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.
****4815
06/11/2015
Pending - Other Pending
Los Angeles County Superior Courts
Stanley Mosk Courthouse
Los Angeles, California
JON R. TAKASUGI
KOKORIS SOPHIA
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
LAW OFFICES OF THON BECK VANNI CALLAHAN
LAW OFFICES OF THON BECK VANNI CALLAHAN &
ZUCKERMAN PAUL STUART
YAGHOUBTIL FARID
NARDI DENISE A. ESQ.
GILLE RYAN
NARDI DENISE ANN ESQ.
6/15/2018: Minute Order
3/4/2019: Declaration
3/5/2019: Order
3/5/2019: Minute Order
3/7/2019: Notice of Ruling
6/29/2015: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS
6/1/2016: CIVIL DEPOSIT
6/1/2016: AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT (CROSS)
6/1/2016: AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT (CROSS)
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
2/9/2017: [PROPOSED ORDER] AND STIPULATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL, FSC [AND RELATED MOTION/DISCOVERY DATES] PERSONAL INJURY COURTS ONLY
4/19/2017: SUBSTITUTION OF ATTORNEY
4/26/2017: (1) PLAINTIFFS' EX PARTE MOTION TO CONTINUE THE TRIAL DATE (2) MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; (3) DECLARATION OF DANIEL AZIZI
5/23/2017: AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT (CROSS)
5/23/2017: AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT (CROSS)
6/9/2017: PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS
7/21/2017: Minute Order
10/31/2017: Minute Order
at 08:30 AM in Department 3, Jon R. Takasugi, Presiding; Jury Trial - Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by Court
at 10:00 AM in Department 3, Jon R. Takasugi, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by Court
Notice of Ruling; Filed by Sophia Kokoris (Plaintiff)
at 08:30 AM in Department 3, Jon R. Takasugi, Presiding; Hearing on Ex Parte Application (To Continue Trial) - Held - Motion Granted
Minute Order ( (Hearing on Ex Parte Application To Continue Trial and Related...)); Filed by Clerk
Order (By the Court granting ex parte application to continue trial and related dates)
Declaration (Of Marina R. Pacheco In Support of Plaintiff's Ex Parte Application To Continue Trial); Filed by Sophia Kokoris (Plaintiff)
Ex Parte Application (To Continue Trial); Filed by Sophia Kokoris (Plaintiff)
at 08:30 AM in Department 3, Jon R. Takasugi, Presiding; Jury Trial - Held - Continued
Minute order entered: 2018-10-19 00:00:00; Filed by Clerk
Summons on Cross Complaint
Cross-Complaint; Filed by University of Southern California (Defendant)
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
Answer; Filed by Oscar Barajas (Defendant)
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA'S CROSS- COMPLAINT FOR INDEMNITY, CONTRIBUTION AND DECLARATORY RELIEF
Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by Sophia Kokoris (Plaintiff)
PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS
COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURIES; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
SUMMONS
Complaint; Filed by Sophia Kokoris (Plaintiff)
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.org. If 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.org. If 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.