This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 07/05/2019 at 01:48:41 (UTC).

HAN SU CHONG ET AL VS ANGEL FAVIAN ET AL

Case Summary

On 04/23/2018 a Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle case was filed by HAN SU CHONG against ANGEL FAVIAN in the jurisdiction of Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****3014

  • Filing Date:

    04/23/2018

  • 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

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs and Petitioners

PAK CHONG SUK

CHONG HAN SU

Defendants and Respondents

ORANGE COURIER INC.

EAN HOLDINGS LLC

FAVIAN ANGEL

DOES 1 TO 25 INCLUSIVE

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorney

TOPPILA BRIAN W. ESQ.

Defendant Attorney

FREEBURG GREGORY STEVEN

 

Court Documents

Request for Dismissal

3/22/2019: Request for Dismissal

Proof of Personal Service

4/3/2019: Proof of Personal Service

Proof of Personal Service

4/3/2019: Proof of Personal Service

Answer

5/2/2019: Answer

CoverSheet

4/23/2018: CoverSheet

Summons

4/23/2018: Summons

Complaint

4/23/2018: Complaint

 

Docket Entries

  • 05/02/2019
  • Answer; Filed by Orange Courier, Inc. (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/03/2019
  • Proof of Personal Service; Filed by Han Su Chong (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/03/2019
  • Proof of Personal Service; Filed by Han Su Chong (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/22/2019
  • Request for Dismissal; Filed by Han Su Chong (Plaintiff); Chong Suk Pak (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/23/2018
  • Summons; Filed by Han Su Chong (Plaintiff); Chong Suk Pak (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/23/2018
  • Complaint; Filed by Han Su Chong (Plaintiff); Chong Suk Pak (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/23/2018
  • Complaint

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC703014    Hearing Date: March 12, 2020    Dept: 28

The court considered the motion and opposition papers.

BACKGROUND

On April 23, 2018, Plaintiffs Han Su Chong (“Chong”) and Chong Suk Pak (“Pak”) (collectively “Plaintiffs”) filed a complaint, asserting a claim for motor vehicle negligence.

On March 22, 2019, Plaintiffs filed a Request for Dismissal, dismissing EAN Holdings, LLC from this action.

On May 2, 2019, Defendant Orange Courier, Inc. (“OCI”) filed an answer to the complaint.

On July 25, 2019, the court entered default against Defendant Angel Favian (“Favian”). 

REQUESTS

OCI and Favian move for leave to conduct an additional Independent Medical Examination (“IME”) of Chong.

LEGAL STANDARD

C.C.P. §2032.220(a) provides, as follows:

In any case in which a plaintiff is seeking recovery for personal injuries, any defendant may demand one physical examination of the plaintiff, if both of the following conditions are satisfied:

(1)¿The examination does not include any diagnostic test or procedure that is painful, protracted, or intrusive.

(2)¿The examination is conducted at a location within 75 miles of the residence of the examinee.

C.C.P. §2031.310 provides, as follows:

(a)¿If any party desires to obtain discovery by a physical examination other than that described in Article 2 (commencing with¿Section 2032.210), or by a mental examination, the party shall obtain leave of court.

(b)¿A motion for an examination under subdivision (a) shall specify the time, place, manner, conditions, scope, and nature of the examination, as well as the identity and the specialty, if any, of the person or persons who will perform the examination. The motion shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under¿Section 2016.040.

(c)¿Notice of the motion shall be served on the person to be examined and on all parties who have appeared in the action.

C.C.P. §2032.320(a) provides, as follows: “The court shall grant a motion for a physical or mental examination under¿Section 2032.310¿only for good cause shown.

DISCUSSION

Favian and OCI (collectively “Defendants”) move for leave to conduct an additional IME of Chong. Defendants argue “there is good cause to allow [them] to conduct both an orthopedic IME and a dental IME, as plaintiff HAN SU CHONG is claiming both orthopedic injuries and dental injuries as a result of the accident giving rise to the instant lawsuit.” (Notice of Motion, pgs. 1-2.)

The motion was originally noticed for hearing on January 30, 2020. On January 23, 2020, the court continued the hearing to March 12, 2020. The court ordered Defendants to give notice. (Court’s January 23, 2020 Minute Order.) Defendants did not establish Plaintiffs were given notice of the continuance.

Favian cannot bring a motion for leave to conduct an additional IME. The court entered default against Favian on July 25, 2019. It does not appear the default has been set aside. 

Even assuming, arguendo, Defendants gave proper notice of the continuance and the default against Favian has been set aside, Defendants did not establish good cause exists to allow them to conduct an additional IME of Chong. Defendants served a Demand for Defense Medical Examination on December 16, 2019, demanding Chong submit to an orthopedic examination to be conducted by Dr. Brien to determine the extent and nature of any injuries which Chong contends he suffered as a result of the subject accident. (Declaration Burnet ¶4; Exhibit C.) Defendants also served a Demand for Defense Dental Examination on December 16, 2019, demanding that Chong submit to a dental examination to be conducted by Dr. Jaeger to determine the extent and nature of any dental injuries which Chong contends he suffered as a result of the subject accident. (Declaration of Burnet ¶5; Exhibit D.)  Defendants seek leave to conduct a second IME (dental) even though Plaintiffs represent the first IME (orthopedic) has not taken place and Plaintiffs have not even been deposed. (Opposition, pg. 2.) Moreover, Defendants’ motion is not supported by sufficient evidence. Defendants base their need for the second IME (dental) on Chong’s responses to Form Interrogatories (Set One) and some dental records purportedly produced by Chong. (Declaration of Burnet ¶¶2-3, 9; Exhibits A-B, H.) However, Chong’s responses to Form Interrogatories (Set One) do not justify an IME. In the responses, Chong indicated he suffered injuries to his teeth as a result of the subject accident and continues to have teeth pain. The responses do not indicate the nature and extent of injuries Chong claims to have sustained to his teeth, and Defendants did not submit Chong’s complete response to No. 6.4, which would have, at the very least, identified any healthcare providers he consulted with or received treatment from for injuries to his teeth, the type of consultation, examination, or treatment provided, the dates he received consultation, examination, or treatment, and the charges to date.  Chong’s purported dental records also do not help.  The alleged accident occurred on June 15, 2016. The dental records appear to cover a treatment period from July 4, 2016 to May 31, 2018. The dental records refer to a maxillary full implant placement on July 25, 2017, mandibular implant on December 13, 2016, and old implant crown replacements. It is unclear if Chong is claiming any or all of the dental treatment he received relates to the subject accident. In short, Defendants’ request for a second IME is premature and unsupported.

CONCLUSION

The court cannot determine based upon the showing by Defendant as to whether Plaintiff is contending he suffered a dental injury.  Unfortunately, Plaintiff's opposition offers no insight into the issue.  Accordingly, the parties should come to the March 12, 2020 hearing to discuss, and, hopefully, resolve the issue. 

Case Number: BC703014    Hearing Date: March 11, 2020    Dept: 28

Motion to Continue Trial

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

BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs Han Su Chong and Chong Suk Pak (collectively “Plaintiffs”) filed this action against Defendants Angel Favian, Orange Courier, Inc., and EAN Holdings, LLC (collectively “Defendants”) on April 23, 2018 alleging a single cause of action for motor vehicle negligence arising from an automobile collision which occurred on June 15, 2016. Plaintiff dismissed Defendant EAN Holdings, LLC from the action on March 22, 2019. 

Trial is currently set for April 28, 2020.

PARTYS REQUESTS

Defendant Orange Courier, Inc. (“Moving Defendant”) moves the Court to continue the trial date to September 28, 2020.  

LEGAL STANDARD

Trial dates are firm to ensure prompt disposition of civil cases. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332(a).) Continuances are thus generally disfavored. (See id. rule 3.1332(b).) Nevertheless, the trial court has discretion to continue trial dates. (Hernandez v. Superior Court (2004) 115 Cal.App.4th 1242, 1246.) Each request for continuance must be considered on its own merits and is granted upon an affirmative showing of good cause. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332(c); Hernandez, supra, 115 Cal.App.4th at 1246.) Circumstances that may indicate good cause include: (1) the unavailability of an essential lay or expert witness due to death, illness, or other excusable circumstances; (2) the unavailability of a party due to death, illness, or other excusable circumstances; (3) the unavailability of trial counsel due to death, illness, or other excusable circumstances; (4) the substitution of trial counsel where there is an affirmative showing that the substitution is required in the interests of justice; (5) the addition of a new party if (A) the new party has not had a reasonable opportunity to conduct discovery and prepare for trial, or (B) the other parties have not had a reasonable opportunity to conduct discovery and prepare for trial in regard to the new party’s involvement in the case; (6) a party’s excused inability to obtain essential testimony, documents, or other material evidence despite diligent efforts; or (7) a significant, unanticipated change in the status of the case as a result of which the case is not ready for trial. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332(c).)

DISCUSSION

Defendants seek a second trial continuance in the instant matter to September 28, 2020. The initial trial date of October 23, 2019 was continued to the current date of April 28, 2020 upon a stipulation of the parties submitted on July 25, 2019. (Acker Decl., ¶ 3.) 

According to defense counsel, Plaintiff Chong “disclosed in written discovery responses having sustained dental injuries as well as other bodily injuries for which he underwent treatment,” which prompted Moving Defendant and Defendant Favian to file a motion for leave to conduct additional medical examination of Plaintiff Chong with a dentist along with an orthopedic examination. (Acker Decl., ¶ 4.) The hearing on the motion for leave was continued by the Court from January 30, 2020 to March 12, 2020. 

Defendant argues that good cause exists to continue the April 28, 2020 trial because 1) no defense medical examinations have been completed and 2) it will not be possible to schedule an examination prior to trial in light of the March 12, 2020 hearing on Defendant’s discovery motion. (Mot., p. 3.) Additionally, Defendant notes that Plaintiffs reside in Korea, which has delayed the completion of any medical examinations. (Id.) Plaintiffs have not opposed the instant motion. 

In light of the continued hearing on Defendant’s discovery motion to resolve the orthopedic and dental examinations requested, the Court finds good cause to continue the trial in this matter to September 28, 2020. 

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, Defendant’s motion to continue trial to September 28, 2020, is GRANTED.

Moving Defendant is ordered to give notice of this ruling.