On 05/09/2017 ROBERTO MARTINEZ filed a Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle lawsuit against GURDEEP SINGH. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is JON R. TAKASUGI. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.
Pending - Other Pending
Los Angeles County Superior Courts
Stanley Mosk Courthouse
Los Angeles, California
JON R. TAKASUGI
PEREZ PAPER RECYCLING
DOES 1 TO 50
FOX DANA ALDEN ESQ.
KHAKSHOOY BOB B. ESQ.
OLSON DEAN A. ESQ.
FOX DANA ALDEN ESQ.
MORENO RICHARD C. ESQ.
4/17/2018: ANSWER OF DEFENDANT PEREZ PAPER RECYCLERS, INC., ERRONEOUSLY SUED AND SERVED AS PEREZ PAPER RECYCLING, TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT
4/23/2018: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS
6/22/2018: ORDER] AND STIPULATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL, FSC (AND RELATED MOTION/DISCOVERY DATES] PERSONAL INJURY COURTS ONLY (CENTRAL DISTRICT)
7/2/2018: NOTICE OF ENTRY OF COURT'S ORDER REGARDING NEW TRIAL AND FSC DATES
7/13/2018: Minute Order
7/25/2018: DEFENDANT HARBIR SINGH'S MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF'S INITIAL RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE; SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE; AND DEMAND FOR PRODUCTION, SET ONE
8/6/2018: SUBSTITUTION OF ATTORNEY
8/6/2018: SUBSTITUTION OF ATTORNEY
4/5/2019: Stipulation to Continue Trial/FSC [and Related Motion/Discovery Dates] Personal Injury Courts Only (Department 91, 92, 93, 97)
4/5/2019: Minute Order
4/8/2019: Notice of Ruling
1/17/2018: NOTICE OF ASSOCIATION OF COUNSEL
5/9/2017: PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR: 1. MOTOR VEHICLE NEGLIGENCE, NEGLIGENT ENTRUSTMENT, NEGLIGENT HIRING, NEGLIGENT UNDERTAKING, NEGLIGENT RETENTION, NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION AND NEGLIGENT TRAINING; E
8/11/2017: DEFENDANTS GURDEEP SINGH AND HABIR SINGH'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Answer; Filed by Albert Perez (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
at 08:30 AM in Department 3, Jon R. Takasugi, Presiding; Jury Trial - Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by CourtRead MoreRead Less
at 10:00 AM in Department 3, Jon R. Takasugi, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by CourtRead MoreRead Less
Notice of Ruling; Filed by Perez Paper Recyclers, Inc. Erroneously Sued As Perez Paper Recycling (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
at 08:30 AM in Department 3, Jon R. Takasugi, Presiding; Hearing on Ex Parte Application (To Continue Trial and all related dates) - Not Held - Taken Off Calendar by CourtRead MoreRead Less
Minute Order ( (Hearing on Ex Parte Application To Continue Trial and all rel...)); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
[Proposed Order] and Stipulation to Continue Trial, FSC (and Related Motion/Discovery Dates) Personal Injury Courts Only (Central District); Filed by Perez Paper Recyclers, Inc. Erroneously Sued As Perez Paper Recycling (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
at 1:30 PM in Department 3; Hearing on Motion to Compel ((Off Calendar)) -Read MoreRead Less
Minute order entered: 2018-08-27 00:00:00; Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
SUBSTITUTION OF ATTORNEYRead MoreRead Less
PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONSRead MoreRead Less
ANSWER OF DEFENDANT PEREZ PAPER RECYCLERS, INC., ERRONEOUSLY SUED AND SERVED AS PEREZ PAPER RECYCLING, TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINTRead MoreRead Less
Answer; Filed by Perez Paper Recyclers, Inc. Erroneously Sued As Perez Paper Recycling (Defendant); Albert Perez (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
Association of Attorney; Filed by Gurdeep Singh (Defendant); Habir Singh (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
NOTICE OF ASSOCIATION OF COUNSELRead MoreRead Less
DEFENDANTS GURDEEP SINGH AND HABIR SINGH'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIALRead MoreRead Less
Answer; Filed by Gurdeep Singh (Defendant); Habir Singh (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
Complaint; Filed by Roberto Martinez (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR: 1. MOTOR VEHICLE NEGLIGENCE, NEGLIGENT ENTRUSTMENT, NEGLIGENT HIRING, NEGLIGENT UNDERTAKING, NEGLIGENT RETENTION, NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION AND NEGLIGENT TRAINING; ETCRead MoreRead Less
SUMMONSRead MoreRead Less
Case Number: BC660521 Hearing Date: December 26, 2019 Dept: 3
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT
GURDEEP SINGH, ET AL.,
CASE NO: BC660521
December 26, 2019
1. Background Facts
Plaintiff, Roberto Martinez filed this action against Defendants, Gurdeep Singh, Habir Singh, Perez Paper Recycling, and Albert Perez for damages arising out of a three-vehicle semi accident.
2. Motion to Compel Production of Defense Medical Report
a. Parties’ Positions
Defendants, Gurdeep and Habir Singh had Plaintiff’s IME conducted by Harvey Lawrence Edmonds, MD on 10/04/19. Plaintiff made numerous e-mail requests for a copy of the report, and Defendants consistently said they would provide the report once it was prepared/received.
Defendants, in opposition, indicate they provided the report on 12/10/19, rendering the motion moot. Defendants argue the motion must be denied because it was not timely filed and served. Defendants also contend the report was not due until 15 days prior to trial, rather than 30 days after examination, as Plaintiff contends.
Plaintiff, in reply, contends the report was due 30 days after the examination. Plaintiff contends the report that was finally provided is deficient. Plaintiff indicates 12/26/19 was the first available date for hearing and was selected in light of the upcoming trial date. Plaintiff reiterates the request for sanctions.
b. Timeliness of Motion
Plaintiff filed the motion on 11/27/19 and served it by mail the same day. Defendants contend the 12/26/19 hearing date fails to comply with the notice requirements of CCP §1005. Sixteen court days after 11/27/19 fell on 12/23/19. Five court days later is 12/28/19.
Notably, it is likely Plaintiff counted backward from the hearing date, rather than forward from the service date. Sixteen court days before 12/26/19 fell on 12/03/19, and five calendar days prior to 12/03/19 fell on 11/28/19.
Plaintiff’s method of calculating the time is incorrect. CCP §12. In any event, because this is a very close distinction, because of the numerous court holidays intervening, and because Defendants addressed the merits of the motion, the Court will rule on the motion on its merits. See Carlton v. Quint (2000) 77 Cal.App.4th 690, 697, holding that a party who argues the merits of a motion waives any argument concerning lack of timely service.
c. Proper Date for Service of the Report
CCP §2032.610(b) provides, “If the option under subdivision (a) is exercised, a copy of the requested reports shall be delivered within 30 days after service of the demand, or within 15 days of trial, whichever is earlier.” Defendants argue they were permitted to serve the report 15 days prior to trial. This is a mis-reading of the Code, which clearly stated, “whichever is earlier.” In this case, 30 days after the 10/04/19 IME fell on or about 11/04/19, and 15 days prior to trial falls on 1/14/20. 11/04/19 is “earlier” than 1/14/20, and therefore Defendants were required to produce the report by 11/04/19.
Defendants contend the motion is substantively moot because they produced the report after they received the motion. Plaintiff, in reply contends the report is defective because it fails to contain the required information. Neither Defendants nor Plaintiff included a copy of the report with the opposition or the reply, so the Court cannot make a determination in this regard. The Court orders Counsel to meet and confer to resolve issues concerning any deficiencies in the report.
CCP §2032.620(a) permits a plaintiff to make a motion to compel production of a defense medical report if the defendant does not timely produce the report. §2032.620(b) requires the Court to impose sanctions unless the Court finds the other party acted with substantial justification or there are other circumstances that make imposition of sanctions unjust. Because of the lack of proper notice of the motion, sanctions are not imposed.
Plaintiff is ordered to give notice.
Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at email@example.com indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org. If the department does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on the tentative and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion may be placed off calendar. If a party submits on the tentative, the party’s email must include the case number and must identify the party submitting on the tentative.
Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases