This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 06/14/2019 at 08:35:47 (UTC).

DORINDA MAE BROWN VS EAN HOLDINGS LLC ET AL

Case Summary

On 07/20/2017 DORINDA MAE BROWN filed a Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle lawsuit against EAN HOLDINGS LLC. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are HOLLY J. FUJIE, LAURA A. SEIGLE and AMY D. HOGUE. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****5074

  • Filing Date:

    07/20/2017

  • 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 Judges

HOLLY J. FUJIE

LAURA A. SEIGLE

AMY D. HOGUE

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner

BROWN DORINDA MAE

Defendants and Respondents

EAN HOLDINGS LLC

DOES 1 TO 20

MCCROSKY ANNET

AIYUBMLRAD ZUBER

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

BRAL S. SEAN ESQ.

BRAL S. SEAN

Defendant Attorney

BLAYLOCK JUSTIN S.

 

Court Documents

REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL

3/22/2018: REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL

ZUBER MURAD?S.ERRONEOUSLY NAMED AS ZUBER ECT.

5/9/2018: ZUBER MURAD?S.ERRONEOUSLY NAMED AS ZUBER ECT.

Minute Order

8/10/2018: Minute Order

Motion to Compel

10/22/2018: Motion to Compel

Motion to Compel

10/22/2018: Motion to Compel

Unknown

11/16/2018: Unknown

Unknown

1/18/2019: Unknown

Notice of Ruling

1/30/2019: Notice of Ruling

Notice of Ruling

1/30/2019: Notice of Ruling

Notice

2/6/2019: Notice

Declaration

3/4/2019: Declaration

Minute Order

3/5/2019: Minute Order

Motion to Compel

3/15/2019: Motion to Compel

Notice of Motion

3/20/2019: Notice of Motion

Stipulation and Order

5/15/2019: Stipulation and Order

Minute Order

1/3/2018: Minute Order

SUMMONS

7/20/2017: SUMMONS

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1. NEGLIGENCE

7/20/2017: COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1. NEGLIGENCE

17 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 05/15/2019
  • Stipulation and Order ([PROPOSED ORDER] AND STIPULATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL); Filed by ZUBER AIYUBMLRAD (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/14/2019
  • at 11:00 AM in Department 4B, Laura A. Seigle, Presiding; Informal Discovery Conference (IDC) - Not Held - Taken Off Calendar by Party

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/15/2019
  • at 10:00 AM in Department 4B, Laura A. Seigle, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses (To compel further responses to special interrogatories) - Not Held - Taken Off Calendar by Party

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/11/2019
  • at 10:00 AM in Department 4B, Laura A. Seigle, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses - Not Held - Taken Off Calendar by Party

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/11/2019
  • at 10:00 AM in Department 4B, Laura A. Seigle, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Compel (Plaintiff's Further Responses to Form Interrogatories and Rquest for Monetary Sanctions) - Not Held - Taken Off Calendar by Party

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/29/2019
  • Proof of Personal Service; Filed by EAN HOLDINGS LLC (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/20/2019
  • Notice of Motion; Filed by ZUBER AIYUBMLRAD (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/20/2019
  • Separate Statement; Filed by ZUBER AIYUBMLRAD (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/19/2019
  • Proof of Personal Service; Filed by EAN HOLDINGS LLC (Defendant); ZUBER AIYUBMLRAD (Defendant); ANNET MCCROSKY (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/15/2019
  • Motion to Compel (Defendant Zuber Murads Notice Of Motion And Motion To Compel Plaintiffs Further Responses To Form Interrogatories And Request For Monetary Sanctions; Memorandum Of Points And Authorities; Declaration Of Justin S. Blaylock In Support Thereof); Filed by ZUBER AIYUBMLRAD (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
35 More Docket Entries
  • 04/09/2018
  • Minute order entered: 2018-04-09 00:00:00; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/09/2018
  • Minute Order

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/22/2018
  • REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/22/2018
  • Partial Dismissal (w/o Prejudice)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/03/2018
  • at 10:00 AM in Department 98; Final Status Conference (Final Status Conference; Off Calendar) -

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/03/2018
  • Minute order entered: 2018-01-03 00:00:00; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/03/2018
  • Minute Order

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/20/2017
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/20/2017
  • COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1. NEGLIGENCE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/20/2017
  • Complaint; Filed by DORINDA MAE BROWN (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC675074    Hearing Date: February 10, 2020    Dept: 27

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: MOTION TO AUGMENT EXPERT WITNESS LIST

On July 20, 2017, plaintiff Dorina Mae Brown filed this action against EAN Holdings LLC, Zuber Murad, and Annet McCrosky for injuries and damages arising from a July 21, 2015 car accident. Plaintiff was stopped in traffic when Murad, who was driving a rental car from Enterprise Car Rental Company (sued as EAN Holdings), crashed into a vehicle in front of him, which was then pushed into Plaintiff’s car. Plaintiff moves to add Dr. Stepan Kasimian as an expert witness because she contends her retained expert witness, Dr. Tushar Doshi, no longer can testify due to his medical license being revoked.

On motion of any party who has engaged in a timely exchange of expert witness information, the court may grant leave to augment that party’s expert designation. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2034.610, subd. (a).) The motion is to be made a sufficient time in advance to permit the deposition of any expert to whom the motion relates to be taken before the discovery cut-off, unless exceptional circumstances exist. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2034.610, subd. (b).) Leave to augment an expert witness list shall be granted only if all of the conditions in Code of Civil Procedure section 2034.620 are satisfied.

Plaintiff’s counsel states that he timely served Plaintiff’s expert witness designation on December 30, 2019. Then on January 10, 2020, he discovered Dr. Doshi medical license was being revoked, and he would be unable to testify as a licensed doctor at the trial. Dr. Doshi had not previously told counsel about his legal problems. On January 13, 2020, Plaintiff’s counsel told defense counsel Plaintiff needed to amend the expert designation, but defense counsel refused to stipulate. On January 14, 2020, Plaintiff served an amended designation identifying Dr. Stepan Kasimian, who is one of Plaintiff’s treating doctors, as her expert and offered his deposition, after the expert discovery cutoff if necessary.

Defendant opposes Plaintiff’s motion as untimely and prejudicial. Defendant argues this motion is too late, and Plaintiff only offered Dr. Kasimian for a deposition on February 6 and February 13, after the January 29, 2020 expert discovery cutoff. Defendant argues he relied on the designation of Dr. Doshi in formulating trial strategy. Defendant argues the real reason Plaintiff wants a different expert is because Dr. Doshi was not qualified to provide an expert opinion about the need for spinal surgery, and that Plaintiff created this problem by failing to vet Dr. Doshi and discover public information about Dr. Doshi’s legal problems.

The decision revoking Dr. Doshi’s license was ordered on December 23, 2019 and became effective on January 22, 2020. It is not clear what information about the medical board proceeding was publicly available before then. Plaintiff’s counsel acted expeditiously after discovering the revocation on January 10 by informing defense counsel of the issue, serving an amended designation, and filing an ex parte application within days. There is no evidence Plaintiff’s counsel did not act diligently. To the extent Plaintiff’s counsel should have reviewed the medical board website to review Dr. Doshi’s standing before designating him on December 30, 2019, and assuming information about his license revocation was publicly available before December 30, counsel’s failure was the result of a mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect. Plaintiff’s counsel acted promptly to add the new expert and serve the new expert designation. Plaintiff offered to make Dr. Kasimian available before trial for a deposition.

The evidence does not establish significant reliance by Defendant on the December 30 designation of Dr. Doshi, and Defendant will not be prejudiced by Plaintiff’s designation of Dr. Kasimian. Within two weeks of the initial designations, Plaintiff’s counsel notified defense counsel of the expert problem. There is no evidence the parties had started to depose designated experts in those two weeks. Indeed, supplemental designations were not yet due. Defendant did not explain how it relied on the designation. For example, it did not explain what it would have done differently if it had known on December 30 that Dr. Kasimian would be the expert. Both Dr. Doshi and Dr. Kasimian were treating doctors. Defendant knew about their roles and has had their medical records for some time, long enough for Defendant’s experts to review the records and discuss them at their depositions. Expert depositions were taking place as recently as January 29, 2020, and trial can be continued to allow Defendant to depose Dr. Kasimian.

Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED. Trial is continued March 12, 2020 to allow time for Dr. Kasimian’s deposition.

Moving party to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SSCDEPT27@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative.