This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 06/17/2019 at 12:15:33 (UTC).

KIRITKUMAR MANGALDAS VS THE END ZONE SPORTS BAR & RESTAURANT

Case Summary

On 09/16/2016 KIRITKUMAR MANGALDAS filed a Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury lawsuit against THE END ZONE SPORTS BAR RESTAURANT. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is STEPHEN I. GOORVITCH. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****4189

  • Filing Date:

    09/16/2016

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

STEPHEN I. GOORVITCH

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner

MANGALDAS KIRITKUMAR

Defendants and Respondents

END ZONE SPORTS BAR & RESTAURANT THE

DOES 1 TO 50

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

LAW OFFICES OF BURG & BROCK

ALDER C. MICHAEL ESQ.

Defendant Attorney

SALEM EDMOND E. ESQ.

 

Court Documents

Proof of Personal Service

10/12/2016: Proof of Personal Service

Unknown

2/2/2018: Unknown

INFORMAL DISCOVERY CONFERENCE FORM FOR PERSONAL INJURY COURTS

3/14/2018: INFORMAL DISCOVERY CONFERENCE FORM FOR PERSONAL INJURY COURTS

DEFENDANT'S NOTICE OF MOTIONS; AND MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGEMENT AND/OR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION; AND MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF

5/25/2018: DEFENDANT'S NOTICE OF MOTIONS; AND MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGEMENT AND/OR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION; AND MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF

Minute Order

7/25/2018: Minute Order

PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL

7/25/2018: PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL

NOTICE OF PAYMENT OF SANCTIONS

7/27/2018: NOTICE OF PAYMENT OF SANCTIONS

DECLARATION OF BRUCE HOLMES IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT BY DEFENDANT, THE END ZONE, BY PLAINTIFF KIRITKUMAR MANGALDAS

9/13/2018: DECLARATION OF BRUCE HOLMES IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT BY DEFENDANT, THE END ZONE, BY PLAINTIFF KIRITKUMAR MANGALDAS

PROOF OF SERVICE BY FEDEX

9/21/2018: PROOF OF SERVICE BY FEDEX

Minute Order

10/4/2018: Minute Order

Reply

11/21/2018: Reply

Order

12/3/2018: Order

Motion in Limine

12/24/2018: Motion in Limine

Motion in Limine

12/24/2018: Motion in Limine

PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

10/12/2016: PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

2/9/2017: ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

Unknown

8/28/2017: Unknown

NOTICE OF ASSOCIATION OF COUNSEL

12/12/2017: NOTICE OF ASSOCIATION OF COUNSEL

40 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 02/05/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 5, Stephen I. Goorvitch, Presiding; Jury Trial - Not Held - Continued - Party's Motion

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/23/2019
  • at 10:00 AM in Department 5, Stephen I. Goorvitch, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Continued - Party's Motion

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/23/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 5, Stephen I. Goorvitch, Presiding; Hearing on Ex Parte Application (for order continuing trial date for 60 days) - Held - Motion Granted

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/23/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Final Status Conference; Hearing on Ex Parte Application for ...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/23/2019
  • Ex Parte Application (for order continuing trial date for 60 days); Filed by Kiritkumar Mangaldas (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/24/2018
  • Plaintiff's Motion in Limine No.3 to Exclude All Evidence Relating to Collateral Sources; Filed by Kiritkumar Mangaldas (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/24/2018
  • Plaintiff's Motion in Limine No.1 to Exclude Expert's Opinion and Testimony Based on Unreliable Hearsay; Filed by Kiritkumar Mangaldas (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/24/2018
  • Plaintiff's Motion in Limine No.4 to Exclude Expert's Opinion and Testimony Based on Not Produced Documents; Filed by Kiritkumar Mangaldas (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/24/2018
  • Plaintiff's Motion in Limine No.2 to Exclude Any Evidence Not Produced in Discovery; Filed by Kiritkumar Mangaldas (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/03/2018
  • at 1:30 PM in Department 5, Stephen I. Goorvitch, Presiding; Hearing on Motion - Other (COURT'S OWN MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ISSUED 09/27/18) - Held - Motion Denied

    Read MoreRead Less
86 More Docket Entries
  • 03/06/2017
  • PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/06/2017
  • Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by Kiritkumar Mangaldas (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/09/2017
  • Answer; Filed by End Zone Sports Bar & Restaurant, The (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/09/2017
  • ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/12/2016
  • Proof of Personal Service (summons); Filed by Kiritkumar Mangaldas (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/12/2016
  • Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by Kiritkumar Mangaldas (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/12/2016
  • PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/16/2016
  • COMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/16/2016
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/16/2016
  • Complaint; Filed by Kiritkumar Mangaldas (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC634189    Hearing Date: November 15, 2019    Dept: 5

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 5

kiritkumar mangaldas,

Plaintiff,

v.

the end zone sports bar & restaurant,

Defendant.

Case No.: BC634189

Hearing Date: August 28, 2019

[TENTATIVE] order RE:

motion to augment Plaintiffs’ Expert witness list

Background

Plaintiff Kathy Pauline Morris (“Plaintiff”) moves to augment her expert witness designation. Defendants Hakob Babajanyan and TLA Limousine, Inc. (“Defendants”) oppose the motion. The motion is granted.

Legal Standard

Per Code of Civil Procedure section 2034.610, subdivision (a), “On motion of any party who has engaged in a timely exchange of expert witness information, the court may grant leave to do either or both of the following: [¶] (1) Augment that party’s expert witness list and declaration by adding the name and address of any expert witness whom that party has subsequently retained.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2034.610, subd. (a)(1).)

In ruling on a motion to augment an expert witness designation, the court must take into account “the extent to which the opposing party has relied on the list of expert witnesses . . . ,” and must determine that the opposing party “will not be prejudiced in maintaining that party’s action or defense on the merits.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2034.620, subd. (a)-(b).) Additionally, the court must determine that “[t]he moving party would not in the exercise of reasonable diligence have determined to call that expert witness or have decided to offer the different or additional testimony of that witness . . . ,” or that “[t]he moving party failed to determine to call that expert witness, or to offer the different or additional testimony of that expert witness as a result of mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect, and the moving party has done both of the following: [¶] Sought leave to augment or amend promptly after deciding to call the expert witness or to offer the different or additional testimony. [¶] Promptly thereafter served a copy of the proposed expert witness information concerning the expert or the testimony described in Section 2034.260 on all other parties who have appeared in the action.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2034.620, subd. (c).) Finally, the moving party must “mak[e] the expert available immediately for a deposition.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2034.620, subd. (d).) The court may also condition leave to amend on any other term the court deems just. (Ibid.)

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff relies on the declaration of her counsel, Stacey R. Cutting (“Counsel”). Counsel states that she interpreted the continuance of the original trial date to also encompass a continuance of the date for the exchange of expert witness information, and thereby failed to disclose two retained experts: Timothy Lanning, and Aaron M. Wolfson, Ph.D. (See Declaration of Stacey R. Cutting, Esq.) The initial trial date governs the deadline for the demand for an exchange of expert witness information. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2034.220.) Likewise, the date for exchange of expert witness information is “50 days before the initial trial date, or 20 days after service of the demand, whichever is closer to the trial date . . . .” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2034.230, subd. (b).) While the Court continued the trial of this matter and all discovery and motion cut-off dates, as the parties had already exchanged expert witness information, the continuance did not trigger another opportunity to demand the exchange of expert witness information. Therefore, Counsel’s belief that the continuance of the trial date would continue the date for the exchange of expert witness information was therefore incorrect.

Nevertheless, The Court finds that Plaintiff’s failure to designate these two experts was the result of her mistake, and grants the motion on this basis. Defendants argue they will suffer prejudice if the Court grants the motion because they “were unable to direct lines of questioning to Plaintiff, [Plaintiff’s treating psychologist], and other lay witnesses regarding Dr. Wolfson and Mr. Lanning . . . .” (Declaration of Donavon Sawyer, ¶ 30.) The experts Plaintiff now seeks to designate are retained experts, not treating medical providers. Therefore, Defendants would have no basis to depose Plaintiff or other witnesses regarding the opinions of these experts. Defendants are “not ‘prejudiced’ simply because the new expert[s] will give testimony adverse to [them].” (Dickison v. Howen (1990) 220 Cal.App.3d 1471, 1479.) As trial in this matter is not until March 3, 2020 and expert discovery remains open, Defendants will have ample opportunity to prepare for trial.

Defendants also argue that granting the motion “will alter Defendants’ evaluation of this case and prejudicially undermine and negate the substance of Defendants’ August 22, 2019 998 Offer to Compromise . . . .” (Declaration of Donavon Sawyer, ¶ 30.) Defendants’ raise a valid concern. Accordingly, the Court conditions leave to amend on Plaintiff’s stipulation to rescind their previous offer to compromise and to afford Defendants an opportunity to make a new 998 offer to compromise, in order to eliminate potential prejudice to Defendants.

Conclusion and Order

Plaintiff’s motion to augment her expert witness list is granted on the condition that Plaintiff stipulates Defendants may rescind their 998 offer of August 22, 2019, and may make a new 998 offer to compromise. Plaintiff shall provide notice and file proof of such with the Court.

DATED: November 15, 2019 ___________________________

Stephen I. Goorvitch

Judge of the Superior Court