On 01/25/2018 MARLON RIVERA filed a Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle lawsuit against HANG MUN CHOI. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is LAURA A. SEIGLE. The case status is Other.
LAURA A. SEIGLE
CHOI HANG MUN
DOES 1 TO 100
WARNER BROS. [DOE 1]
SHAFFER DOUGLAS D. ESQ.
SHAFFER DOUGLAS DURAN ESQ.
O'DOHERTY F.X. SEAN ESQ
SMITH KEVIN DEAN
KANDARIAN-STEIN GINA YVONNE ESQ
5/4/2020: Request for Dismissal
4/14/2020: Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (COURT ORDER) OF 04/14/2020
4/14/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER)
12/23/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER RE NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT OF ENTIRE CASE)
12/23/2019: Notice of Settlement
12/23/2019: Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (COURT ORDER RE NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT OF ENTIRE CASE) OF 12/23/2019
11/1/2019: Opposition - OPPOSITION TO EX PARTE RE IME EXAMINATIONS
11/4/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER)
11/4/2019: Ex Parte Application - EX PARTE APPLICATION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF MARLON RIVERA TO SUBMIT TO INDEPENDENT NEUROLOGICAL, ORTHOPEDIC, NEUROPSYCHOLOGICAL, NEUROPSYCHIATRY EXAMINATIONS, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE
11/4/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON EX PARTE APPLICATION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF MARLON RI...)
10/28/2019: Memorandum of Points & Authorities
10/15/2019: Opposition - OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER UNDER CCP 2019.030(A), MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES, DECLARATION OF GINA Y. KANDARIAN-STEIN (PROPOSED)ORDER
9/13/2019: Motion for Protective Order
4/4/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER)
4/4/2019: Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER) OF 04/04/2019
4/11/2019: Notice - NOTICE NOTICE OF TAKING INFORMAL DISCOVERY CONFERENCE OFF CALENDAR
5/15/2019: [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
10/9/2018: Demand for Jury Trial - and Notice of Posting Jury Fees
Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 27, Laura A. Seigle, Presiding; Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal (Settlement) - Not Held - Vacated by CourtRead MoreRead Less
DocketRequest for Dismissal; Filed by Marlon Rivera (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 27, Laura A. Seigle, Presiding; Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal (Settlement) - Not Held - Continued - Court's MotionRead MoreRead Less
Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 27, Laura A. Seigle, Presiding; Court OrderRead MoreRead Less
DocketMinute Order ( (Court Order)); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
DocketCertificate of Mailing for ((Court Order) of 04/14/2020); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 4B; Jury Trial ((1x6mos)) - Not Held - Advanced and VacatedRead MoreRead Less
Docketat 10:00 AM in Department 4B; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Advanced and VacatedRead MoreRead Less
Docketat 3:00 PM in Department 4B; Court OrderRead MoreRead Less
DocketMinute Order ( (Court Order re Notice of Settlement of Entire Case)); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
DocketAMENDMENT TO COMPLAINTRead MoreRead Less
DocketCIVIL DEPOSITRead MoreRead Less
DocketDEFENDANTS, HANG MUN CHOI, FRANK CHEN, AND MEIYEN CHEN'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF MARLON RIVERA'S COMPLAINTRead MoreRead Less
DocketPROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONSRead MoreRead Less
DocketReceipt; Filed by Hang Mun Choi (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
DocketAnswer; Filed by Hang Mun Choi (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
DocketProof-Service/Summons; Filed by Marlon Rivera (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
DocketCOMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJURIESRead MoreRead Less
DocketSUMMONSRead MoreRead Less
DocketComplaint; Filed by Marlon Rivera (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
Case Number: BC691789 Hearing Date: November 04, 2019 Dept: 4B
[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER
On January 25, 2018, plaintiff Marlon Rivera (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against defendants Hang Mun Choi and John Weaver for damages and injuries relating to a motor vehicle collision that occurred on December 7, 2017. Defendants Hang Mun Choi, Frank Chen and Meiyen Chen (collectively, “Defendants”) filed an answer on May 3, 2018. Plaintiff seeks a protective order under Code of Civil Procedure section 2019.030 limiting Defendants to one medical examination and no psychological examination.
In any case in which a plaintiff is seeking recovery for personal injuries, any defendant may demand one physical examination of the plaintiff. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2032.220, subd. (a).) Where any party seeks to obtain discovery by a physical examination other than that described in Section 2032.220, or by a mental examination, the party shall obtain leave of the court. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2032.310, subd. (a).) “The only statutorily authorized justification for ordering a mental examination is that the ‘mental condition’ of the examinee is ‘in controversy.’” (Doyle v. Superior Court (1996) 50 Cal.App.4th 1878, 1886.) In the absence of an allegation that plaintiff has any current mental injury as a result of defendant’s alleged conduct, her present mental condition is not directly relevant. (Ibid.) “Mental examinations are not authorized for the purpose of testing a person’s ‘credibility.’” (Ibid.) When a party stipulates that “no claim is being made for mental and emotional distress over and above that usually associated with the physical injuries claimed” and “no expert testimony regarding this usual mental and emotional distress will be presented at trial,” the court cannot order a mental examination except on a showing of exceptional circumstances. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2032.220, subd. (b)-(c).)
Defendants noticed two medical examinations – orthopedic and neurological – and a neuropsychological examination. Plaintiff asserts that the case primarily involves a lumbar back injury and back surgery. Plaintiff stipulated he: (1) is not making any claim for damages based upon any diagnosis of ADHD, anxiety, depression, or any other psychological or psychiatric disorder, arising from the automobile accident; (2) is not making any claim for mental and emotional distress over and above that usually associated with the orthopedic injuries claimed; (3) will not offer expert testimony regarding mental and emotional distress at trial in support of damages; (4) will not assert mental, emotional or psychological distress as a basis for lost income or an inability to earn income; and (5) is not making a traumatic brain injury claim either now or in the future. (Declaration of Douglas Shaffer, Exh. 2.)
In opposition, Defendants argue Plaintiff asserts ongoing emotional injuries, and orthopedic, psychological and neurological conditions. Plaintiff has had prior injuries and accidents, which Defendants say are probative of the issue of causation. Defendants contend that both an orthopedic exam and a neurological exam are necessary because Plaintiff alleges he experienced “foot drop,” “foot dragging,” carpal tunnel syndrome, and loss of consciousness and that each specialist needs to interpret these conditions to assess Plaintiff’s claims. In his reply, Plaintiff does not address this point at all. Given Plaintiff’s list of injuries, which do not all appear to be related to a back injury, Defendant has shown good cause for conducting both an orthopedic examination and neurological examination. The motion is therefore DENIED on this point.
Defendant also argues exceptional circumstances exist to permit a mental examination under section 2032.320. Defendants argue Plaintiff’s history of mental illness makes it difficult to isolate the normal distress Plaintiff experienced. However, Defendants submit no evidence that Plaintiff’s limited claim for the type of mental and emotional distress usually associated with his physical injuries would be difficult to ascertain. Defendants have not shown exceptional circumstances warranting a mental examination of Plaintiff. The motion for a protective order is GRANTED on the psychological examination.
In sum, Plaintiff’s motion for a protective order is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Defendants may take the orthopedic and neurological examinations according to Defendants’ notices of those examinations. Defendants may not conduct a psychological examination.
Moving party to give notice.
Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SSCDEPT4B@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.
Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases