This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 06/01/2019 at 07:30:01 (UTC).

ARMEN MATEVOSYAN ET AL VS IIONA GUYNASHYAN

Case Summary

On 12/12/2017 ARMEN MATEVOSYAN filed a Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle lawsuit against IIONA GUYNASHYAN. 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:

    ****6072

  • Filing Date:

    12/12/2017

  • 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

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

JON R. TAKASUGI

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs and Petitioners

MATEVOSYAN ARMEN

KHONIAN SARKIS

Defendants and Respondents

GUYNASHYAN ILONA

DOES 1 TO 100

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorney

ABRAHAM MARTIN ESQ.

Defendant and Respondent Attorney

LAW OFFICES OF GREGORY J. LUCETT

 

Court Documents

Other -

10/10/2018: Other -

Unknown

4/3/2019: Unknown

Stipulation to Continue Trial/FSC [and Related Motion/Discovery Dates] Personal Injury Courts Only (Department 91, 92, 93, 97)

5/13/2019: Stipulation to Continue Trial/FSC [and Related Motion/Discovery Dates] Personal Injury Courts Only (Department 91, 92, 93, 97)

ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

1/17/2018: ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

DEMAND FOR JURY

1/17/2018: DEMAND FOR JURY

CIVIL DEPOSIT

1/17/2018: CIVIL DEPOSIT

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

12/20/2017: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

SUMMONS

12/12/2017: SUMMONS

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

12/12/2017: COMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)

 

Docket Entries

  • 05/28/2019
  • at 10:00 AM in Department 3, Jon R. Takasugi, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Continued - Stipulation

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/13/2019
  • [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 MoreRead Less
  • 04/03/2019
  • Notice of Deposit - Jury; Filed by ARMEN MATEVOSYAN (Plaintiff); SARKIS KHONIAN (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/10/2018
  • Other - (Plaintiffs Notice of association of Counsel); Filed by ARMEN MATEVOSYAN (Plaintiff); SARKIS KHONIAN (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/17/2018
  • Answer; Filed by ILONA GUYNASHYAN (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/17/2018
  • Demand for Jury Trial; Filed by ILONA GUYNASHYAN (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/17/2018
  • Receipt; Filed by ILONA GUYNASHYAN (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/17/2018
  • DEMAND FOR JURY

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/17/2018
  • ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/17/2018
  • CIVIL DEPOSIT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/20/2017
  • Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by ARMEN MATEVOSYAN (Plaintiff); SARKIS KHONIAN (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/20/2017
  • PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/12/2017
  • Complaint; Filed by ARMEN MATEVOSYAN (Plaintiff); SARKIS KHONIAN (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/12/2017
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/12/2017
  • COMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC686072    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.,

Plaintiff(s),

vs.

ILONA GUYNASHYAN, ET AL.,

Defendant(s).

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: BC686072

[TENTATIVE] ORDER

Dept. 3

1:30 p.m.

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 sscdept3@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.  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.