This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 07/18/2019 at 00:38:22 (UTC).

ANGELA ANGULO VS ROEE PERRY ET AL

Case Summary

On 05/09/2018 a Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle case was filed by ANGELA ANGULO against ROEE PERRY in the jurisdiction of Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****5525

  • Filing Date:

    05/09/2018

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

 

Party Details

Respondents and Defendants

PERRY ANNA

PERRY ROEE

DOES 1 TO 30

Minor

ANGULO ANGELA

Guardian Ad Litem and Not Yet Classified

LUCERO JULIANA

 

Court Documents

Complaint

5/9/2018: Complaint

Proof of Service by Mail

2/5/2019: Proof of Service by Mail

Proof of Service by Mail

2/5/2019: Proof of Service by Mail

Answer

3/6/2019: Answer

Notice of Posting of Jury Fees

5/2/2019: Notice of Posting of Jury Fees

APPLICATION AND ORDER FOR APPOINTMENT OF GUARDIAN AD LITEM-CIVIL

5/23/2018: APPLICATION AND ORDER FOR APPOINTMENT OF GUARDIAN AD LITEM-CIVIL

SUMMONS

6/14/2018: SUMMONS

COMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)

5/9/2018: COMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)

 

Docket Entries

  • 05/02/2019
  • Notice of Posting of Jury Fees; Filed by Angela Angulo (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/06/2019
  • Answer; Filed by Roee Perry (Defendant); Anna Perry (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/05/2019
  • Proof of Service by Mail; Filed by Angela Angulo (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/05/2019
  • Proof of Service by Mail; Filed by Angela Angulo (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/14/2018
  • Summons Issued; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/14/2018
  • Summons; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/14/2018
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/23/2018
  • Application ; Filed by Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/23/2018
  • APPLICATION AND ORDER FOR APPOINTMENT OF GUARDIAN AD LITEM-CIVIL

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/09/2018
  • Complaint; Filed by Angela Angulo (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/09/2018
  • COMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC705525    Hearing Date: February 26, 2020    Dept: 27

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: MOTION FOR LEAVE TO CONDUCT MENTAL EXAMINATION OF PLAINTIFF

On May 9, 2018, plaintiff Angela Angulo, a minor, by and through her guardian ad litem, Juliana Lucero, filed this action against defendants Roee Perry and Anna Perry (collectively, “Defendants”) for injuries sustained in a September 13, 2017 motor vehicle vs. pedestrian accident. Plaintiff claims physical, emotional, and mental injuries. The parties have already agreed that Plaintiff will undergo an examination with a neuropsychologist, Nicholas Thaler, but disagree as to whether Plaintiff may have a third-party observer present during the examination.

Defendants argue that under Edwards v. Superior Court (1976) 16 Cal.3d 905, only the examiner and examinee should be present in a mental examination. Plaintiff argues a medical observer is necessary only during the interview phase to protect her privacy and ensure the questions are within the agreed-upon scope. During the interview portion, Dr. Thaler will interview both Plaintiff and her mother. Plaintiff does not state who the medical observer would be.

Plaintiff cites no authority for her position that a medical observer may be present. In Edwards, a plaintiff was not allowed to have counsel present during a psychiatric examination to protect her from improper questioning. The Edwards court determined that this concern did not overcome the defendant’s right to an effective psychiatric examination free from external influences. Also, the reasons given for needing the medical observer are not convincing. The term “medical observer” suggests a non-lawyer, which means the person would not be equipped to decide whether questions violated Plaintiff’s right to privacy. In any event, if the purpose of the medical observer is to object and prevent Plaintiff from answering questions the observer thinks are inappropriate, that observer is likely to disrupt the interview and cause the types of problems the California Supreme Court sought to prevent in Edwards.

Defendant’s Motion is GRANTED. Plaintiff shall undergo a mental examination with Dr. Thaler on March 9, 2020 at 9:00 a.m. at 16633 Ventura Blvd., Suite 700, Encino, California 91436, with no third party observer. The mental examination will consist of the tests previously stipulated to by the parties as stated in Plaintiff’s Exhibit B, Section 7(e).

Moving party to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SSCDEPT27@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative.