This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 06/04/2019 at 07:00:55 (UTC).

DELVIN MANUEL VS EMILY ALICIA GROSPE ET AL

Case Summary

On 09/13/2017 DELVIN MANUEL filed a Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle lawsuit against EMILY ALICIA GROSPE. 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:

    ****5747

  • Filing Date:

    09/13/2017

  • 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

MANUEL DELVIN

Defendants and Respondents

MILLER KEVIN PAYTON

DOES 1 TO 20

GROSPE EMILY ALICIA

GROSPE JOEL

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorney

SMITH J. SHAFFER

 

Court Documents

PLAINTIFF'S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 2 TO EXCLUDE EVII)ENCE, TESTIMONY, OR ARGUMENT REGARDING PAYMENTS FROM COLLATERAL SOURCES

9/7/2018: PLAINTIFF'S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 2 TO EXCLUDE EVII)ENCE, TESTIMONY, OR ARGUMENT REGARDING PAYMENTS FROM COLLATERAL SOURCES

Motion in Limine

5/10/2019: Motion in Limine

Motion in Limine

5/10/2019: Motion in Limine

Motion in Limine

5/10/2019: Motion in Limine

Motion in Limine

5/10/2019: Motion in Limine

Motion in Limine

5/10/2019: Motion in Limine

Motion in Limine

5/10/2019: Motion in Limine

Declaration

5/10/2019: Declaration

Motion in Limine

5/10/2019: Motion in Limine

Motion in Limine

5/10/2019: Motion in Limine

Motion in Limine

5/10/2019: Motion in Limine

Motion in Limine

5/10/2019: Motion in Limine

Motion in Limine

5/10/2019: Motion in Limine

Stipulation and Order

6/3/2019: Stipulation and Order

Unknown

10/31/2017: Unknown

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

10/31/2017: DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

ANSWER IO COMPLAINT

10/31/2017: ANSWER IO COMPLAINT

SUMMONS

9/13/2017: SUMMONS

8 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 06/03/2019
  • Stipulation and Order (proposed order and stipulation to continue trial); Filed by EMILY ALICIA GROSPE (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/10/2019
  • Proof of Personal Service; Filed by EMILY ALICIA GROSPE (Defendant); KEVIN PAYTON MILLER (Defendant); JOEL GROSPE (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/10/2019
  • Motion in Limine (mil no 8 to preclude plaintiffs counsel from questioning); Filed by EMILY ALICIA GROSPE (Defendant); KEVIN PAYTON MILLER (Defendant); JOEL GROSPE (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/10/2019
  • Motion in Limine (mil no 9 precluding reference to medical bills); Filed by EMILY ALICIA GROSPE (Defendant); KEVIN PAYTON MILLER (Defendant); JOEL GROSPE (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/10/2019
  • Motion in Limine (mil no 10 to exclude cumulative photos); Filed by EMILY ALICIA GROSPE (Defendant); KEVIN PAYTON MILLER (Defendant); JOEL GROSPE (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/10/2019
  • Motion in Limine (mil no 11 to exclude cumulative testimony); Filed by EMILY ALICIA GROSPE (Defendant); KEVIN PAYTON MILLER (Defendant); JOEL GROSPE (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/10/2019
  • Declaration (local rule 3.57 declaration); Filed by EMILY ALICIA GROSPE (Defendant); KEVIN PAYTON MILLER (Defendant); JOEL GROSPE (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/10/2019
  • Motion in Limine (mil no 6 to limit opinions of non retained experts); Filed by EMILY ALICIA GROSPE (Defendant); KEVIN PAYTON MILLER (Defendant); JOEL GROSPE (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/10/2019
  • Motion in Limine (mil no 5 to limit plaintiffs experts); Filed by EMILY ALICIA GROSPE (Defendant); KEVIN PAYTON MILLER (Defendant); JOEL GROSPE (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/10/2019
  • Motion in Limine (mil no 4 to preclude plaintiffs counsel); Filed by EMILY ALICIA GROSPE (Defendant); KEVIN PAYTON MILLER (Defendant); JOEL GROSPE (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
7 More Docket Entries
  • 09/07/2018
  • PLAINTIFF'S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 2 TO EXCLUDE EVII)ENCE, TESTIMONY, OR ARGUMENT REGARDING PAYMENTS FROM COLLATERAL SOURCES

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/31/2017
  • ANSWER IO COMPLAINT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/31/2017
  • DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/31/2017
  • Answer; Filed by Defendant/Respondent

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/31/2017
  • CIVIL DEPOSIT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/31/2017
  • Demand for Jury Trial; Filed by Defendant/Respondent

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/31/2017
  • Miscellaneous-Other; Filed by Defendant/Respondent

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/13/2017
  • COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURIES AND PROPERTY DAMAGE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/13/2017
  • Complaint; Filed by DELVIN MANUEL (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/13/2017
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC675747    Hearing Date: December 11, 2019    Dept: 2

Manuel v. Grospe, et al.

Plaintiff’s Motion to Augment Expert Witness Designation is GRANTED.

1) The motion is not untimely made as Defendants contend. On 10/25/19, the court continued trial to 2/11/2020. While the court stated that discovery is not continued, the order does not expressly state that expert discovery was also not to be based on the new trial date. Instead the court permitted Plaintiff to move to amend his expert witness designation by noticed motion. See Order of 10/25/19.

Motions concerning expert discovery can be heard on or before the 10th day before the date set for trial. Cal Code Civ Proc § 2024.030.

2) Plaintiff can move to augment his expert witness list by adding the name and address of any expert witness subsequently retained or amend the expert witness declaration with respect to that expert’s general substance of testimony. Code Civ. Proc., § 2034.610

Defendants argue that § 2034.610 applies to permit amendment or augmentation of retained experts only. Here, Plaintiff’s expert designation identified Ramin Rabbani, M.D. as a non-retained expert and seeks to replace Dr. Rabbani, because of his unavailability. Decl of J. Shaffer Smith, ¶¶ 5-6. Defendants read the statute too narrowly.

The parties are obligated to identify experts whose opinion a party expects to offer at trial. Cal Code Civil Procedure § 2034.26(b)(1). In the case of retained experts under Cal Code Civil Procedure § 2034.210(b), the party is required to provide an expert witness declaration containing certain information. Cal Code Civil Procedure § 2034.210(c).

Plaintiff’s failure to list an expert under Section 2034.260 subjects that expert’s testimony to exclusion from evidence. Cal Code Civil Procedure § 2034.300.

Therefore, without seeking leave to amend or augment his witness list under §2034.610, Plaintiff would be precluded from offering the new expert’s testimony whether retained or not retained.

3) To grant Plaintiff’s requested relief, the court must find that Plaintiff would not in the exercise of reasonable diligence have determined to call that expert, or the failure to call that expert was due to mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect. Cal Code Civil Procedure § 2034.620(c).

The court has discretion to grant leave to augment or amend an expert witness list after considering the extent to which the opposing party has relied on the list and whether the opposing party will suffer prejudice: Cal Code Civil Procedure § 2034.610.

Plaintiff has shown that he could not have determined to call Dr. Sanjiv Kumar Jain, M.D. at the time of the original designation as Plaintiff was not then treating with Dr. Jain. Declaration of J. Shaffer Smith, ¶ 6. Defendant had treated with Dr. Rabbani who was designated. Dr. Rabbani is now on leave, which Plaintiff could not have anticipated, and has failed to appear at depositions in the case. Id. ¶ 6.

Since Plaintiff is continuing to be treated for his injuries by a new physician, and because Dr. Rabbani is no longer available, it is reasonable to permit Plaintiff to designate Dr. Jain. That Dr. Jain’s field differs from Dr. Rabbani’s is not sufficient grounds to deny the motion. Plaintiff is presently seeking treatment from him for his injuries. Plaintiff could not anticipate that his formerly treating physician would not be available to attest to his injuries. Plaintiff would suffer prejudice without such testimony.

Defendant has not established any resulting prejudice. Defendant has not established that six months of trial preparation has been rendered “largely useless.” On 10/25/19, the court continued trial to 2/20/20. Defendant has sufficient time to take Dr. Jain’s deposition in advance of trial.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.

Case Number: BC675747    Hearing Date: December 06, 2019    Dept: 2

BC675747 Manuel v. Grospe, et al

On the court’s own motion, the hearing on the Motion to Augment Expert Witness Designation set for 12/6/19 is continued to 12/11/19 at 1:30 p.m. in Department SS-2. The due dates for the opposition and reply are based on the original hearing date.