Pending - Other Pending
Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle
JON R. TAKASUGI
DOES 1 TO 100
ABRAHAM MARTIN ESQ.
LAW OFFICES OF GREGORY J. LUCETT
12/12/2017: COMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)
12/20/2017: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS
1/17/2018: CIVIL DEPOSIT
1/17/2018: DEMAND FOR JURY
1/17/2018: ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
5/13/2019: Stipulation to Continue Trial/FSC [and Related Motion/Discovery Dates] Personal Injury Courts Only (Department 91, 92, 93, 97)
10/10/2018: Other -
Docketat 10:00 AM in Department 3, Jon R. Takasugi, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Continued - Stipulation[+] Read More [-] Read Less
Docket[Proposed Order] and Stipulation to Continue Trial, FSC (and Related Motion/Discovery Dates) Personal Injury Courts Only (Central District); Filed by ARMEN MATEVOSYAN (Plaintiff); SARKIS KHONIAN (Plaintiff)[+] Read More [-] Read Less
DocketNotice of Deposit - Jury; Filed by ARMEN MATEVOSYAN (Plaintiff); SARKIS KHONIAN (Plaintiff)[+] Read More [-] Read Less
DocketOther - (Plaintiffs Notice of association of Counsel); Filed by ARMEN MATEVOSYAN (Plaintiff); SARKIS KHONIAN (Plaintiff)[+] Read More [-] Read Less
DocketAnswer; Filed by ILONA GUYNASHYAN (Defendant)[+] Read More [-] Read Less
DocketDemand for Jury Trial; Filed by ILONA GUYNASHYAN (Defendant)[+] Read More [-] Read Less
DocketReceipt; Filed by ILONA GUYNASHYAN (Defendant)[+] Read More [-] Read Less
DocketDEMAND FOR JURY[+] Read More [-] Read Less
DocketANSWER TO COMPLAINT[+] Read More [-] Read Less
DocketCIVIL DEPOSIT[+] Read More [-] Read Less
DocketProof-Service/Summons; Filed by ARMEN MATEVOSYAN (Plaintiff); SARKIS KHONIAN (Plaintiff)[+] Read More [-] Read Less
DocketPROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS[+] Read More [-] Read Less
DocketComplaint; Filed by ARMEN MATEVOSYAN (Plaintiff); SARKIS KHONIAN (Plaintiff)[+] Read More [-] Read Less
DocketSUMMONS[+] Read More [-] Read Less
DocketCOMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)[+] Read More [-] Read Less
Case Number: ****6072 Hearing Date: October 24, 2019 Dept: 3
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT
ARMEN MATEVOSYAN, ET AL.,
ILONA GUYNASHYAN, ET AL.,
Case No.: ****6072
October 24, 2019
Plaintiffs, Armen Matevosyan and Sarkis Khonian filed this action against Defendant, Ilona Guynashyan for damages arising out of an automobile accident. Plaintiff, Khonian alleges he sustained orthopedic injuries as a result of the accident.
Plaintiff resides in Armenia. Defendant wishes to conduct his IME in Los Angeles, approximately 7100 miles away. Pursuant to CCP ;2032.320(e):
(e) If the place of the examination is more than 75 miles from the residence of the person to be examined, an order to submit to it shall be entered only if both of the following conditions are satisfied:
(1) The court determines that there is good cause for the travel involved.
(2) The order is conditioned on the advancement by the moving party of the reasonable expenses and costs to the examinee for travel to the place of examination.
Defendants in a personal injury action are permitted one medical examination of the plaintiff as a matter of course. The examination, however, must be within 75 miles of the plaintiff’s residence. If the defendant wishes to conduct the examination more than 75 miles from the plaintiff’s residence, the defendant must show “good cause for the travel involved.” Defendant argues Plaintiff should be compelled to come to Los Angeles for an IME because he chose the venue for the action, because any doctor who testifies at trial needs to be a local doctor, and because Plaintiff will likely come and testify at trial. Plaintiff clearly chose the venue because the incident occurred in Los Angeles, and filing in Armenia would not have been proper. It is not clear, from the moving or opposing papers, whether Plaintiff intends to personally appear and testify at trial.
Defendant’s chosen expert is in Los Angeles, and he cannot reasonably be expected to travel to Armenia to conduct the examination. Plaintiff, in opposition to the motion, argues that there are many orthopedic experts in Armenia, and that they can conduct the IME there. It is not, however, reasonable to require a California defendant to employ an Armenian physician to conduct an IME. Indeed, it is not clear how this would even work; would the Armenian doctor then need to travel to Los Angeles for the trial of this action in order to testify on the defendant’s behalf? Additionally, as Defendant notes in reply, it is not clear if doctors in Armenia are familiar with conducting American IMEs, testifying at American trials, etc.
The Court is concerned, however, about the fact that Plaintiff traveled to Los Angeles for his deposition, and Defendant did not schedule the IME while Plaintiff was in town. Plaintiff contends he was in town for a month for the deposition, and the IME could have been conducted at that time. The Court is also concerned about the fact that Plaintiff’s attorney appears to have agreed to have his client come to LA for the IME, but then changed his mind upon receipt of the demand for IME.
The Court is not issuing a tentative ruling granting or denying the motion. Instead, the Court wishes to have Counsel appear in person (not through CourtCall) at the hearing on the motion, prepared to address the following issues:
· Why wasn’t the IME conducted in connection with the deposition when Plaintiff was in town?
· Why did Plaintiff’s attorney indicate an intent to agree to the IME and then change his mind?
· Does Plaintiff have upcoming travel plans to California or the United States?
· Does Plaintiff intend to appear at trial? If yes, how far in advance of trial will Plaintiff be in California, and could an IME be scheduled shortly before trial to coordinate with Plaintiff’s presence in California?
If the Court ultimately decides there is good cause to require Plaintiff to appear for an IME in Los Angeles, the Court will condition the order on Defendant advancing all costs of travel to and from the examination. ;2032.320(e)(2).
Regardless of the outcome of the motion, the Court will not impose sanctions. Defendant seeks sanctions per CCP ;2032.250. ;2032.250 applies when there is a refusal to submit to a demand for examination “under this article.” However, per ;2032.320, a unilateral demand for examination cannot be propounded “under this article” if the plaintiff lives more than 75 miles from the location of the examination. Instead, such examination can only proceed pursuant to noticed motion. There is no provision for imposition of sanctions in connection with a ;2032.320 motion. Indeed, this should not be a motion to “compel” Plaintiff’s examination, but instead a motion to permit an IME in excess of 75 miles from Plaintiff’s residence.
Defendant is ordered to give notice.Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at email@example.com 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. If a party submits on the tentative, the party’s email must include the case number and must identify the party submitting on the tentative.