This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 09/24/2020 at 07:49:14 (UTC).

JESUS RAMOS RIOS VS DAVID PIZZI

Case Summary

On 01/31/2018 JESUS RAMOS RIOS filed a Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle lawsuit against DAVID PIZZI. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is STEPHEN I. GOORVITCH. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****2587

  • Filing Date:

    01/31/2018

  • 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 Judge

STEPHEN I. GOORVITCH

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner

RIOS JESUS RAMOS

Defendants and Respondents

DOES 1 TO 100

PIZZI DAVID

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

YEUNG MICHAEL L. ESQ.

EL DABE S. EDMOND ESQ.

RITTER JONATHAN MICHAEL ESQ.

Defendant and Respondent Attorneys

RAFFALOW BRETOI & ADAMS

RAFFALOW BRETOI LUTZ & STELE

ZUREK RONALD

RODRIGUEZ WALTER ARTURO

 

Court Documents

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION TO COMPEL MOTION FOR ORDER COMPELLING PLAIN...)

7/17/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION TO COMPEL MOTION FOR ORDER COMPELLING PLAIN...)

Opposition - OPPOSITION PLAINTIFFS OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR COMPELLING A SECOND MEDICAL EXAMINATION

7/6/2020: Opposition - OPPOSITION PLAINTIFFS OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR COMPELLING A SECOND MEDICAL EXAMINATION

Reply - REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL A SECOND IME

7/10/2020: Reply - REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL A SECOND IME

Reply - REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF TO UNDERGO A SECOND DEPOSITION

7/10/2020: Reply - REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF TO UNDERGO A SECOND DEPOSITION

Motion to Compel - MOTION TO COMPEL COMPELLING PLAINTIFF TO UNDERGO A SECOND IME

4/14/2020: Motion to Compel - MOTION TO COMPEL COMPELLING PLAINTIFF TO UNDERGO A SECOND IME

Motion to Compel - MOTION TO COMPEL COMPELLING PLAINTIFF TO UNDERGO A SECOND DEPOSITION

4/14/2020: Motion to Compel - MOTION TO COMPEL COMPELLING PLAINTIFF TO UNDERGO A SECOND DEPOSITION

Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (COURT ORDER) OF 04/03/2020

4/3/2020: Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (COURT ORDER) OF 04/03/2020

Separate Statement

2/24/2020: Separate Statement

Notice of Motion - NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO QUASH

2/24/2020: Notice of Motion - NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO QUASH

Substitution of Attorney

1/9/2020: Substitution of Attorney

Association of Attorney

12/10/2019: Association of Attorney

Ex Parte Application - EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL DATE [STIPULATED]

12/20/2019: Ex Parte Application - EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL DATE [STIPULATED]

Notice of Ruling

12/23/2019: Notice of Ruling

[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

9/30/2019: [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

Stipulation and Order - STIPULATION AND ORDER [PROPOSED ORDER] AND STIPULATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL, FSC [AND RELATED MOTION/DISCOVERY DATES] PERSONAL INJURY COURTS ONLY (CENTRAL DISTRICT)

5/23/2019: Stipulation and Order - STIPULATION AND ORDER [PROPOSED ORDER] AND STIPULATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL, FSC [AND RELATED MOTION/DISCOVERY DATES] PERSONAL INJURY COURTS ONLY (CENTRAL DISTRICT)

Notice of Change of Firm Name

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

ANSWER TO UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT

5/8/2018: ANSWER TO UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT

Substitution of Attorney -

6/13/2018: Substitution of Attorney -

20 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 02/22/2022
  • Hearing02/22/2022 at 08:30 AM in Department 32 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Jury Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/08/2022
  • Hearing02/08/2022 at 10:00 AM in Department 32 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Final Status Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/24/2020
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 32, Stephen I. Goorvitch, Presiding; Trial Setting Conference - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/24/2020
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Trial Setting Conference)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/17/2020
  • Docketat 1:30 PM in Department 32, Stephen I. Goorvitch, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Compel (MOTION FOR ORDER COMPELLING PLAINTIFF TO UNDERGO A SECOND IME) - Held - Motion Denied

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/17/2020
  • Docketat 1:30 PM in Department 32, Stephen I. Goorvitch, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Compel (MOTION FOR ORDER COMPELLING PLAINTIFF TO UNDERGO A SECOND DEPOSITION) - Held - Motion Granted

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/17/2020
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Hearing on Motion to Compel MOTION FOR ORDER COMPELLING PLAIN...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/10/2020
  • DocketReply (to Opposition to Motion to Compel a Second IME); Filed by David Pizzi (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/10/2020
  • DocketReply (to Opposition to Motion to Compel Plaintiff to Undergo a Second Deposition); Filed by David Pizzi (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/06/2020
  • DocketOpposition (Plaintiffs Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Compelling a Second Medical Examination); Filed by Jesus Ramos Rios (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
32 More Docket Entries
  • 12/26/2018
  • DocketPlaintiff's Notice of Posting Jury Fees; Filed by Jesus Ramos Rios (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/13/2018
  • DocketSubstitution of Attorney

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/13/2018
  • DocketSubstitution of Attorney; Filed by Jesus Ramos Rios (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/08/2018
  • DocketANSWER TO UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/08/2018
  • DocketDemand for Jury Trial; Filed by David Pizzi (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/08/2018
  • DocketAnswer; Filed by David Pizzi (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/08/2018
  • DocketDEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/31/2018
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Jesus Ramos Rios (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/31/2018
  • DocketSummons; Filed by Jesus Ramos Rios (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/31/2018
  • DocketComplaint

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC692587    Hearing Date: July 17, 2020    Dept: 32

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 32

jesus ramos rios,

Plaintiff,

v.

david pizzi,

Defendant.

Case No.: BC692587

Hearing Date: July 17, 2020

[TENTATIVE] order RE:

Motion to compel additional independent medical examination

motion to compel second session of deposition

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Jesus Ramos Rios (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendant David Pizzi (“Defendant”) following a motor vehicle collision. Plaintiff submitted to a physical examination by Dr. Douglas Kiester, M.D., on January 15, 2019. Now, Defendant moves for a second examination, following Plaintiff’s back surgery on October 22, 2019. Defendant also moves for a second deposition of Plaintiff. Plaintiff opposes both motions. The motion for a second medical examination is denied without prejudice. The motion for a second deposition is granted.

Legal Standard

When the physical condition of the plaintiff is in controversy in a personal injury case, the defendant may obtain a physical examination of the plaintiff. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2032.020, 2032.220.) A defendant is permitted to one physical examination of the plaintiff in a personal injury action on demand. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2032.220, subd. (a).) If the defendant seeks to obtain an additional physical examination of the plaintiff, the defendant must obtain leave of court. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2032.310, subd. (a).) A motion to compel an additional physical examination must “specify the time, place, manner, conditions, scope and nature of the examination, as well as the identity and specialty, if any, of the person or persons who will perform the examination . . . ,” and must include a meet and confer declaration. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2032.310, subd. (b).) Additionally, the defendant must make a showing of “good cause” to obtain the second physical examination. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2032.320, subd. (a).)

A party is required to submit to one deposition. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.610, subds. (a), (b).) However, a party may seek an order from the Court compelling a second deposition based upon a showing of good cause. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.610, subds. (a), (b).)

DISCUSSION

A. Motion to Compel Second Examination

Defendant’s motion to compel Plaintiff to submit to a second examination with Kiester is denied without prejudice. Defendant has not described the “manner, conditions, scope and nature” of the additional examinations, as required. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2032.310, subd. (b).) Instead, Defendant proposes that the Court order Plaintiff to submit to “essentially the same type and scope of examination as was first done.” (Declaration of Sheral A. Hyde, ¶ 7.) This is not sufficient. In order to order Plaintiff to submit to an additional examination, the Court must “describe in detail who will conduct the examination, where and when it will be conducted, the conditions, scope and nature of the examination, and the diagnostic tests and procedures to be employed. The way to describe these ‘diagnostic tests and procedures’—fully and in detail—is to list them by name.” (Carpenter v. Superior Court (2006) 141 Cal.App.4th 249, 260.) Moreover, given COVID-19, the Court expects the notice to include a discussion of how the examination will be conducted safely.

Based upon the foregoing, the motion is denied without prejudice. Should Defendant re-file the motion, the Court’s tentative order would be to grant the motion because Plaintiff has undergone a new surgery concerning the injuries at issue. The current condition of Plaintiff’s back is relevant to Plaintiff’s claimed damages, i.e., current pain and suffering. Therefore, the Court orders the parties to meet-and-confer to determine whether they will stipulate to a second examination, including the parameters for any such examination.

B. Motion to Compel Second Deposition

The Court grants the motion to compel Plaintiff to sit for a second deposition. Plaintiff’s recent back surgery is pertinent to Plaintiff’s claimed damages in this action. Accordingly, the Court concludes that good cause exists to compel Plaintiff to sit for a second session of deposition. The scope of the deposition is limited to the time period of November 12, 2018, the date of Plaintiff’s previous deposition, to the present.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Defendants’ motion to compel Plaintiff to submit to an additional physical examination is denied without prejudice. The Court orders the parties to meet-and-confer within thirty (30) days to determine whether they will stipulate to a second examination.

Defendant’s motion to compel Plaintiff to sit for a second deposition is granted. Plaintiff shall sit for a second session of deposition concerning the time period of November 12, 2018 to the present. The deposition shall occur within thirty (30) days unless the parties stipulate to a different date. The Court authorizes the deposition to occur remotely to accommodate any concerns about social distancing.

Defendant shall provide notice and file proof of such with the Court.

DATED: July 17, 2020 ___________________________

Stephen I. Goorvitch

Judge of the Superior Court