This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 06/02/2019 at 03:59:41 (UTC).

PATRICIA VILLA VS CENTAUR HOLDINGS UNITED STATES INC ET AL

Case Summary

On 10/05/2017 PATRICIA VILLA filed a Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury lawsuit against CENTAUR HOLDINGS UNITED STATES INC. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is GEORGINA T. RIZK. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.
Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****8504

  • Filing Date:

    10/05/2017

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

GEORGINA T. RIZK

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner

VILLA PATRICIA

Defendants and Respondents

CENTAUR HOLDINGS UNITED STATES INC

DOES 1 TO 100

PALACE ENTERTAINMENT

FESTIVAL FUN PARKS LLC DBA RAGING WATERS

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

LIPELES KEVIN A. ESQ.

LIPELES LAW GROUP APC

Defendant Attorney

AMARO MICHAEL LEE

 

Court Documents

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

10/5/2017: COMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)

SUMMONS

10/5/2017: SUMMONS

Unknown

10/11/2017: Unknown

NOTICE OF FILING OF PROOF OF SERVICE

10/19/2017: NOTICE OF FILING OF PROOF OF SERVICE

NOTICE OF POSTING JURY FEES

11/29/2017: NOTICE OF POSTING JURY FEES

Unknown

11/29/2017: Unknown

ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

11/29/2017: ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

Stipulation and Order

2/14/2019: Stipulation and Order

NOTICE OF INFORMAL DISCOVERY CONFERENCE

4/11/2018: NOTICE OF INFORMAL DISCOVERY CONFERENCE

PLAINTIFF'S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF HER MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE

4/11/2018: PLAINTIFF'S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF HER MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE

PLAINTIFF PATRICIA VILLA'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR AN ORDER COMPELLING FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE, AND FOR SANCTIONS IN THE AMOUNT OF $4860; ETC

4/11/2018: PLAINTIFF PATRICIA VILLA'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR AN ORDER COMPELLING FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE, AND FOR SANCTIONS IN THE AMOUNT OF $4860; ETC

STIPULATION RE DISMISSAL OF IMPROPER PARIES; AND ORDER THEREON

3/20/2018: STIPULATION RE DISMISSAL OF IMPROPER PARIES; AND ORDER THEREON

 

Docket Entries

  • 04/05/2019
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 2, Georgina T. Rizk, Presiding; Jury Trial - Not Held - Continued - Stipulation

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 03/21/2019
  • Docketat 10:00 AM in Department 2, Georgina T. Rizk, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Continued - Stipulation

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 02/14/2019
  • DocketStipulation and Order ((Proposed Order) and Stipulation to Continue Trial); Filed by Festival Fun Parks, LLC (Defendant)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 07/25/2018
  • Docketat 10:00 AM in Department 2; Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses (MOTION - COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES; Off Calendar) -

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 07/25/2018
  • DocketMinute order entered: 2018-07-25 00:00:00; Filed by Clerk

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 06/22/2018
  • DocketNotice; Filed by PATRICIA VILLA (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 04/11/2018
  • DocketStatement of Facts; Filed by PATRICIA VILLA (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 04/11/2018
  • DocketPLAINTIFF'S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF HER MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 04/11/2018
  • DocketPLAINTIFF PATRICIA VILLA'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR AN ORDER COMPELLING FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE, AND FOR SANCTIONS IN THE AMOUNT OF $4860; ETC

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 04/11/2018
  • DocketNOTICE OF INFORMAL DISCOVERY CONFERENCE

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
6 More Docket Entries
  • 11/29/2017
  • DocketReceipt; Filed by Defendant/Respondent

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 11/29/2017
  • DocketAnswer; Filed by Defendant/Respondent

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 11/29/2017
  • DocketNotice; Filed by Defendant/Respondent

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 10/19/2017
  • DocketNotice; Filed by PATRICIA VILLA (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 10/19/2017
  • DocketNOTICE OF FILING OF PROOF OF SERVICE

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 10/11/2017
  • DocketReceipt; Filed by PATRICIA VILLA (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 10/11/2017
  • DocketCIVIL DEPOSIT

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 10/05/2017
  • DocketCOMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 10/05/2017
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by PATRICIA VILLA (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 10/05/2017
  • DocketSUMMONS

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: ****8504    Hearing Date: February 03, 2020    Dept: 29

*******continued for argument from 01/29/2020 *******

Villa v. Centaur Holdings United States, Inc., et al.

Motion by Defendant Festival Fun Parks, LLC, to Compel Plaintiff to Participate in a Medical Examination is DENIED.  Defendant has not shown good cause.

In this motion, Defendant seeks an order compelling Plaintiff to appear for a mental examination with a neuropsychologist pursuant to section 2032.310(a).  Plaintiff has previous undergone two defense examinations, one with a medical doctor specializing in orthopedics and one with a licensed chiropractor who purported to administer an “objective eye test” to evaluate traumatic brain injury, the results of which were then evaluated by a biomedical engineer.  To obtain a further examination, Plaintiff must demonstrate good cause.  Shapira v. Superior Court (1990) 224 Cal. App. 3d 1249, 1255.

Defendant states that there is good cause for the mental examination because “Plaintiff disputes the findings of the objective eye test that was performed on October 30, 2019.”  Defendant argues:  “Plaintiff underwent a RightEye Brain Health EyeQ Test . . . used to identify a traumatic brain injury based on the movements of the eyes . . . .  The results were evaluated by Dr. George Gitchel, Ph.D., an expert in neurological disorders, including traumatic brain injuries.  After reviewing the results of the RightEye Brain Health EyeQ Test, Dr. Glitchel concluded that Plaintiff does not show any objective evidence of a brain injury, traumatic or otherwise.  [¶] Despite Dr. Gitchel’s analysis, Plaintiff continues to assert that she suffers from a traumatic brain injury and that the eye test and opinions of Dr. George Gitchel, Ph.D., have no relevance/admissibility to rebut the opinions of Plaintiff’s Neuropsychologist.”  That is the sole argument made for why good cause is established.

Defendant’s argument makes clear that it seeks to compel an examination by a neuropsychologist for the same purpose as it previously sought to compel the Brain Health EyeQ Test to be conducted and evaluated by the chiropractor and biomedical engineer.  Defendant repeatedly states that the examination by the neuropsychologist is necessary because Plaintiff questions the results of the previously ordered examination and disputes that the results of that test will be admissible to rebut the opinions of plaintiff’s neuropsychologist. 

At the time of the motion to compel the Health EyeQ Test, Defendant was aware that Plaintiff took the position that the Brain Health EyeQ Test is an experimental test that has not been scientifically validated and will not be admissible at trial.  Plaintiff was willing to stipulate to an examination with a neurologist or a neuropsychologist instead.  See Kevin A. Lipeles’s Declaration in Support of Opposition ¶ 3-4.  But Defendant insisted that it was entitled to go forward with the Brain Health EyeQ Test, and that the choice of the testing modality was up to the Defendant, not Plaintiff. 

Having made that choice, the Court will not now provide Defendant with another bite at the apple to obtain an examination from a conventional provider.  Defendant knew of the risk that Dr. Gitchel’s opinions could be excluded at trial because it was an experimental treatment, but Defendant nonetheless insisted on proceeding with that test.  The fact that Plaintiff has continued to maintain her position that the Dr. Glitchel’s opinions should be excluded at trial does not provide good cause for another examination on the same subject.  Defendant has not demonstrated why it could not have obtained the information it needed from testing by a neuropsychologist in the first instance, rather than requiring Plaintiff to undergo the Brain Health EyeQ Test. 

Moving Party is ordered to give notice.  



Case Number: ****8504    Hearing Date: January 29, 2020    Dept: 29

Villa v. Centaur Holdings United States, Inc., et al.

Motion by Defendant Festival Fun Parks, LLC, to Compel Plaintiff to Participate in a Medical Examination is DENIED. Defendant has not shown good cause.

In this motion, Defendant seeks an order compelling Plaintiff to appear for a mental examination with a neuropsychologist pursuant to section 2032.310(a). Plaintiff has previous undergone two defense examinations, one with a medical doctor specializing in orthopedics and one with a licensed chiropractor who purported to administer an “objective eye test” to evaluate traumatic brain injury, the results of which were then evaluated by a biomedical engineer. To obtain a further examination, Plaintiff must demonstrate good cause. Shapira v. Superior Court (1990) 224 Cal. App. 3d 1249, 1255.

Defendant states that there is good cause for the mental examination because “Plaintiff disputes the findings of the objective eye test that was performed on October 30, 2019.” Defendant argues: “Plaintiff underwent a RightEye Brain Health EyeQ Test . . . used to identify a traumatic brain injury based on the movements of the eyes . . . . The results were evaluated by Dr. George Gitchel, Ph.D., an expert in neurological disorders, including traumatic brain injuries. After reviewing the results of the RightEye Brain Health EyeQ Test, Dr. Glitchel concluded that Plaintiff does not show any objective evidence of a brain injury, traumatic or otherwise. [] Despite Dr. Gitchel’s analysis, Plaintiff continues to assert that she suffers from a traumatic brain injury and that the eye test and opinions of Dr. George Gitchel, Ph.D., have no relevance/admissibility to rebut the opinions of Plaintiff’s Neuropsychologist.” That is the sole argument made for why good cause is established.

Defendant’s argument makes clear that it seeks to compel an examination by a neuropsychologist for the same purpose as it previously sought to compel the Brain Health EyeQ Test to be conducted and evaluated by the chiropractor and biomedical engineer. Defendant repeatedly states that the examination by the neuropsychologist is necessary because Plaintiff questions the results of the previously ordered examination and disputes that the results of that test will be admissible to rebut the opinions of plaintiff’s neuropsychologist.

At the time of the motion to compel the Health EyeQ Test, Defendant was aware that Plaintiff took the position that the Brain Health EyeQ Test is an experimental test that has not been scientifically validated and will not be admissible at trial. Plaintiff was willing to stipulate to an examination with a neurologist or a neuropsychologist instead. See Kevin A. Lipeles’s Declaration in Support of Opposition 3-4. But Defendant insisted that it was entitled to go forward with the Brain Health EyeQ Test, and that the choice of the testing modality was up to the Defendant, not Plaintiff.

Having made that choice, the Court will not now provide Defendant with another bite at the apple to obtain an examination from a conventional provider. Defendant knew of the risk that Dr. Gitchel’s opinions could be excluded at trial because it was an experimental treatment, but Defendant nonetheless insisted on proceeding with that test. The fact that Plaintiff has continued to maintain her position that the Dr. Glitchel’s opinions should be excluded at trial does not provide good cause for another examination on the same subject. Defendant has not demonstrated why it could not have obtained the information it needed from testing by a neuropsychologist in the first instance, rather than requiring Plaintiff to undergo the Brain Health EyeQ Test.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.



related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where CENTAUR HOLDINGS UNITED STATES INC is a litigant

Latest cases where VILLA PATRICIA K is a litigant

Latest cases where PALACE ENTERTAINMENT LLC is a litigant

Latest cases where FESTIVAL FUN PARKS LLC is a litigant