Search

Attributes

This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 06/15/2019 at 11:58:46 (UTC).

DAVID BOYLE VS LAURA SANDUSKY ET AL

Case Summary

On 10/11/2017 DAVID BOYLE filed a Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle lawsuit against LAURA SANDUSKY. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is GEORGINA T. RIZK. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****9109

  • Filing Date:

    10/11/2017

  • 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

GEORGINA T. RIZK

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner

BOYLE DAVID

Defendants and Respondents

SANDUSKY LAURA

SANDUSKY MATTHEW D.

DOES 1 TO 100

Not Classified By Court

DAVID BOYLE

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorney

BOYLE DAVID

Defendant Attorney

STENBERG ERIC JAMES ESQ.

 

Court Documents

NOTICE OF CHANGE OF HANDLING ATTORNEY AND FIRM LOCATION

2/13/2018: NOTICE OF CHANGE OF HANDLING ATTORNEY AND FIRM LOCATION

Notice of Change of Firm Name

1/22/2019: Notice of Change of Firm Name

Minute Order

3/27/2019: Minute Order

Notice of Ruling

4/5/2019: Notice of Ruling

Motion to Extend Discovery Cut-Off Date

4/9/2019: Motion to Extend Discovery Cut-Off Date

Minute Order

4/11/2019: Minute Order

Proof of Service by Mail

4/11/2019: Proof of Service by Mail

Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

5/3/2019: Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

Minute Order

5/10/2019: Minute Order

Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

5/13/2019: Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

5/13/2019: Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

Notice of Ruling

5/13/2019: Notice of Ruling

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

11/15/2017: DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

ANSWER-PERSONAL INJURY PROPERTY DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH

11/15/2017: ANSWER-PERSONAL INJURY PROPERTY DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH

PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

10/20/2017: PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

10/20/2017: PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

SUMMONS

10/11/2017: SUMMONS

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

10/11/2017: COMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)

7 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 06/11/2019
  • at 1:30 PM in Department 2, Georgina T. Rizk, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Compel Discovery (not "Further Discovery") - Not Held - Rescheduled by Party

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/11/2019
  • at 1:30 PM in Department 2, Georgina T. Rizk, Presiding; Hearing on Motion for Sanctions - Not Held - Rescheduled by Party

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/13/2019
  • Notice of Ruling; Filed by David Boyle (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/13/2019
  • Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint) (Consent to Electronic Service and Notice of Electronic Service Address); Filed by David Boyle (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/13/2019
  • Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint) (Electronic); Filed by David Boyle (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/10/2019
  • at 1:30 PM in Department 2, Georgina T. Rizk, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Compel Discovery (not "Further Discovery") - Not Held - Rescheduled by Party

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/10/2019
  • at 1:30 PM in Department 2, Georgina T. Rizk, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Extend Discovery Cut-Off Date - Held - Motion Granted

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/10/2019
  • at 1:30 PM in Department 2, Georgina T. Rizk, Presiding; Hearing on Motion for Sanctions - Not Held - Rescheduled by Party

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/10/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Hearing on Motion to Extend Discovery Cut-Off Date)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/03/2019
  • Proof of Electronic Service re: Notice of Motion and Motion for Order to Extend Discovery Cutoff Date; Filed by David Boyle (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
13 More Docket Entries
  • 11/15/2017
  • ANSWER-PERSONAL INJURY PROPERTY DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/15/2017
  • DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/15/2017
  • Answer; Filed by Defendant/Respondent

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/20/2017
  • PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/20/2017
  • Proof-Service/Summons

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/20/2017
  • Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/20/2017
  • PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/11/2017
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/11/2017
  • Complaint; Filed by null

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/11/2017
  • COMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC679109    Hearing Date: January 19, 2021    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - SOUTH DISTRICT

DAVID BOYLE,

Plaintiff(s),

vs.

LAURA SANDUSKY, ET AL.,

Defendant(s).

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CASE NO: BC679109

[TENTATIVE] ORDER

Dept. S27

8:30 a.m.

January 19, 2021

Moving Party: Plaintiff, David Boyle

Opposing Party: Defendants, Laura and Matthew Sandusky

Notice: OK

1. Background Facts

Plaintiff, David Boyle filed this action against Defendants, Laura and Matthew Sandusky for damages arising out of an automobile accident. Plaintiff filed the complaint on 10/11/17. Defendants filed their answer on 11/15/17. On 9/04/19, due to the volume of pending motions, the personal injury hub court transferred the matter to Department S27 of the Long Beach Superior Court, where it is currently pending.

On 1/31/20, the Court heard an OSC re: appointment of a discovery referee. Because the parties remained unable to resolve numerous outstanding discovery disputes, the Court found appointment of a referee was necessary. On 3/12/20, having received names from both parties, the Court appointed Wendy Kramer as the discovery referee. However, on 8/20/20, at Kramer’s request, the Court relieved her of her duties. The Court also denied Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions, indicating it was discovery-related and should be resolved by the new referee. On 9/10/20, the Court appointed Paul Carter as the new referee.

On 11/16/20, Carter submitted a report concerning discovery issues. His report indicates all issues have been resolved, and no sanctions are appropriate. On 12/21/20, Plaintiff filed the motion on calendar today, which will be discussed below.

2. Motion re: Objections to IME and Referee’s Report

On 12/21/20, Plaintiff filed the motion on calendar today. The motion seeks (a) an order that he not be required to sit for an IME unless or until he is vaccinated (and an attendant order continuing the trial and related dates), and (b) an order that the discovery referee’s report be disregarded and substantial sanctions imposed.

  1. Initial Note

To the extent this motion seeks to vacate the referee’s findings, Plaintiff did not reserve a hearing date for this motion (to the extent the motion seeks to vacate the IME and continue trial, the Court specially set the hearing on the motion via ex parte application on 12/09/20). Plaintiff contends he did not do so because the first available scheduled hearing date was in June of 2021, and the trial in this action is scheduled for February of 2021. Plaintiff cannot simply choose hearing dates and file papers. If a necessary hearing date is not available, Plaintiff must use the ex parte process to obtain an emergency hearing date; the fact that he used this process in connection with the IME issue shows he is aware of the process and capable of using it. The Court will consider this motion on its merits, but advises Plaintiff it will likely not do so in the future; any unreserved hearing date will likely result in an order removing the motion from the calendar without a hearing.

  1. IME

Plaintiff seeks an order precluding an IME unless and until Plaintiff is vaccinated fully against COVID-19. Plaintiff’s IME is currently scheduled for 2/17/21 with Dr. Spoonamore; this was the first available date on Dr. Spoonamore’s calendar after the Court instructed Defendants to take the IME off calendar in connection with Plaintiff’s ex parte application (see 12/09/20 ex parte order). Notably, trial is scheduled for 2/16/21.

This is a difficult issue. The Court does not wish to potentially expose persons to COVID-19. That said, Plaintiff does not, in his moving papers, make a showing that (a) he is especially vulnerable to COVID-19, and/or (b) he is engaging in extreme protective behaviors to ensure he is not otherwise exposed to COVID-19. Doctors’ offices are taking extreme precautions to reduce the possibility of spread of the virus, including spacing between patients, sanitizing, and use of proper PPE. Assuming Plaintiff is not engaged in extreme shelter-in-place protocols, going to the doctors’ office is not more dangerous than any other behavior in which Plaintiff is already engaged. The Court will hear argument on this issue, but is inclined to require Plaintiff to go forward with his IME or risk imposition of issue sanctions.

The trial date must be continued because the IME is scheduled after the trial date. The Court will hear argument from the parties about the duration of the trial continuance and the availability of the parties for trial.

The Court does NOT grant Plaintiff’s request to re-open discovery for all purposes, as he failed to make a showing that re-opening discovery is warranted.

  1. Referee’s Report

The Court appointed a referee pursuant to CCP §639(a)(5), which permits the trial court to appoint a referee when discovery issues are complicated and require unnecessary use of court resources. The referee’s report is advisory, not determinative, and the trial court must review the report prior to acting on the recommendations. Rockwell Int’l Corp. v. Superior Court (1994) 26 Cal.App.4th 1255, 1269-1270. Any objections to the report are due within ten days after the report is served. CCP §643(c). Although a hearing on the objections is not required, the trial court may hold one if it chooses. Marathon Nat’l Bank v. Superior Court (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 1256, 1258.

No motion was necessary in connection with this issue. To the extent the Court construes Plaintiff’s motion as an objection, it is not timely. Regardless, the Court has independently reviewed the referee’s report, and finds the referee made specific findings to justify his conclusions, and his report should be adopted as this court’s final order. All discovery issues between the parties have been resolved. No sanctions are imposed.

The Court asks the parties to make arrangements to appear remotely at the hearing on this matter. Both parties must be prepared to discuss available FSC and trial dates.

DATED: January 19, 2021 _____________________________________

MARK C. KIM Judge of the Superior Court

Case Number: BC679109    Hearing Date: August 20, 2020    Dept: S27

Plaintiff, David Boyle filed this action against Defendants, Laura and Matthew Sandusky for damages arising out of an automobile accident.

Plaintiff filed a motion for sanctions on 1/03/20, setting it for hearing on 5/26/20. On 4/10/20, the Court issued a minute order continuing the hearing on the motion for sanctions, as well as a motion for protective order and status conference re: discovery referee, to 8/20/20 at 8:30 a.m. The Court ordered Defense Counsel to give notice. On 7/16/20, Defendants filed a notice of taking their motion for protective order off calendar. To date, Defendants have not filed a notice of continuance of the hearing on the motion for sanctions and/or status re: discovery referee.

Compounding the matter, Defendants filed opposition to the motion on 8/11/20. Per the Court’s 4/10/20 minute order, opposition was due per the ORIGINAL, not CONTINUED, hearing date. Even per the continued hearing date, under CCP §1005(b), opposition was due on or before 8/07/20, and was therefore extremely tardy on 8/11/20. Notably, reply papers would be due on or before 8/13/20, and the opposition was served by electronic service on 8/11/20, giving Plaintiff insufficient time to prepare and file a reply.

Compounding the matter further, the opposition references various motions filed by Plaintiff. The Court, however, only has one motion on calendar today: the motion for sanctions, filed on 1/03/20. To the extent the parties believe there are multiple motions on calendar, this needs to be clarified.

The hearing on the motion for sanctions is continued for one month, to Tuesday, 9/15/20 at 8:30 a.m. in Department S27 of the Long Beach Courthouse. At least two weeks prior to the hearing, each party must provide a brief and evidence concerning any outstanding issues that remain in dispute between them. The parties must clarify what motion(s) remain(s) on calendar, what discovery dispute(s) remain(s) on calendar, and whether sanctions are still at issue.

If the parties are both aware of the 8/20/20 hearing, and if both parties appear at the hearing, the Court will seek clarification of these issues from the parties at the time of the hearing. The Court will also conduct the status conference re: the discovery referee. If, however, the parties do not appear, then the Court will assume Plaintiff did not have notice of the hearing, and Defendants will be ordered to give notice of the continued hearing date.