This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 02/15/2020 at 00:47:48 (UTC).

CONNOR LUMPKIN VS MAHROU HANASSAAB

Case Summary

On 07/25/2017 CONNOR LUMPKIN filed a Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury lawsuit against MAHROU HANASSAAB. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are CHRISTOPHER K. LUI, DANIEL M. CROWLEY and STEPHEN M. MOLONEY. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****9326

  • Filing Date:

    07/25/2017

  • 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 Judges

CHRISTOPHER K. LUI

DANIEL M. CROWLEY

STEPHEN M. MOLONEY

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs and Petitioners

LUMPKIN CONNOR

MADDAHI MARYAM

MOTTAHEDEH MAHIN ABIZADEH

POURMOUSA PARVIN

Defendants and Respondents

HANASSAAB MAHROU

DOES 1 TO 50

LUMPKIN CONOR DOUGLAS

HANASSAB MAHROU

Defendant and Cross Plaintiff

HANASSAB MAHROU

Defendant and Cross Defendant

LUMPKIN CONOR DOUGLAS

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

KLEIN CANDICE S. ESQ.

PANISH SHEA & BOYLE LLP

KLEIN CANDICE SLOANE

HANASSAB FRED

Defendant Attorneys

PAULSON JOHN KENNETH

VELASTEGUI MARVIN PATRICIO

Cross Plaintiff Attorney

GOWER RICHARD

 

Court Documents

Motion to Compel - Motion to Compel The deposition of Defendant Mahrou Hanassaab and FurtherResponses to Request for Production; to Appear for Deposition: Memorandum of Points & Authorities; Request f

12/7/2018: Motion to Compel - Motion to Compel The deposition of Defendant Mahrou Hanassaab and FurtherResponses to Request for Production; to Appear for Deposition: Memorandum of Points & Authorities; Request f

Notice of Ruling

1/25/2019: Notice of Ruling

Notice of Ruling

1/25/2019: Notice of Ruling

Notice of Related Case

4/30/2019: Notice of Related Case

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL AND ALL REL...)

5/10/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL AND ALL REL...)

Ex Parte Application - EX PARTE APPLICATION EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL

5/10/2019: Ex Parte Application - EX PARTE APPLICATION EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (DEFENDANT'S EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL AND ALL RE...)

6/12/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (DEFENDANT'S EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL AND ALL RE...)

Opposition - OPPOSITION MOTION IN LIMINE NO.6

12/27/2019: Opposition - OPPOSITION MOTION IN LIMINE NO.6

Opposition - OPPOSITION MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 11

12/27/2019: Opposition - OPPOSITION MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 11

Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE PLAINTIFF'S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 6 TO PRECLUDE DEFENDANT HANASSAAB FROM MAKING ANY ARGUMENT THAT PLAINTIFF CONTRIBUTED TO OR IS AT FAULT FOR THE SUBJECT COLLISION;

12/27/2019: Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE PLAINTIFF'S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 6 TO PRECLUDE DEFENDANT HANASSAAB FROM MAKING ANY ARGUMENT THAT PLAINTIFF CONTRIBUTED TO OR IS AT FAULT FOR THE SUBJECT COLLISION;

Reply - REPLY TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION IN LIMINE NO.5 PRECLUDING PLAINTIFF'S COUNSEL FROM SUGGESTING A SPECIFIC MONETARY AMOUNT OF NON-ECONOMIC DAMAGES ("ANCHORING")

1/8/2020: Reply - REPLY TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION IN LIMINE NO.5 PRECLUDING PLAINTIFF'S COUNSEL FROM SUGGESTING A SPECIFIC MONETARY AMOUNT OF NON-ECONOMIC DAMAGES ("ANCHORING")

Reply - REPLY REPLY TO PLAINTIFFS MIL NUMBER 9

1/15/2020: Reply - REPLY REPLY TO PLAINTIFFS MIL NUMBER 9

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (JURY TRIAL)

1/27/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (JURY TRIAL)

Opposition - OPPOSITION OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT MAHROU HANAASSAB'S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 12 TO EXCLUDE PLAINTIFF'S LOSS OF EARNINGS DOCUMENTS NOT PRODUCED PRIOR TO DISCOVERY CUT-OFF AND REQUEST FOR EVI

1/27/2020: Opposition - OPPOSITION OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT MAHROU HANAASSAB'S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 12 TO EXCLUDE PLAINTIFF'S LOSS OF EARNINGS DOCUMENTS NOT PRODUCED PRIOR TO DISCOVERY CUT-OFF AND REQUEST FOR EVI

Objection - DEFENDANT'S OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE OF INTENT TO INTRODUCE VIDEO RECORDINGS OF DEFENDANT'S DEPOSITION AT TRIAL

1/28/2020: Objection - DEFENDANT'S OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE OF INTENT TO INTRODUCE VIDEO RECORDINGS OF DEFENDANT'S DEPOSITION AT TRIAL

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (JURY TRIAL)

1/30/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (JURY TRIAL)

Special Verdict

2/5/2020: Special Verdict

Stipulation, Receipt and Order re: Release of Civil Exhibits

2/5/2020: Stipulation, Receipt and Order re: Release of Civil Exhibits

107 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 07/27/2020
  • Hearing07/27/2020 at 08:30 AM in Department 28 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/13/2020
  • DocketAbstract of Judgment - Civil and Small Claims; Filed by Connor Lumpkin (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/06/2020
  • DocketNotice of Entry of Judgment / Dismissal / Other Order; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/05/2020
  • Docketat 09:00 AM in Department NE3; Jury Trial - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/05/2020
  • DocketSpecial Verdict; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/05/2020
  • DocketStipulation, Receipt and Order re: Release of Civil Exhibits; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/05/2020
  • DocketJury Question; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/05/2020
  • DocketJury Instructions; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/05/2020
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Jury Trial)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/05/2020
  • DocketJudgment (- Judgment on the Verdict - After Jury Trial - 02/05/2020 entered for Plaintiff Lumpkin, Connor against Defendant Hanassaab, Mahrou.); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
152 More Docket Entries
  • 10/31/2017
  • DocketDemand for Jury Trial; Filed by Defendant/Respondent

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/14/2017
  • DocketPROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/11/2017
  • DocketProof-Service/Summons; Filed by Connor Lumpkin (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/11/2017
  • DocketPROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/11/2017
  • DocketProof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by Connor Lumpkin (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/25/2017
  • DocketSUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/25/2017
  • DocketSummons; Filed by Connor Lumpkin (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/25/2017
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Connor Lumpkin (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/25/2017
  • DocketCOMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/25/2017
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Parvin Pourmousa (Plaintiff); Mahin Abizadeh Mottahedeh (Plaintiff); Maryam Maddahi (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC669326    Hearing Date: December 19, 2019    Dept: 4A

Motion to Set Expert Deposition Fees

Having considered the moving papers, the Court rules as follows.

BACKGROUND

In BC669326, on July 25, 2017, Plaintiff Connor Lumpkin filed a complaint against Defendant Mahrou Hanassab alleging motor vehicle and general negligence for an automobile collision that occurred on April 29, 2017.

In 18STCV03330, on October 31, 2018, Plaintiffs Parvin Pourmousa, Mahin Abizadeh Mottahedeh, and Maryam Maddahi filed a complaint against Defendants Conor Douglas Lupkin and Mahrou Hanassab alleging motor vehicle and general negligence for an automobile collision that occurred on April 29, 2017.

In 18STCV03330, on March 13, 2019, Defendant Mahrou Hanassab filed a cross-complaint against Defendant Conor Douglas Lumpkin seeking indemnification, apportionment of fault, and declaratory relief.

On July 5, 2019, the Court consolidated case numbers BC669326 and 18STCV03330.

On November 12, 2019, Defendant Mahrou Hanassab filed a motion to set expert deposition fees pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 2034.430.

Trial is set for January 15, 2020.

PARTYS REQUEST

Defendant Mahrou Hanassab (“Moving Defendant”) asks the Court to set the fees for deposing Sam Bakshian, M.D. at $750 per hour.

LEGAL STANDARD

“A party desiring to depose an expert witness described in subdivision (a) shall pay the expert’s reasonable and customary hourly or daily fee for any time spent at the deposition . . . .” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2034.430, subd. (b).)  Thus an expert being deposed is entitled to his or her “reasonable and customary” fees.

“If a party desiring to take the deposition of an expert witness under this article deems that the hourly or daily fee of that expert for providing deposition testimony is unreasonable, that party may move for an order setting the compensation of that expert.”  (Code Civ. Proc. § 2034.470, subd. (a).)  The motion must be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration, and during such conference the expert or the party must provide:

  1. Proof of the ordinary and customary fee actually charged and received by that expert for similar services provided outside the subject litigation.

  1. The total number of times the presently demanded fee has ever been charged and received by that expert.

  1. The frequency and regularity with which the presently demanded fee has been charged and received by that expert within the two-year period preceding the hearing on the motion.

(Code Civ. Proc. § 2034.470, subd. (b)(1)-(3).)

In evaluating a motion under this section, the court must assess the “proof of the ordinary and customary fee actually charged and received by that expert for similar services provided outside the subject litigation.”  (Code Civ. Proc. § 2034.470, subd. (c).)  The expert must also provide, and the court must assess, evidence of the following:

  1. The total number of times the presently demanded fee has ever been charged and received by that expert.

  1. The frequency and regularity with which the presently demanded fee has been charged and received by that expert within the two-year period preceding the hearing on the motion.

(Code Civ. Proc. § 2034.470, subd. (d)(1)-(2).)  The court may also consider fees for similar experts in the relevant community, and other factors deemed relevant.  (Code Civ. Proc. § 2034.470, subd. (e).)

DISCUSSION

Moving Defendant subpoenaed Dr. Sam Bakshian, who had treated Plaintiff Connor Lumpkin after the collision that gives rise to this action.  (Mendoza Decl., ¶¶ 2-3.)  Dr. Bakshian required a rate of $1,500 an hour with a two hour minimum.  (Mendoza Decl., ¶ 4.)  Dr. Luke Macyszyn, M.D., a retained neurological and orthopedic expert, requires a fee of $1,000 for a deposition with no minimum time.  (Mendoza Decl., ¶ 6.)  Dr. Hillel Sperling, an orthopedic surgeon, charges an hourly rate of $1,000 for depositions.  (Mendoza Decl., ¶ 7.)  Moving Defendant argues that Dr. Bakshian’s rate is unreasonable because orthopedic surgery experts ordinarily retained by Moving Defendant’s counsel charge an hourly rate of $1,000 an hour without a two-hour minimum.  (Ibid.)  Moving Defendant further argues that Dr. Bakshian has a lighter work load as a non-retained expert and, thus, a $750 hourly rate is reasonable here.  (Mendoza Decl., ¶ 8.)

The Court finds that it cannot conclude that Dr. Bakshian’s fees are unreasonable.  The Court must review the total number of times the currently demanded fee has been charged and received by the expert.  The Court must also review the frequency and regularity that the requested fee has been charged and received by that expert within the two-year period preceding the hearing on the motion.  These are subjects of the meet and confer that Moving Defendant was required to discuss with Dr. Bakshian pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 2034.470, subdivision (b).  There is no evidence in the Mr. Mendoza’s declaration or otherwise that Moving Party requested this information from Dr. Bakshian or Plaintiff’s counsel.  Because of the apparent failure of Moving Party to request the information needed by the Court to rule on the fee issue, the Court cannot grant the motion.

Accordingly, the motion is DENIED without prejudice.

Moving Defendant is ordered to give notice of this ruling.