This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 06/29/2020 at 23:22:22 (UTC).

NADINE CIPOLLONE VS VANUSH SIREKANIAN

Case Summary

On 02/14/2018 NADINE CIPOLLONE filed a Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle lawsuit against VANUSH SIREKANIAN. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are LAURA A. SEIGLE and EDWARD B. MORETON. The case status is Other.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****3979

  • Filing Date:

    02/14/2018

  • Case Status:

    Other

  • 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

LAURA A. SEIGLE

EDWARD B. MORETON

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner

CIPOLLONE NADINE

Defendants and Respondents

DOES 1 TO 15

SIREKANIAN VANUSH

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorney

MATUSEK HENRY JOHN II ESQ.

Defendant Attorney

BOYADJIAN ALEXANDRA

 

Court Documents

Request for Dismissal

6/26/2020: Request for Dismissal

Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (COURT ORDER) OF 03/18/2020

3/18/2020: Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (COURT ORDER) OF 03/18/2020

Notice - NOTICE NOTICE THAT HEARING DATE ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO COMPEL COMPLIANCE WITH DEMAND FOR PHYSICAL EXAMINATION HAS BEEN RESCHEDULED

3/20/2020: Notice - NOTICE NOTICE THAT HEARING DATE ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO COMPEL COMPLIANCE WITH DEMAND FOR PHYSICAL EXAMINATION HAS BEEN RESCHEDULED

Motion to Compel - MOTION TO COMPEL NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL COMPLIANCE WITH DEMAND FOR PHYSICAL EXAMINATION AND REOPEN DISCOVERY

2/21/2020: Motion to Compel - MOTION TO COMPEL NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL COMPLIANCE WITH DEMAND FOR PHYSICAL EXAMINATION AND REOPEN DISCOVERY

Notice of Ruling

1/30/2020: Notice of Ruling

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (FINAL STATUS CONFERENCE)

1/10/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (FINAL STATUS CONFERENCE)

Notice of Ruling

1/14/2020: Notice of Ruling

Notice - NOTICE NOTICE THAT MOTION TO COMPEL COMPLIANCE WITH DEMAND FOR PHYSICAL EXAMINATION HAS BEEN TAKEN OFF CALENDAR

1/8/2020: Notice - NOTICE NOTICE THAT MOTION TO COMPEL COMPLIANCE WITH DEMAND FOR PHYSICAL EXAMINATION HAS BEEN TAKEN OFF CALENDAR

Motion to Compel - MOTION TO COMPEL NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL COMPLIANCE WITH DEMAND FOR PHYSICAL EXAMINATION

12/11/2019: Motion to Compel - MOTION TO COMPEL NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL COMPLIANCE WITH DEMAND FOR PHYSICAL EXAMINATION

Motion to Continue Trial Date

12/19/2019: Motion to Continue Trial Date

Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

10/29/2019: Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

Declaration - DECLARATION DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF ATTORNEY'S MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL

9/23/2019: Declaration - DECLARATION DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF ATTORNEY'S MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL

Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

9/23/2019: Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

Notice - NOTICE NOTICE OF CHANGE OF EMAIL ADDRESS

8/20/2019: Notice - NOTICE NOTICE OF CHANGE OF EMAIL ADDRESS

Proof of Service by Substituted Service

11/29/2018: Proof of Service by Substituted Service

Answer

12/20/2018: Answer

SUMMONS -

2/14/2018: SUMMONS -

COMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES) -

2/14/2018: COMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES) -

18 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 06/26/2020
  • DocketRequest for Dismissal; Filed by Nadine Cipollone (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/22/2020
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 27, Edward B. Moreton, Presiding; Jury Trial - Not Held - Advanced and Vacated

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/08/2020
  • Docketat 10:00 AM in Department 27, Edward B. Moreton, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Advanced and Vacated

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/27/2020
  • Docketat 1:30 PM in Department 27, Edward B. Moreton, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Compel (COMPLIANCE WITH DEMAND FOR PHYSICAL EXAMINATION) - Not Held - Continued - Court's Motion

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/17/2020
  • DocketNotice (of continuation of hearing); Filed by Vanush Sirekanian (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/14/2020
  • Docketat 2:30 PM in Department 27, Edward B. Moreton, Presiding; Court Order

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/14/2020
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Court Order re: COVID-19)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/14/2020
  • DocketCertificate of Mailing for ((Court Order re: COVID-19) of 04/14/2020); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/23/2020
  • Docketat 1:30 PM in Department 27, Edward B. Moreton, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Compel (COMPLIANCE WITH DEMAND FOR PHYSICAL EXAMINATION) - Held - Continued

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/20/2020
  • DocketNotice (NOTICE THAT HEARING DATE ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO COMPEL COMPLIANCE WITH DEMAND FOR PHYSICAL EXAMINATION HAS BEEN RESCHEDULED); Filed by Vanush Sirekanian (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
26 More Docket Entries
  • 09/23/2019
  • DocketMotion to Be Relieved as Counsel; Filed by Nadine Cipollone (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/20/2019
  • DocketNotice (Notice of Change of Email Address); Filed by Vanush Sirekanian (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/14/2019
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 4B; Jury Trial - Not Held - Continued - Stipulation

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/31/2019
  • Docketat 10:00 AM in Department 4B; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Continued - Stipulation

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/14/2019
  • Docket[Proposed Order] and Stipulation to Continue Trial, FSC (and Related Motion/Discovery Dates) Personal Injury Courts Only (Central District); Filed by Vanush Sirekanian (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/20/2018
  • DocketAnswer; Filed by Vanush Sirekanian (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/29/2018
  • DocketProof of Service by Substituted Service; Filed by Nadine Cipollone (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/14/2018
  • DocketCOMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/14/2018
  • DocketSUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/14/2018
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Nadine Cipollone (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC693979    Hearing Date: June 29, 2020    Dept: 27

The parties are strongly encouraged to appear telephonically based on the spread of COVID-19, the states of emergency having been declared by Governor Gavin Newsom and President Donald Trump, the General Orders issued by the Presiding Judge, and the Statewide Orders issued by the Chief Justice.

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

NADINE CIPOLLONE,

Plaintiff,

vs.

VANUSH SIREKANIAN, et al.,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

.: BC6939797

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: MOTION TO COMPEL PHYSICAL EXAMINATION; TO REOPEN DISCOVERY; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

Dept. 27

8:30 a.m.

June 29, 2020

On February 14, 2018, plaintiff Nadine Cipollone filed this action against defendant Vanush Sirekhanian relating to a February 24, 2016 car accident.  Defendant moves to reopen discovery for the limited purpose of proceeding with Plaintiff’s independent medical exam (“IME”) with Dr. Jeffrey Korchek, M.D., an orthopedist.  Trial is currently set for January 24, 2020.  

Defendant originally noticed the IME for September 25, 2019 but rescheduled it to December 3, 2019 due to Plaintiff’s unavailability even though Plaintiff did not serve objections.  Plaintiff then failed to appear at the December 3, 2019 exam despite defense counsel sending a reminder on November 20, 2019.  Dr. Korchek’s next available date for an IME is on March 11, 2020.  Plaintiff seeks an order: (1) continuing trial to June 26, 2020 (Declaration of Christopher Babadjanian, Ex. G); (2) reopening discovery; (3) compelling Plaintiff’s attendance at an IME by Dr. Korchek.  

Reopen Discovery

Except as otherwise provided, any party shall be entitled as a matter of right to complete discovery proceedings on or before the 30th day, and to have motions concerning discovery heard on or before the 15th day, before the date initially set for trial of the action.  (Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 2024.020 (a).)  On motion of any party, the court may grant leave to complete discovery proceedings, or to have a motion concerning discovery heard, closer to the initial trial date, or to reopen discovery after a new trial date has been set.  This motion shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration demonstrating a good faith effort at informal resolution.  (Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 2024.050 (a).)  

The court shall take into consideration any matter relevant to the leave requested, including, but not limited to: (1) the necessity and the reasons for the discovery, (2) the diligence or lack of diligence of the party seeking the discovery or the hearing of a discovery motion, and the reasons that the discovery was not completed or that the discovery motion was not heard earlier, (3) any likelihood that permitting the discovery or hearing the discovery motion will prevent the case from going to trial on the date set, or otherwise interfere with the trial calendar, or result in prejudice to any other party, and (4) the length of time that has elapsed between any date previously set, and the date presently set, for the trial of the action.”  (Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 2024.050 (b).)

Defendant claims it has acted diligently in bringing this motion given the meet and confer requirements.  Defendant sent 3-4 letters after Plaintiff failed to appear at her December 3, 2019 IME but did not respond.  The parties engaged in settlement talks in late January and were ordered to meet and confer to agree on a date for the IME but did not come to an agreement. On January 30, Defendant filed a notice of ruling which listed the various orders made by the Court at the January 24, 2020 Final Status Conference.  At the Final Status Conference, the Court granted one last trial continuance from January 24, 2020 to June 22, 2020.  The parties agreed to the new trial date and understood that no further continuances would be granted.  

Due to the unusual circumstances involving the COVID-19 pandemic, which forced the trial date to be vacated,  the Court rules that discovery will reopen for the limited purpose of conducting Plaintiff’s IME. 

Compel IME

In any case in which a plaintiff is seeking recovery for personal injuries, any defendant may demand one physical examination of the plaintiff where: (1) the examination does not include any diagnostic test or procedure that is painful, protracted, or intrusive; and (2) the examination is conducted at a location within 75 miles of the residence of the examinee.  (Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 2032.220 (a).)  A defendant may make a demand for physical examination without leave of the court after that defendant has been served or has appeared (Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 2032.220 (b)), and the physical examination demanded shall be scheduled for a date at least 30 days after service (Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 2032.220 (d)).  

Within 20 days after service of the demand, the plaintiff to whom the demand is directed shall serve a written statement that he or she will comply with the demand as stated, will comply with the demand as specifically modified by the plaintiff, or will refuse, for reasons specified in the response, to submit to the demanded physical examination.  (Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 2032.230 (a).)

A motion for an examination shall 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 shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration.  (Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 2032.310 (b).)  The Court shall grant the motion only for good cause shown.  (Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 2032.310 (a).)

“If a party is required to submit to a physical or mental examination . . . but fails to do so, the court, on motion of the party entitled to the examination, may make those orders that are just, including the imposition of an issue sanction, an evidence sanction, or a terminating sanction . . . In lieu of or in addition to that sanction, the court may, on motion of the party, impose a monetary sanction . . .”  (Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 2032.410.)

Defendant’s Motion identifies the time, place, manner, conditions, scope, and nature of the examination.  As stated in her discovery responses, Plaintiff has placed her physical condition at issue, Defendant is entitled to one physical examination pursuant to section 2032.220.  Plaintiff has not filed an opposition. As Defendant is statutorily provided one physical examination as of right, the Court finds good cause to grant a brief trial continuance and to reopen discovery for the limited purpose of an IME.  

Defendant’s Motion to compel is GRANTED and Plaintiff is ordered to undergo an IME with Dr. Korchek.  

Sanctions

The court shall impose a monetary sanction against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to extend or to reopen discovery, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.  (Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 2024.050 (c).) Given the dilatory conduct of both parties in pursuing discovery, the Court declines to award sanctions to either party in connection with the motion to reopen discovery.  

“If a party is required to submit to a physical or mental examination . . . but fails to do so, the court, on motion of the party entitled to the examination, may make those orders that are just, including the imposition of an issue sanction, an evidence sanction, or a terminating sanction . . . In lieu of or in addition to that sanction, the court may, on motion of the party, impose a monetary sanction . . .”  (Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 2032.410.) imposes sanctions against her in the amount of $900 which consists of Dr. Korchek’s non-appearance fee for the previously-scheduled IMEs on September 25, 2019 and December 3, 2019

Moving party to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SSCDEPT27@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  

Dated this 29th day of June 2020

Hon. Edward B. Moreton, Jr. 

Judge of the Superior Court

Case Number: BC693979    Hearing Date: October 24, 2019    Dept: 4B

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL

Henry John Matusek, II and Thomas J. O’Neil seek to be relieved as counsel of record for plaintiff Nadine Cippolone (“Plaintiff”) on the grounds that the attorney-client relationship has deteriorated and continued representation is not possible.

Absent a showing of resulting prejudice, an attorney’s request for withdrawal should be granted. (People v. Prince (1968) 268 Cal.App.2d 398, 406.) Counsel’s Motion complies with California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1362. The Court notes that trial in this matter is currently set for January 24, 2020, and no prejudice will result from granting this motion. Accordingly, this unopposed motion to be relieved is GRANTED and effective upon filing a proof of service showing service of this Order on Plaintiff and all parties who have appeared. However, the Court notes that the proposed Order (Form MC-053) on file is not completely filled out. Thus, the Court orders counsel file a new proposed Order that is completely filled out.

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.