This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 01/05/2021 at 07:10:42 (UTC).

JAMES HOVORKA VS NYRIE SALRI DIKIJIAN ET AL

Case Summary

On 04/11/2018 JAMES HOVORKA filed a Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle lawsuit against NYRIE SALRI DIKIJIAN. 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, STEPHEN M. MOLONEY and RUPERT A. BYRDSONG. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****1492

  • Filing Date:

    04/11/2018

  • 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

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

CHRISTOPHER K. LUI

DANIEL M. CROWLEY

STEPHEN M. MOLONEY

RUPERT A. BYRDSONG

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner

HOVORKA JAMES

Defendants and Respondents

DOES 1 TO 25

DIKIJIAN KHAJAG

DIKIJIAN NYRIE SALRI

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

KRUGER JACKIE ROSE

BALADY MICHELLE

Defendant Attorneys

MACDONALD SCOTT L

LEOS RORY

LEOS RORY DANIEL

MACDONALD SCOTT LEE

 

Court Documents

Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (FURTHER ORDERS ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO QUASH DEPOSITION SUPB...) OF 11/09/2020

11/9/2020: Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (FURTHER ORDERS ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO QUASH DEPOSITION SUPB...) OF 11/09/2020

Notice of Ruling

8/4/2020: Notice of Ruling

Notice of Ruling

7/2/2020: Notice of Ruling

Notice - NOTICE NOTICE OF HEARING REGARDING DEFENDANTS MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF JAMES HOVORKAS INDEPENDENT MEDICAL EXAMINATION

7/6/2020: Notice - NOTICE NOTICE OF HEARING REGARDING DEFENDANTS MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF JAMES HOVORKAS INDEPENDENT MEDICAL EXAMINATION

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (DEFENDANTS' EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER CONTINUING TRIA...)

7/1/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (DEFENDANTS' EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER CONTINUING TRIA...)

Notice of Ruling

1/24/2020: Notice of Ruling

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (NUNC PRO TUNC ORDER)

1/29/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (NUNC PRO TUNC ORDER)

Notice of Ruling

1/14/2020: Notice of Ruling

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (DEFENDANT NYRIE SALRI KIKIJIAN AND KHALAG KIKIKIAN'S MOTION F...)

1/15/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (DEFENDANT NYRIE SALRI KIKIJIAN AND KHALAG KIKIKIAN'S MOTION F...)

Reply - REPLY DEF DECLARATION AND REPLY TO PLTF OPPO RE MTC SPROGS & RFP SET 2

1/8/2020: Reply - REPLY DEF DECLARATION AND REPLY TO PLTF OPPO RE MTC SPROGS & RFP SET 2

Opposition - OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO COMPEL TO SET TWO OF REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

1/2/2020: Opposition - OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO COMPEL TO SET TWO OF REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

Reply - REPLY TO DEFENDANT'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS

1/2/2020: Reply - REPLY TO DEFENDANT'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS

Opposition - OPPOSITION PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION

12/10/2019: Opposition - OPPOSITION PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION

Motion to Compel - MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANTS NYRIE SALRI DIKIJIAN AND KHALAG DIKIKIAN'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR ORDER COMPELLING PLAINTIFF JAMES HOVORKA'S RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION

12/11/2019: Motion to Compel - MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANTS NYRIE SALRI DIKIJIAN AND KHALAG DIKIKIAN'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR ORDER COMPELLING PLAINTIFF JAMES HOVORKA'S RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION

Notice - NOTICE OF ERRATA RE: EX-PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER TO CONTINUE DEPOSITION OF JAMES HOVORKA

12/12/2019: Notice - NOTICE OF ERRATA RE: EX-PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER TO CONTINUE DEPOSITION OF JAMES HOVORKA

Notice of Rejection Default/Clerk's Judgment

10/31/2019: Notice of Rejection Default/Clerk's Judgment

[Proposed Order] and Stipulation to Continue Trial, FSC (and Related Motion/Discovery Dates) Person - [PROPOSED ORDER] AND STIPULATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL, FSC (AND RELATED MOTION/DISCOVERY DATES) PERSO

7/2/2019: [Proposed Order] and Stipulation to Continue Trial, FSC (and Related Motion/Discovery Dates) Person - [PROPOSED ORDER] AND STIPULATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL, FSC (AND RELATED MOTION/DISCOVERY DATES) PERSO

Order - Order Re: Demurrer & Motion to Strike to Complaint

10/23/2018: Order - Order Re: Demurrer & Motion to Strike to Complaint

74 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 09/08/2021
  • Hearing09/08/2021 at 08:30 AM in Department 28 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Jury Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/25/2021
  • Hearing08/25/2021 at 10:00 AM in Department 28 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Final Status Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/15/2020
  • Docket[Proposed Order] and Stipulation to Continue Trial, FSC (and Related Motion/Discovery Dates) Personal Injury Courts Only (Central District); Filed by James Hovorka (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/09/2020
  • DocketNotice (Notice of Errata for Ruling on MTQ Subpoena); Filed by James Hovorka (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/19/2020
  • DocketNotice of Ruling; Filed by James Hovorka (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/09/2020
  • Docketat 10:00 AM in Department 28, Rupert A. Byrdsong, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Quash (Deposition Subpoena) - Not Held - Taken Off Calendar by Party

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/09/2020
  • Docketat 2:15 PM in Department 28, Daniel M. Crowley, Presiding; Court Order

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/09/2020
  • Docketat 1:30 PM in Department 28, Daniel M. Crowley, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Quash (Deposition Subpoena) - Held - Motion Denied

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/09/2020
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Further orders on Plaintiff's Motion to Quash Deposition Supb...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/09/2020
  • DocketCertificate of Mailing for ((Further orders on Plaintiff's Motion to Quash Deposition Supb...) of 11/09/2020); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
106 More Docket Entries
  • 10/10/2018
  • DocketOpposition (to defendants' demurrer and motion to strike); Filed by James Hovorka (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/30/2018
  • DocketDEFENDANTS NOTICE OF DEMURRER AND DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFFS COMPLAINT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/30/2018
  • DocketDEFENDANTS NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO STRIKE PLAINTIFFS THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION EXEMPLARY DAMAGES ATTACHMENT;AND ETC.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/30/2018
  • DocketMotion to Strike; Filed by Nyrie Salri Dikijian (Defendant); Khajag Dikijian (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/30/2018
  • DocketDemurrer; Filed by Nyrie Salri Dikijian (Defendant); Khajag Dikijian (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/16/2018
  • DocketFirst Amended Complaint; Filed by James Hovorka (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/16/2018
  • DocketDefendant's Claim and Order to Go to Small Claims Court (Small Claims) (First)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/11/2018
  • DocketCOMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/11/2018
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by James Hovorka (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/11/2018
  • DocketSUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC701492    Hearing Date: November 09, 2020    Dept: 28

Motion to Quash a Subpoena

Having considered the moving, opposing, and reply papers, the Court rules as follows.

BACKGROUND

On April 11, 2018, Plaintiff James Hovorka (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendants Nyrie Salri Dikijian and Khajag Dikijian (collectively “Defendants”). Plaintiff alleges motor vehicle and general negligence for an automobile-pedestrian collision that occurred on May 5, 2016.

On October 23, 2018, the Court struck punitive damages from the complaint.

On October 14, 2020, Plaintiff filed a motion to quash a deposition subpoena pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 1987.1.

Trial is set for February 24, 2021.

PARTYS REQUESTS

Plaintiff asks the Court to quash a subpoena Defendants issued to Plaintiff’s wife’s accountant, Cathy E. Wilson, CPA because the documents sought are not discoverable and are protected by Plaintiff’s wife’s right to privacy.

Plaintiff also asks the Court to impose $4,085.00 in sanctions against Defendants and their counsel for requiring Plaintiff to bring this motion.

LEGAL STANDARD

California Code of Civil Procedure section 1987.1, subdivision (a) states, “[i]f a subpoena requires the attendance of a witness or the production of books, documents, or other things before a court, or at the trial of an issue therein, or at the taking of a deposition, the court, upon motion reasonably made by any person described in subdivision (b), or upon the court’s own motion after giving counsel notice and an opportunity to be heard, may make an order quashing the subpoena entirely, modifying it, or directing compliance with it upon those terms or conditions as the court shall declare, including protective orders.  In addition, the court may make any other order as may be appropriate to protect the person from unreasonable or oppressive demands, including unreasonable violations of the right of privacy of the person.”

“[U]pon motion reasonably made by the party, judges may rule upon motions for quashing, modifying or compelling compliance with, subpoenas.”  (Lee v. Swansboro Country Property Owners Ass'n (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 575, 582-583.)

“[P]laintiffs are ‘not obligated to sacrifice all privacy to seek redress for a specific [physical,] mental or emotional injury’; while they may not withhold information which relates to any physical or mental condition which they have put in issue by bringing [a] lawsuit, . . . they are entitled to retain the confidentiality of all unrelated medical or psychotherapeutic treatment they may have undergone in the past.” (Britt v. Superior Court (1978) 20 Cal.3d 844, 864 (citation and footnote omitted).) However, “. . . privacy interests may have to give way to [an] opponent’s right to a fair trial.  Thus courts must balance the right of civil litigants to discover relevant facts against the privacy interests of persons subject to discovery.”  (Vinson v. Superior Court (1987) 43 Cal.3d 833, 842.)

DISCUSSION

On June 15, 2020, Defendants issued a deposition subpoena to Cathy E. Wilson, CPA asking for all tax documents pertaining to Plaintiff from January 1, 2010 to the present day.  (Kruger Decl., ¶ 2, Exh. A.)  On July 13, 2020, Cathy E. Wilson, CPA served objections on Defendants as to their deposition subpoena by U.S. mail and email.  (Kruger Decl., 3, Exh. B.)

Plaintiff has produced discovery responses showing the following.  Plaintiff was making $8,000.00 a month at the time of the incident.  (Leos Decl., 5, Exh. C.)  Plaintiff estimated a loss of income of $500.00 as a result of the incident.  (Leos Decl., 6, Exh. C.)  Plaintiff produced two pages from his 2016 and 2017 tax documents and one page from his 2015 tax documents.  (Leos Decl., ¶¶ 9-10, Exh. D.)  Plaintiff testified his income decreased in 2016 when compared to years prior.  (Leos Decl., 11, Exh. F.)  Plaintiff has objected to Defendants’ requests for documents supporting Plaintiff’s allegations of wages, salary, or income lost and missed work opportunities, lost wages, and the identity of people who had offered Plaintiff work after the incident.  (Leos Decl., ¶¶ 7, 13, Exh. D, H.)

Plaintiff has privilege protections in his tax returns.  (See Webb v. Standard Oil Co. of Calif. (1957) 49 Cal.3d 1, 6.)  However, this privilege can be waived when intentionally relinquished. Wilson v. Superior Court (1976) 63 Cal.App.3d 825, 830 [finding tax returns were at issue because the plaintiff’s complaint alleges negligent and improper advice, computation and preparation of her taxes].)

Here, Plaintiff has intentionally relinquished his privacy protection in his tax returns.  Plaintiff produced pages of his tax returns from 2015, 2016, and 2017 tax years to show that Plaintiff had suffered losses.  Plaintiff’s production of these pages places the remaining pages of these tax returns at issue.  This is because the remaining pages may reveal incorrect calculations affecting Plaintiff’s losses documented on the pages released.

However, Plaintiff’s production of a few pages of his 2015, 2016, and 2017 tax returns do not show Plaintiff has intentionally relinquished his privacy rights in tax returns pertaining to different years requested in the subpoena.  As such, a protective order is properly issued protecting the production of other tax returns.

The Court quickly notes that the subpoena was issued for documents pertaining to Plaintiff, not his wife.  Thus, Plaintiff’s wife’s privacy interests are not at issue here.

The court will hear argument on the issue of sanctions.  Is the court correct that the amount lost earnings in controversy here is $500?

CONCLUSION

The motion is DENIED.

The Court issues the following protective order: the deposition subpoena issued to Cathy E. Wilson, CPA on June 15, 2020 shall be limited to Plaintiff’s tax returns for the 2015, 2016, and 2017 tax years.

Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

The parties are directed to the header of this tentative ruling for further instructions.

Case Number: BC701492    Hearing Date: August 03, 2020    Dept: 28

Motion to Compel Attendance at a Physical Examination

Having considered the moving, opposing, and reply papers, the Court rules as follows.

BACKGROUND

On April 11, 2018, Plaintiff James Hovorka (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendants Nyrie Salri Dikijian and Khajag Dikijian (“Defendants”).  Plaintiff alleges motor vehicle and general negligence for an automobile-pedestrian collision that occurred on May 5, 2016.

On October 23, 2018, the Court struck punitive damages from the complaint.

On June 9, 2020, Defendants filed a motion to compel Plaintiff’s attendance at a physical examination pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 2032.250.

On June 10, 2020, the Court scheduled the hearing on the motion to compel Plaintiff’s attendance at a physical examination for August 3, 2020.

Trial is set for February 24, 2021.

PARTIES REQUESTS

Defendants ask the Court to compel Plaintiff to appear for a physical examination due to Plaintiff’s failure to submit to a physical examination.

Defendants also ask the Court to impose $1,796.50 in monetary sanctions against Plaintiff and his counsel of record for having to bring this motion.

LEGAL STANDARD

A defendant may demand one physical examination of a plaintiff seeking recovery for personal injuries when: (1) the examination does not include any procedure or diagnostic test that is painful, protracted, or intrusive, and (2) the examination is conducted within 75 miles of the examinee’s residence. , § 2032.220, subd. (a).)

Where a plaintiff fails to serve a timely response to a demand for a physical examination, the plaintiff waives any objection to the demand and a defendant may move for an order compelling a response.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2032.240, subd. (a)-(b).)

A defendant may compel a plaintiff to comply with a physical examination demand when the plaintiff’s refusal to submit to the physical examination is unwarranted.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2032.250, subd. (a).)

Monetary sanctions are mandatory against a party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel compliance with a demand for a physical examination without substantial justification or under circumstances that makes sanctions unjust.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2032.250, subd. (b).)

DISCUSSION

On March 20, 2020, Defendants served a demand for a physical examination on Plaintiff for June 8, 2020 at. by U.S. mail and facsimile.  (Leos Decl., ¶ 5, Exh. A.) 7.)  On June 3, 2020, Plaintiff demanded the examination be conducted through telemedicine.  (Leos Decl., 8.)  

The Court finds Plaintiff’s attendance at a physical examination is properly compelled.  Plaintiff’s concerns regarding COVID-19 are legitimate.  In light of this pandemic, any and all physical examinations that can be conducted through telemedicine should.  However, Defendants are not mandated to relinquish their right to an in-person physical examination.  The Court can issue a protective order to ensure precautions are taken in order to limit Plaintiff’s exposure to COVID-19.

Plaintiff’s refusal to attend an in-person physical examination because it was not conducted remotely is not a substantial justification.  The Court finds sanctions are properly imposed.

Defendants’ request for $1,796.50  in monetary sanctions is unreasonable.  This motion is straight-forwardRather, the Court finds $400 is a reasonable amount of sanctions for Plaintiff’s and Plaintiff’s counsel’s discovery abuse.

CONCLUSION

Therefore, the motion is GRANTED.

Plaintiff is ordered to appear for a physical examination according to the terms in the notice served on Plaintiff on March 20, 2020 to be conducted by Michael Weinstein, M.D. at California Orthopaedic Specialists, 360 San Miguel, Suite 701, Newport Beach, California 92660 within 30 days of this ruling or on a date and time and at a place agreeable between the parties.

Defendants are ordered to ensure the place of examination is clean and sanitized.  Dr. Weinstein is ordered to keep as far from Plaintiff as possible while still being able to conduct the examination.  Dr. Weinstein is ordered to wear gloves and a face mask.

Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel of record are ordered to pay Defendants $400 within 20 days of this ruling, jointly and severally.

Defendants are ordered to give notice of this ruling.

The parties are directed to the header of this tentative ruling for further instructions.

Case Number: BC701492    Hearing Date: January 16, 2020    Dept: 28

The court's tentative is to deny the motion absent a showing by plaintiff that the motion was brought within a defense-granted an extension of time within which to do so.