This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 06/03/2019 at 03:36:36 (UTC).

LAZARO PEDROZA-GARCIA VS DOMINIC JOHN MESSIHA ET AL

Case Summary

On 04/26/2017 LAZARO PEDROZA-GARCIA filed a Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle lawsuit against DOMINIC JOHN MESSIHA. 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:

    ****7457

  • Filing Date:

    04/26/2017

  • 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

STEPHEN I. GOORVITCH

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner

PEDROZA-GARCIA LAZARO

Defendants, Respondents and Cross Plaintiffs

HWANG YONG O.

MESSIHA DOMINIC JOHN

DOES 1 TO 10

Defendant, Respondent and Cross Defendant

MESSIHA DOMINIC JOHN

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorney

SANDERS MARSHALL C. ESQ.

Other Attorneys

SULLIVAN PAUL FRANCIS ESQ.

 

Court Documents

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

7/19/2017: DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

7/19/2017: ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

DOMINIC JOHN MESSIHA?S ANSWER TO CROSS-COMPLAINT OF YONG 0. HWANG

11/22/2017: DOMINIC JOHN MESSIHA?S ANSWER TO CROSS-COMPLAINT OF YONG 0. HWANG

NOTICE OF CHANGE OF ADDRESS

1/19/2018: NOTICE OF CHANGE OF ADDRESS

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR ORDER COMPELLING PLAINTIFF TO ANSWER DEFENDANT'S FORM INTERROGATORIES SET ONE AND FOR RECOVERY OF REASONABLE EXPENSES AND ATTORNEYS' FEES AS SANCTIONS; AND MEMORANDUM O

5/22/2018: NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR ORDER COMPELLING PLAINTIFF TO ANSWER DEFENDANT'S FORM INTERROGATORIES SET ONE AND FOR RECOVERY OF REASONABLE EXPENSES AND ATTORNEYS' FEES AS SANCTIONS; AND MEMORANDUM O

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO HAVE REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS SERVED ON PLAINTIFF DEEMED ADMITTED;AND ETC.

5/31/2018: NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO HAVE REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS SERVED ON PLAINTIFF DEEMED ADMITTED;AND ETC.

NOTICE AND MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFFS RESPONSES INTERROGATORIES;AND ETC.

5/31/2018: NOTICE AND MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFFS RESPONSES INTERROGATORIES;AND ETC.

NOTICE OF MOTION AND TO COMPEL PLAINTIFFS RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES;AND ETC.

5/31/2018: NOTICE OF MOTION AND TO COMPEL PLAINTIFFS RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES;AND ETC.

Declaration

6/29/2018: Declaration

NOTICE OF TAKING MOTIONS TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF'S ANSWERS TO FORM INTERROGATORIES, SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES AND PRODUCTION DEMAND OFF-CALENDAR

7/2/2018: NOTICE OF TAKING MOTIONS TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF'S ANSWERS TO FORM INTERROGATORIES, SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES AND PRODUCTION DEMAND OFF-CALENDAR

NOTICE OF TAKING MOTIONS TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES, SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES AND PRODUCHON OF DOCUMENTS AND MOTION TO HAVE REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS DEEMED ADMITTED OFF CALE

7/12/2018: NOTICE OF TAKING MOTIONS TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES, SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES AND PRODUCHON OF DOCUMENTS AND MOTION TO HAVE REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS DEEMED ADMITTED OFF CALE

Notice of Ruling

11/14/2018: Notice of Ruling

Motion to Continue Trial Date

1/18/2019: Motion to Continue Trial Date

Declaration

1/23/2019: Declaration

Notice of Ruling

2/22/2019: Notice of Ruling

Motion for Protective Order

4/3/2019: Motion for Protective Order

Declaration

5/28/2019: Declaration

Reply

5/29/2019: Reply

20 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 05/29/2019
  • Reply (to Opposition to Motion for Protective Order); Filed by Dominic John Messiha (Legacy Party)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/28/2019
  • Declaration (of Marshall C. Sanders in Opposition to Motion for Protective Order); Filed by Lazaro Pedroza-Garcia (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/24/2019
  • Notice of Change of Firm Name; Filed by Yong O. Hwang (Legacy Party)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/03/2019
  • Motion for Protective Order; Filed by Dominic John Messiha (Legacy Party)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/19/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 5, Stephen I. Goorvitch, Presiding; Jury Trial - Not Held - Continued - Stipulation

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/07/2019
  • at 10:00 AM in Department 5, Stephen I. Goorvitch, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Continued - Stipulation

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/22/2019
  • Notice of Ruling; Filed by Dominic John Messiha (Legacy Party)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/19/2019
  • at 1:30 PM in Department 5, Stephen I. Goorvitch, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Continue Trial (Pursuant to Stipulation by all parties) - Held - Motion Granted

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/19/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Hearing on Motion to Continue Trial Pursuant to Stipulation b...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/23/2019
  • Declaration (RE: STIPULATED MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL); Filed by Lazaro Pedroza-Garcia (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
44 More Docket Entries
  • 07/19/2017
  • ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/19/2017
  • CROSS-COMPLAINT FOR EQUITABLE INDEMNITY, CONTRIBUTION AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/19/2017
  • CIVIL DEPOSIT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/19/2017
  • Summons on Cross Complaint

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/19/2017
  • Summons; Filed by Yong O. Hwang (Legacy Party)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/19/2017
  • DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/19/2017
  • NOTICE OF POSTING JURY FEES

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/26/2017
  • Complaint

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/26/2017
  • Complaint; Filed by Lazaro Pedroza-Garcia (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/26/2017
  • Summons; Filed by Lazaro Pedroza-Garcia (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC657457    Hearing Date: March 12, 2020    Dept: 32

 

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 32

lazaro pedroza-garcia,

Plaintiff,

v.

dominic john messiha, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: BC657457

Hearing Date: March 12, 2020

[TENTATIVE] order RE:

motion FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Lazaro Pedroza-Garcia (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendant Dominic John Messiha (“Defendant”) following a motor vehicle collision. Defendant moves for a protective order to preclude Plaintiff’s wife, Lauren Swerdloff, M.D. (“Swerdloff”) from attending Plaintiff’s independent medical examination. The Court continued the hearing so Plaintiff could file an opposition. Now, the Court denies the motion.

LEGAL STANDARD

“The attorney for the examinee or for a party producing the examinee, or that attorney’s representative, shall be permitted to attend and observe any physical examination conducted for discovery purposes, and to record stenographically or by audio technology any words spoken to or by the examinee during any phase of the examination.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2032.510, subd. (a).) The observer “shall not participate in or disrupt” the examination. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2032.510, subd. (b).) If the observer participates in or disrupts the examination, the party that requested the examination may seek a protective order. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2032.510, subd. (e).)

DISCUSSION

Code of Civil Procedure section 2032.510 authorizes “[t]he attorney for the examinee . . . or that attorney’s representative shall be permitted to attend and observe any physical examination conducted for discovery purposes, and to record stenographically or by audio technology any words spoken to or by the examinee during any phase of the examination.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2032.510.) Plaintiff’s counsel has selected Plaintiff’s wife, Dr. Lauren Swedloff, who is a medical doctor, as his observer.

Defendant focuses on two issues. First, Defendant argues that Dr. Lauren Swedloff is Plaintiff’s treating physician, and it would be inappropriate to have a trial witness act as an observer. The Code of Civil Procedure does not limit the selection of an observer, and Dr. Swedloff is a medical professional. The Court is not concerned that observing the examination would influence Dr. Swedloff’s testimony because she would have access to the defense expert’s report and opinions anyway through discovery. Nor is the Court concerned that Dr. Swedloff might provide opinion testimony at trial based upon her observations of the defense medical examination. The Court is not aware of any authority prohibiting any observer from being designated as an expert and testifying that the defense medical expert did not conduct the examination correctly. In that sense, Dr. Swedloff occupies the same shoes as any observer.

Second, Defendant argues that Dr. Swedloff has been disruptive in the past, specifically, at a vehicle inspection. A medical examination is different from a vehicle inspection. The Code of Civil Procedure states that a medical observer may “attend and observe.” It does not permit the medical observer to communicate or play an active role in the examination. Provided Dr. Swedloff respects her role and does not communicate with, or interrupt, the defense medical examiner, she may serve as an observer.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Based upon the foregoing, Defendant’s motion is denied. Defendant shall provide notice and file proof of such with the Court.

DATED: March 12, 2020 ___________________________

Stephen I. Goorvitch

Judge of the Superior Court

Case Number: BC657457    Hearing Date: February 07, 2020    Dept: 32

 

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 32

lazaro pedroza-garcia,

Plaintiff,

v.

dominic john messiha, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: BC657457

Hearing Date: February 7, 2020

[TENTATIVE] order RE:

motion FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER

NOTICE

This motion will be heard on Friday, February 7, 2020, at 2:30 p.m. (and not 1:30 p.m.)

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Lazaro Pedroza-Garcia (“Plaintiff”) filed this action againt Defendant Dominic John Messiha (“Defendant”) following a motor vehicle collision. Defendant moves for a protective order to preclude Plaintiff’s wife, Lauren Swerdloff, M.D. (“Swerdloff”) from attending Plaintiff’s independent medical examination. Plaintiff has not opposed the motion, which is granted.

LEGAL STANDARD

“The attorney for the examinee or for a party producing the examinee, or that attorney’s representative, shall be permitted to attend and observe any physical examination conducted for discovery purposes, and to record stenographically or by audio technology any words spoken to or by the examinee during any phase of the examination.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2032.510, subd. (a).) The observer “shall not participate in or disrupt” the examination. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2032.510, subd. (b).) If the observer participates in or disrupts the examination, the party that requested the examination may seek a protective order. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2032.510, subd. (e).)

DISCUSSION

The Court granted Plaintiff’s counsel’s motion to be relieved on November 1, 2019, and there is no indication that Plaintiff has retained new counsel. Because Plaintiff is self-represented, he is not entitled to have a representative present. Section 2032.510 only authorizes the attorney or the attorney’s representative to attend. Not only is the plain language of the statute clear, the intent supports the Court’s interpretation. The purpose of the statute is to permit the individual prosecuting the case to observe the examination for benefit at trial. In the case of a self-represented party, the person prosecuting the case (Plaintiff) will be present. Therefore, Plaintiff is not entitled to have a representative. Should Plaintiff retain counsel before the examination, the Court would reconsider this issue.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Defendant’s motion for protective order is granted. Defendant is ordered to provide notice of this order and file proof of service of such.

DATED: February 7, 2020 ___________________________

Stephen I. Goorvitch

Judge of the Superior Court

Case Number: BC657457    Hearing Date: November 01, 2019    Dept: 5

 

ORDER #1 of 2

lazaro pedroza-garcia,

Plaintiff,

v.

dominic john messiha, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: BC657457

Hearing Date: October 31, 2019

[TENTATIVE] order RE:

motion FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Lazaro Pedroza-Garcia (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendant Dominic John Messiha (“Defendant”) following a motor vehicle collision. Defendant moves for a protective order to preclude Plaintiff’s wife, Lauren Swerdloff, M.D. (“Swerdloff”) from attending Plaintiff’s independent medical examination. The motion is continued.

LEGAL STANDARD

A party who submits to an independent medical examination is entitled to have the party’s attorney, or a representative of the party’s attorney, attend the examination to observe and record the examination. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2032.510, subd. (a).) The observer “shall not participate in or disrupt” the examination. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2032.510, subd. (b).) If the observer participates in or disrupts the examination, the party that requested the examination may seek a protective order. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2032.510, subd. (e).)

DISCUSSION

The Court must continue the hearing on this motion because Plaintiff’s counsel is moving to be relieved. Although the Court issued a tentative order granting the motion, Plaintiff’s counsel will remain as counsel-of-record until the Court signs the order and counsel serves the order on all parties. In the interim, Plaintiff (not Plaintiff’s counsel) has filed an opposition to the pending motion, even though he is not yet a self-represented party. Therefore, the Court continues the hearing on this motion to afford Plaintiff an opportunity to hire new counsel or prepare to act as a self-represented litigant. Regardless whether Plaintiff retains new counsel or acts as a self-represented party, he may file a supplemental opposition, and Defendant may file a reply brief, within statutory time periods.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Defendant’s motion for a protective order is continued to January 3, 2020, at 1:30 p.m. Plaintiff’s counsel shall provide notice and file proof of such with the Court.

 

ORDER #2 of 2

lazaro pedroza-garcia,

Plaintiff,

v.

dominic john messiha, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: BC657457

Hearing Date: October 31, 2019

[TENTATIVE] order RE:

motion to be relieved as counsel

Attorney Marshall C. Sanders (“Counsel”) moves to be relieved as counsel for Plaintiff Lazaro Pedroza-Garcia (“Plaintiff”).  The motion is granted.

Counsel has filed forms MC-051 and MC-052 and has lodged with the Court a copy of the proposed order on form MC-053 as required.  (Cal Rules of Court, rule 3.1362.) The basis for this motion is a breakdown in the relationship between Counsel and Plaintiff. This is a proper basis for withdrawal.  Accordingly, the motion is granted.

Counsel should note that the order will become effective upon the filing of proof of service of a signed copy of the orders on Plaintiff.  Counsel will remain the attorney of record until Counsel files with the court proof of service of the signed order.

Case Number: BC657457    Hearing Date: October 31, 2019    Dept: 5

The hearings on the motions in Lazaro Pedroza-Garcia v. Dominic John Messiha are continued from October 31, 2019, at 1:30 p.m. to November 1, 2019, at 1:30 p.m.  The Court posts these tentative orders in advance of the hearing. 

 

ORDER #1 of 2

lazaro pedroza-garcia,

Plaintiff,

v.

dominic john messiha, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: BC657457

Hearing Date: October 31, 2019

[TENTATIVE] order RE:

motion to be relieved as counsel

Attorney Marshall C. Sanders (“Counsel”) moves to be relieved as counsel for Plaintiff Lazaro Pedroza-Garcia (“Plaintiff”).  The motion is granted.

Counsel has filed forms MC-051 and MC-052 and has lodged with the Court a copy of the proposed order on form MC-053 as required.  (Cal Rules of Court, rule 3.1362.) The basis for this motion is a breakdown in the relationship between Counsel and Plaintiff. This is a proper basis for withdrawal.  Accordingly, the motion is granted.

Counsel should note that the order will become effective upon the filing of proof of service of a signed copy of the orders on Plaintiff.  Counsel will remain the attorney of record until Counsel files with the court proof of service of the signed order.

ORDER #2 of 2

lazaro pedroza-garcia,

Plaintiff,

v.

dominic john messiha, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: BC657457

Hearing Date: October 31, 2019

[TENTATIVE] order RE:

motion FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Lazaro Pedroza-Garcia (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendant Dominic John Messiha (“Defendant”) following a motor vehicle collision. Defendant moves for a protective order to preclude Plaintiff’s wife, Lauren Swerdloff, M.D. (“Swerdloff”) from attending Plaintiff’s independent medical examination. The motion is continued.

LEGAL STANDARD

A party who submits to an independent medical examination is entitled to have the party’s attorney, or a representative of the party’s attorney, attend the examination to observe and record the examination. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2032.510, subd. (a).) The observer “shall not participate in or disrupt” the examination. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2032.510, subd. (b).) If the observer participates in or disrupts the examination, the party that requested the examination may seek a protective order. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2032.510, subd. (e).)

DISCUSSION

The Court must continue the hearing on this motion because Plaintiff’s counsel is moving to be relieved. Although the Court issued a tentative order granting the motion, Plaintiff’s counsel will remain as counsel-of-record until the Court signs the order and counsel serves the order on all parties. In the interim, Plaintiff (not Plaintiff’s counsel) has filed an opposition to the pending motion, even though he is not yet a self-represented party. Therefore, the Court continues the hearing on this motion to afford Plaintiff an opportunity to hire new counsel or prepare to act as a self-represented litigant. Regardless whether Plaintiff retains new counsel or acts as a self-represented party, he may file a supplemental opposition, and Defendant may file a reply brief, within statutory time periods.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Defendant’s motion for a protective order is continued to January 3, 2020, at 1:30 p.m. Plaintiff’s counsel shall provide notice and file proof of such with the Court.