This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 07/10/2019 at 00:04:30 (UTC).

SOPHIA KOKORIS VS UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ET AL

Case Summary

On 06/11/2015 SOPHIA KOKORIS filed a Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury lawsuit against UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk 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:

    ****4815

  • Filing Date:

    06/11/2015

  • 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

JON R. TAKASUGI

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner

KOKORIS SOPHIA

Defendants and Respondents

BARAJAS OSCAR

DOES 1 TO 25

UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA

MAGNETIC AUTOMATION CORP ROE 2

DATEPARK GORUP INC.-ROE 3

HUB PARKING TECHNOLOGY USA-ROE 4

MAGNETIC AUTOCONTROL GROUP ROE 1

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

LAW OFFICES OF THON BECK VANNI CALLAHAN

LAW OFFICES OF THON BECK VANNI CALLAHAN &

ZUCKERMAN PAUL STUART

YAGHOUBTIL FARID

Defendant and Respondent Attorneys

NARDI DENISE A. ESQ.

GILLE RYAN

NARDI DENISE ANN ESQ.

 

Court Documents

Minute Order

6/15/2018: Minute Order

Declaration

3/4/2019: Declaration

Order

3/5/2019: Order

Minute Order

3/5/2019: Minute Order

Notice of Ruling

3/7/2019: Notice of Ruling

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

6/29/2015: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

CIVIL DEPOSIT

6/1/2016: CIVIL DEPOSIT

AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT (CROSS)

6/1/2016: AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT (CROSS)

AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT (CROSS)

6/1/2016: AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT (CROSS)

ANSWER TO CROSS-COMPLAINT ON BEHALF OF MAGNETIC AUTOMATION COMPANY (ERRONEOUSLY SUED HEREIN AS MAGNETIC AUTOCONTROL GROUP) AS ROE 1; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

7/25/2016: ANSWER TO CROSS-COMPLAINT ON BEHALF OF MAGNETIC AUTOMATION COMPANY (ERRONEOUSLY SUED HEREIN AS MAGNETIC AUTOCONTROL GROUP) AS ROE 1; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

[PROPOSED ORDER] AND STIPULATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL, FSC [AND RELATED MOTION/DISCOVERY DATES] PERSONAL INJURY COURTS ONLY

2/9/2017: [PROPOSED ORDER] AND STIPULATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL, FSC [AND RELATED MOTION/DISCOVERY DATES] PERSONAL INJURY COURTS ONLY

SUBSTITUTION OF ATTORNEY

4/19/2017: SUBSTITUTION OF ATTORNEY

(1) PLAINTIFFS' EX PARTE MOTION TO CONTINUE THE TRIAL DATE (2) MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; (3) DECLARATION OF DANIEL AZIZI

4/26/2017: (1) PLAINTIFFS' EX PARTE MOTION TO CONTINUE THE TRIAL DATE (2) MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; (3) DECLARATION OF DANIEL AZIZI

AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT (CROSS)

5/23/2017: AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT (CROSS)

AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT (CROSS)

5/23/2017: AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT (CROSS)

PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

6/9/2017: PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

Minute Order

7/21/2017: Minute Order

Minute Order

10/31/2017: Minute Order

25 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 04/12/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 3, Jon R. Takasugi, Presiding; Jury Trial - Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/29/2019
  • at 10:00 AM in Department 3, Jon R. Takasugi, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/07/2019
  • Notice of Ruling; Filed by Sophia Kokoris (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/05/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 3, Jon R. Takasugi, Presiding; Hearing on Ex Parte Application (To Continue Trial) - Held - Motion Granted

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/05/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Hearing on Ex Parte Application To Continue Trial and Related...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/05/2019
  • Order (By the Court granting ex parte application to continue trial and related dates)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/04/2019
  • Declaration (Of Marina R. Pacheco In Support of Plaintiff's Ex Parte Application To Continue Trial); Filed by Sophia Kokoris (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/04/2019
  • Ex Parte Application (To Continue Trial); Filed by Sophia Kokoris (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/19/2018
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 3, Jon R. Takasugi, Presiding; Jury Trial - Held - Continued

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/19/2018
  • Minute order entered: 2018-10-19 00:00:00; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
67 More Docket Entries
  • 07/24/2015
  • Summons on Cross Complaint

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/24/2015
  • Cross-Complaint; Filed by University of Southern California (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/24/2015
  • ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/24/2015
  • Answer; Filed by Oscar Barajas (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/24/2015
  • UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA'S CROSS- COMPLAINT FOR INDEMNITY, CONTRIBUTION AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/29/2015
  • Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by Sophia Kokoris (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/29/2015
  • PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/11/2015
  • COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURIES; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/11/2015
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/11/2015
  • Complaint; Filed by Sophia Kokoris (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC584815    Hearing Date: February 21, 2020    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

Sophia Kokoris,

Plaintiff,

vs.

University of Southern California, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)))

Case No.: BC584815

[TENTATIVE] ORDER DENYING MOTION TO COMPEL SECOND INDEPENDENT MEDICAL EXAMINATION

Dept. 31

1:30 p.m.

February 21, 2020

Plaintiff Sophia Kokoris (“Plaintiff”) alleges that she was injured when Defendant University of Southern California’s (“Defendant”) parking gate arm struck her causing to trip and fall. Plaintiff alleges injuries to her head, mouth, face, ankle, ribs, neck, back, legs, teeth, and more over the past years. She has had surgeries on her ankle and her nose.

Defendant now moves to compel a second physical examination of Plaintiff by Dr. Khyber Zaffarkhan on February 25, 2020 to address Plaintiff’s alleged claim of Complex Regional Pain Syndrome (“CRPS”).

Plaintiff opposes.[1]

The trial is currently scheduled for March 20, 2020.

Legal Standard

Where the physical condition of the plaintiff is in controversy in a personal injury case, the defendant may seek discovery by physical examination of the plaintiff. (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2032.020, 2032.220.)[2] A defendant is permitted to demand one physical examination of the plaintiff in a personal injury action, as long as the examination complies with the statutory requirements. (§ 2032.220, subd. (a).)

Should a party wish to perform a subsequent physical examination or any mental examination, a party must obtain leave of court. (§ 2032.310, subd. (a).) Section 2032.310(b) provides that the motion “shall specify the time, place, manner, conditions, scope and nature of the examination, as well as the identity and specialty, if any, of the person or persons who will perform the examination.” A meet and confer declaration must also accompany the motion. (§ 2032.310, subd. (b).) There must be a showing of “good cause” for a motion compelling an examination to be granted. (§ 2032.320, subd. (a).)

Further, an order granting either a physical or mental examination must specify “the person or persons who may perform the examination, as well as the time, place, manner, diagnostic tests and procedures, conditions, scope, and nature of the examination.” (§ 2032.320, subd. (d).) The order for the mental examination must specify the diagnostic tests to be performed “by naming the test and procedures to be performed.” (Carpenter v. Superior Court (2006) 141 Cal.App.4th 249, 261–262.) “Requiring the court to identify the permissible diagnostic tests and procedures, by name, confirms that the court has weighed the risks of unwarranted intrusion upon the plaintiff against the defendant's need for a meaningful opportunity to test the plaintiff's claims of physical or mental injury.” (Id. at 261.)

DISCUSSION

Defendant argues that a second physical examination is warranted because Plaintiff on January 23, 2020 designated two expert opining on CRPS and there is increased damages solely based on CRPS. Defendant argues it would be prejudicial to its defense now that Plaintiff can allege increased damages.

Plaintiff argues that Defendant has not shown good cause because Defendant already chose a doctor to examine Plaintiff knowing Plaintiff’s CRPS diagnosis.

As a preliminary matter, the Court denies Defendant’s motion for a failure to include a declaration addressing meet and confer efforts. Although Defendant’s counsel filed a declaration, this declaration does not address any efforts by the parties meeting and conferring on this issue, though the Court notes that there was an ex parte application on this issue and both parties appeared. (Nardi Decl. ¶ 6.)

The Court also denies Defendant’s motion on the merits. On October 10, 2019, Plaintiff served a mediation brief on Defendant that indicated that Plaintiff was diagnosed with CRPS. On December 23, 2019, Defendant served a demand for a physical examination of Plaintiff to be conducted by Dr. Tye J. Ouzounian, whose specialty is orthopedic surgery. On January 6, 2020, Plaintiff was examined and Dr. Ouzounian referenced the CRPS claim in his report.

Based on the foregoing, Defendant was already aware of the CRPS claim and its decision to not adequately examine on this issue for the first time does not warrant good cause that is sufficient to make a second physical examination appropriate. This claim is not newly alleged and Defendant should not have a second chance after missing its first chance.

Therefore, Defendant’s motion is DENIED.

Defendant is ordered to give notice.

 

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at sscdept31@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.orgIf the department does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on the tentative and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion may be placed off calendar.


[1] The Court in its discretion considers Plaintiff’s opposition that was filed a couple hours late. (See February 7, 2020 minute order [establishing briefing schedule].)

[2] Any further statutory references are to the Code of Civil Procedure.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at sscdept31@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.orgIf the department does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on the tentative and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion may be placed off calendar.


[1] The Court in its discretion considers Plaintiff’s opposition that was filed a couple hours late. (See February 7, 2020 minute order [establishing briefing schedule].)

[2] Any further statutory references are to the Code of Civil Procedure.