAINTIFF ANGELIQUE SMITH'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT HIROMI LEVY'S MOTION FOR AN ORDER TO COMPEL TWO DEFENSE MEDICAL EXAMINATIONS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF SAMY M. HARMOUSH,

2/9/2018: PLAINTIFF ANGELIQUE SMITH'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT HIROMI LEVY'S MOTION FOR AN ORDER TO COMPEL TWO DEFENSE MEDICAL EXAMINATIONS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF SAMY M. HARMOUSH,

SUR-REPLY FOR DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO COMPEL TWO DEFENSE MEDICAL EXAMINATIONS

2/26/2018: SUR-REPLY FOR DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO COMPEL TWO DEFENSE MEDICAL EXAMINATIONS

PLAINTIFF ANGELIQUE SMITH'S SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF HER OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT HIROMI LEVY'S MOTION FOR AN ORDER TO COMPEL TWO DEFENSE MEDICAL EXAMINATIONS; DECLARATION OF SAMY M. HARRMOUSH,

3/12/2018: PLAINTIFF ANGELIQUE SMITH'S SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF HER OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT HIROMI LEVY'S MOTION FOR AN ORDER TO COMPEL TWO DEFENSE MEDICAL EXAMINATIONS; DECLARATION OF SAMY M. HARRMOUSH,

DECLARATION OF DR. MACYSZYN IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS' REQUEST FOR TWO MEDICAL EXAMS OF PLAINTIFF

4/12/2018: DECLARATION OF DR. MACYSZYN IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS' REQUEST FOR TWO MEDICAL EXAMS OF PLAINTIFF

NOTICE OF RULING

4/24/2018: NOTICE OF RULING

Minute Order

4/26/2018: Minute Order

Unknown

8/16/2018: Unknown

Notice

10/26/2018: Notice

HIROMI LEVY'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF ANGEL1QUE SMITH'S MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER AND SANCTIONS

3/29/2017: HIROMI LEVY'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF ANGEL1QUE SMITH'S MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER AND SANCTIONS

PLAINTIFF ANGELIQUE SMITH'S NOTICE OF MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER AND FOR SANCTIONS OF $2335

4/10/2017: PLAINTIFF ANGELIQUE SMITH'S NOTICE OF MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER AND FOR SANCTIONS OF $2335

HIROMI LEVY'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF ANGELIQUE SMITH'S MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER AND SANCTIONS

5/12/2017: HIROMI LEVY'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF ANGELIQUE SMITH'S MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER AND SANCTIONS

89 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 06/05/2019
  • Declaration ( of Rachel E. Boden in support of Motion for Leave); Filed by Hiromi Levy (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/05/2019
  • Notice of Motion for Leave to Conduct Additional Independent Medical Examination of Plaintiff; Filed by Hiromi Levy (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/03/2019
  • Reply (reply to opposition); Filed by Hiromi Levy (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/24/2019
  • Opposition (Plaintiff?s Opposition To Motion To Compel Further Responses To Request For Production Of Documents (Set Three); Request For Monetary Sanctions Against Defendant In The Amount Of $4,500; Memorandum Of Points And Authorities In Support Thereof; And Declar); Filed by Angelique Smith (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/13/2019
  • Separate Statement (in Support of Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production of Documents (Set Three)); Filed by Hiromi Levy (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/13/2019
  • Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses (to Request for Production of Documents (Set Three)); Filed by Hiromi Levy (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/13/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department O; Hearing on Motion for Protective Order - Not Held - Taken Off Calendar by Party

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/25/2019
  • Notice of Ruling; Filed by Angelique Smith (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/22/2019
  • at 1:30 PM in Department O; Hearing on Motion to Compel Discovery (not "Further Discovery") (1. Deposition of Stacy Cox & Production of Records Pursuant to Defendant's Deposition Subpoena For Personal Appearance and Production of Documents and Things Issued on 1/22/18) - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/22/2019
  • at 1:30 PM in Department O; Hearing on Motion for Sanctions (in the Amount $16,060.00 Against Plaintiff and/or Her Counsel of Record) - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
208 More Docket Entries
  • 12/16/2016
  • ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/16/2016
  • Receipt; Filed by Defendant/Respondent

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/16/2016
  • Demand for Jury Trial; Filed by Defendant/Respondent

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/16/2016
  • CIVIL DEPOSIT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/24/2016
  • PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/24/2016
  • Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/06/2016
  • Complaint Filed

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/06/2016
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/06/2016
  • COMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/06/2016
  • Complaint; Filed by Angelique Smith (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC623004    Hearing Date: August 14, 2020    Dept: O

BC623004 ANGELIQUE SMITH VS HIROMI LEVY 
Trial Setting Conference – TENTATIVE RULINGS
Continuance of Trial Date and Permitted Discovery
Having considered counsels’ declarations and arguments regarding the continuance of the trial, and having considered the General Order of the Presiding  Extending Trials due to the Covid-19 pandemic (issued 8-10-20)  the Court orders the trial date is reset for June 14, 2021 at 10:00 and the Final Status Conference reset for June 11, 2021 at 9:30.  Counsel are ordered to fully comply with the then current standing order for trial readiness for trials in the personal injury trial courts.
The Court orders the deadlines to disclose expert information and complete expert discovery are extended based on the new trial date.
Regarding remaining discovery, given the deadline to complete discovery has expired and been extended several times, and given extensive fact discovery was substantially completed before this continuance of the trial was ordered by the Presiding Judge, and given the substantial time the parties have had to complete all fact discovery, the Court limits further non-expert discovery to the following:
1. Defendant may subpoena updated medical and employment records from all previously subpoenaed providers and employers; 
2. Defendant may subpoena medical and employment records from any new providers and employers since July 1, 2020;
3. Defendant may notice the depositions of any new medical provider since July 1, 2020;
4. Defendant may propound reasonable supplemental requests for admission, interrogatories and requests for production of documents for the purpose of obtaining updated responses to previously served discovery up to and including 30 days before trial.
This order is made without prejudice to either party may seek a modification of this order for good cause shown under CCP 2024.50 to seek additional discovery.  Likewise, either party may seek a protective order to limit or deny any particular additional discovery upon a showing that the specific discovery request is not made in good faith; but rather is made to harass the opposing party and is designed to impose undue burden or expense on the opposing party. 

Case Number: BC623004    Hearing Date: July 09, 2020    Dept: O

Case Name: Smith v. Levy 
Case No.: BC623004
Hearing: 7-9-20 
Calendar #: 6
Notice: OK 
Complaint Filed: 6-6-16
Motion C/O: Passed
Discovery C/O: Passed
Trial Date: 8-24-20 
______________________________________________________________________________
SUBJECT: MOTION TO COMPEL INDEPENDENT MEDICAL EXAMINATION 
MOVING PARTY: Defendant Hiromi Levy
RESP. PARTY: Plaintiff Angelique Smith 
TENTATIVE RULING
Defendant’s Motion to Compel IME is DENIED.  
Defendant’s request for a 2nd IME of Plaintiff by Defense orthopedic expert, Dr. Weinstein, is denied.  In her 4-24-20 order, Judge Cole allowed Defendant to conduct limited discovery.  The requested 2nd IME is outside the limited scope of that discovery.  For all other discovery, the discovery cut-off expired prior to the closure of the Court due to the pandemic.  Continuance of the trial date due to the Court’s COVID closure therefore did not reopen discovery and the discovery cut-off stands as to all discovery other than the limited discovery identified in the 4-24-20 order.
Defendant was therefore required to move for reopening of discovery pursuant to CCP §2024.050 in order to conduct this 2nd IME.  Defendant already requested an extension of general discovery before Judge Cole and Judge Cole rejected the general request.  Defendant maintained a motion to confirm extension of discovery deadline, which was heard on 7-7-20, and again rejected.  
The Court again rejects any attempt to reopen discovery in the form of this motion to compel 2nd IME.  Defendant has consistently failed to make the required showing under CCP §2024.050 to reopen discovery and the outcome this time is no different.  In addition, to obtain a 2nd IME, the party seeking that IME must demonstrate good cause.  CCP §2032.320.  Shapira v. Supr. Ct. (1990) 224 Cal.App.3d 1249, 1255. (“The authoritative discovery commentators agree that multiple defense examinations are permitted on the necessary showing of good cause.”)
This case has been pending since June 2016.  Plaintiff persuasively argues that Defendant has had a full and fair opportunity to conduct discovery into Plaintiff’s claims of spinal injury, including current and future treatment.  Plaintiff responded affirmatively to Form Rog 6.7 regarding the need for future treatment, provided the contact information of the physician who informed her she would require such treatment, the areas that would need such treatment (neck and back) and the types of future treatment (surgery and injections).  See Plaintiff’s Opposition, Ex. 1, Supplemental Response to Form Rog 6.7, p. 18 (served on 1-15-20).  
In addition, Weinstein opined during deposition that Plaintiff does not require future spinal surgery and he provided great detail on the basis for this opinion.  Id. at Ex. 6, 60:5-16.  Defense expert Chambers also stated that he examined her lower back and was questioned on the impact of a laminectomy.  Id. at Ex. 4, 23:1-3 and 90:1-14.  
The Court finds Defendant failed to make the required showing to reopen discovery, or the good cause showing necessary to justify a 2nd IME in light of the circumstances.  Defendant’s Motion to Compel 2nd IME is DENIED.  

Case Number: BC623004    Hearing Date: July 07, 2020    Dept: O

Case No.: BC623004

Hearing: 7-7-20

Calendar #: 5

Notice: OK 

Complaint Filed: 6-6-16

Motion C/O: 8-10-20

Discovery C/O: 7-24-20

Trial Date: 8-24-20 

______________________________________________________________________________

SUBJECT: MOTION TO CONFIRM EXTENSION OF DISCOVERY DEADLINE

MOVING PARTY: Defendant Hiromi Levy

RESP. PARTY: Plaintiff Angelique Smith 

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendant’s Motion to Confirm Extension of Discovery Deadline is MOOT or DENIED. Defendant filed an ex parte application seeking essentially the same relief on 4-23-20, six days after this motion was filed.  The Hon. Lisa Hart Cole granted in part the application, identified the additional limited discovery to be completed by a new cut-off date in accordance with the 8-24-20 trial date.  Any discovery shall be conducted in accordance with the 4-24-20 Order.

Plaintiff’s request for sanctions in opposition to this motion is denied.  

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where WOOD SMITH HENNING & BERMAN LLP is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer MACHTINGER JOHN F

Latest cases represented by Lawyer GEORGE VICTOR L.

Latest cases represented by Lawyer SALEM EDMOND E. ESQ.