This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 01/06/2022 at 14:48:25 (UTC).

SAFWAT GENDY DDS ET AL VS HOLIDAY ROCK INC ET AL

Case Summary

On 08/18/2017 SAFWAT GENDY DDS filed an Other lawsuit against HOLIDAY ROCK INC. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Spring Street Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are PATRICIA D. NIETO, CAROLYN B. KUHL, GEORGINA T. RIZK, LISA K SEPE-WIESENFELD, KRISTIN S. ESCALANTE, SERENA R. MURILLO and MARK A. BORENSTEIN. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****2652

  • Filing Date:

    08/18/2017

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Other

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

PATRICIA D. NIETO

CAROLYN B. KUHL

GEORGINA T. RIZK

LISA K SEPE-WIESENFELD

KRISTIN S. ESCALANTE

SERENA R. MURILLO

MARK A. BORENSTEIN

 

Party Details

Petitioners and Plaintiffs

GENDY SOHEIR

GENDY SAFWAT DDS

Defendants and Respondents

DOES 1 THROUGH 40

HOLIDAY ROCK INC

ROSI GRAY HAROLD JR

HOLIDAY ROCK INC.

ROSI GRAY HAROLD JR.

GRAY HAROLD ROSS DOE 1

GRAY [DOE 1] HAROLD ROSS

HOLIDAY ROCK. INC.

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Petitioner and Plaintiff Attorneys

CATANZARITE KENNETH J. ESQ.

BRAUN MICHAEL S. ESQ.

BRAUN MICHAEL SCOTT ESQ.

Defendant and Respondent Attorneys

ROSS JONATHAN A. ESQ.

ROSS JONATHAN ARTHUR ESQ.

VICTOR MARILYN ROSE ESQ

VICTOR MARILYN R.

GMELICH LLP BRADLEY &

MARKIE ANASTASIA ARTHUR ESQ.

 

Court Documents

Reply - REPLY DEFENDANT, HOLLIDAY ROCK CO., INC.'S, REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL COMPLIANCE WITH DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR PRODUCTION OF BUSINESS RECORDS OF CALIFORNIA SPINE INSTITUTE; DECLARATI

9/27/2021: Reply - REPLY DEFENDANT, HOLLIDAY ROCK CO., INC.'S, REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL COMPLIANCE WITH DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR PRODUCTION OF BUSINESS RECORDS OF CALIFORNIA SPINE INSTITUTE; DECLARATI

Reply - REPLY DEFENDANT, HOLLIDAY ROCK CO., INC.'S, REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL COMPLIANCE WITH DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR PRODUCTION OF BUSINESS RECORDS OF CALIFORNIA SPINE INSTITUTE; DECLARATI

9/27/2021: Reply - REPLY DEFENDANT, HOLLIDAY ROCK CO., INC.'S, REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL COMPLIANCE WITH DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR PRODUCTION OF BUSINESS RECORDS OF CALIFORNIA SPINE INSTITUTE; DECLARATI

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION TO COMPEL COMPLIANCE WITH DEPOSITION SUBPOE...)

10/4/2021: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION TO COMPEL COMPLIANCE WITH DEPOSITION SUBPOE...)

Notice of Change of Handling Attorney

10/4/2021: Notice of Change of Handling Attorney

Notice of Ruling

10/5/2021: Notice of Ruling

Substitution of Attorney

10/6/2021: Substitution of Attorney

Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 1 TO PRECLUDE ANY PRE-SET TIME LIMITATIONS ON VOIR DIRE AND TO PERMIT MINI-OPENING STATEMENTS IN ACCORD WITH CCP 222.5

10/12/2021: Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 1 TO PRECLUDE ANY PRE-SET TIME LIMITATIONS ON VOIR DIRE AND TO PERMIT MINI-OPENING STATEMENTS IN ACCORD WITH CCP 222.5

Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE NO.3 TO EXCLUDE MENTION OF COLLATERAL SOURCES

10/12/2021: Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE NO.3 TO EXCLUDE MENTION OF COLLATERAL SOURCES

Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 4 TO EXCLUDE MENTION OF MEDICAL LIENS

10/12/2021: Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 4 TO EXCLUDE MENTION OF MEDICAL LIENS

Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 2 TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE THAT PLAINTIFFS WERE REFERRED TO DOCTORS BY AN ATTORNEY

10/12/2021: Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 2 TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE THAT PLAINTIFFS WERE REFERRED TO DOCTORS BY AN ATTORNEY

Jury Instructions

10/15/2021: Jury Instructions

Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 13 TO PRECLUDE PLAINTIFFS FROM CALLING DR. CHIU AS A WITNESS AT TRIAL OR PRESENTING ANY PRIOR STATEMENTS, RECORDS, RADIOLOGIC STUDIES, DECLARATIONS, ANDOR DIAGR

10/15/2021: Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 13 TO PRECLUDE PLAINTIFFS FROM CALLING DR. CHIU AS A WITNESS AT TRIAL OR PRESENTING ANY PRIOR STATEMENTS, RECORDS, RADIOLOGIC STUDIES, DECLARATIONS, ANDOR DIAGR

Statement of the Case

10/18/2021: Statement of the Case

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (FINAL STATUS CONFERENCE)

10/21/2021: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (FINAL STATUS CONFERENCE)

Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE DEFENDANTS, HOLLIDAY ROCK CO., INC. AND HAROLD ROSS GRAYS MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 23 TO PRECLUDE PLAINTIFFS FROM PRESENTING EXPERT TESTIMONY OR EVIDENCE NOT REVIEWED P

9/24/2021: Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE DEFENDANTS, HOLLIDAY ROCK CO., INC. AND HAROLD ROSS GRAYS MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 23 TO PRECLUDE PLAINTIFFS FROM PRESENTING EXPERT TESTIMONY OR EVIDENCE NOT REVIEWED P

Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE DEFENDANTS, HOLLIDAY ROCK CO., INC. AND HAROLD ROSS GRAYS MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 11 TO EXCLUDE TESTIMONY AND CONCLUSIONS AND OPINIONS CONTAINED IN TRAFFIC REPORT; MEM

9/24/2021: Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE DEFENDANTS, HOLLIDAY ROCK CO., INC. AND HAROLD ROSS GRAYS MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 11 TO EXCLUDE TESTIMONY AND CONCLUSIONS AND OPINIONS CONTAINED IN TRAFFIC REPORT; MEM

Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE DEFENDANTS, HOLLIDAY ROCK CO., INC. AND HAROLD ROSS GRAYS MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 17 TO EXCLUDE ANY EVIDENCE NOT PREVIOUSLY PRODUCED IN DISCOVERY; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS

9/24/2021: Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE DEFENDANTS, HOLLIDAY ROCK CO., INC. AND HAROLD ROSS GRAYS MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 17 TO EXCLUDE ANY EVIDENCE NOT PREVIOUSLY PRODUCED IN DISCOVERY; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS

Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE DEFENDANTS, HOLLIDAY ROCK CO., INC. AND HAROLD ROSS GRAYS MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 24 TO PRECLUDE REFERENCE TO OR MENTION OF SPECIFIC DOLLAR AMOUNTS DURING VOIR DIRE; M

9/24/2021: Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE DEFENDANTS, HOLLIDAY ROCK CO., INC. AND HAROLD ROSS GRAYS MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 24 TO PRECLUDE REFERENCE TO OR MENTION OF SPECIFIC DOLLAR AMOUNTS DURING VOIR DIRE; M

133 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 03/02/2022
  • Hearing03/02/2022 at 08:30 AM in Department 29 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal (Settlement)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/17/2021
  • Docketat 1:30 PM in Department 29, Serena R. Murillo, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Compel Discovery (not "Further Discovery") - Not Held - Taken Off Calendar by Party

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/17/2021
  • Docketat 1:30 PM in Department 29, Serena R. Murillo, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Compel Discovery (not "Further Discovery") - Not Held - Taken Off Calendar by Party

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/17/2021
  • Docketat 1:30 PM in Department 29, Serena R. Murillo, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Compel Discovery (not "Further Discovery") - Not Held - Taken Off Calendar by Party

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/17/2021
  • Docketat 1:30 PM in Department 29, Serena R. Murillo, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Compel Discovery (not "Further Discovery") - Not Held - Taken Off Calendar by Party

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/17/2021
  • Docketat 1:30 PM in Department 29, Serena R. Murillo, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Compel Discovery (not "Further Discovery") - Not Held - Taken Off Calendar by Party

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/04/2021
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 29, Serena R. Murillo, Presiding; Jury Trial (estimated at 7 days) - Not Held - Vacated by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/21/2021
  • Docketat 10:00 AM in Department 29, Serena R. Murillo, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Vacated by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/21/2021
  • Docketat 1:30 PM in Department 29, Serena R. Murillo, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Compel (Motion to Compel compel independent Medical Examination of Plaintiff) - Not Held - Continued - Court's Motion

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/21/2021
  • Docketat 1:30 PM in Department 29, Serena R. Murillo, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Compel (Motion to Compel Independent Medical Examination of Plaintiff) - Not Held - Continued - Court's Motion

    Read MoreRead Less
241 More Docket Entries
  • 09/15/2017
  • Docketat 09:00 AM in Department 309; (Order-Complex Determination; Case Determined to be non-Complex) -

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/15/2017
  • DocketMinute order entered: 2017-09-15 00:00:00; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/15/2017
  • DocketMinute Order

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/23/2017
  • DocketReimbursement of Fees; Filed by Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/21/2017
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet -AMENDED CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/18/2017
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Safwat, DDS Gendy (Plaintiff); Soheir Gendy (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/18/2017
  • DocketSUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/18/2017
  • DocketCOMPLAINT FOR: 1. MOTOR VEHICLE NEGLIGENCE;ETC

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/18/2017
  • DocketCIVIL DEPOSIT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/18/2017
  • DocketPLAINTIFFS' NOTICE OF DEPOSITING JURY FEES

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

b'

Case Number: BC672652\t Hearing Date: October 4, 2021 Dept: 29

TENTATIVE RULING

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

The\r\nMotions to Enforce Subpoena and Compel Depositions are both GRANTED IN PART.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

The California Spine Institute Medical Center is ordered\r\nto comply with both subpoenas within 10 days.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

The motion\r\nto impose monetary sanctions against plaintiffs Soheir GENDY and Safwat Gendy\r\nis DENIED.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

This court finds that the sanctions are not appropriate in\r\nthis case because the refusal of the California Spine Institute Medical Center\r\ndoes not appear to have been done in bad faith.

\r\n\r\n

Under CCP §1987.2, " . . . the court may in its\r\ndiscretion award the amount of reasonable expenses incurred in making or\r\nopposing the motion, including reasonable attorney\'s fees, if the court\r\nfind the motion was made or opposed in bad faith or without substantial\r\njustification or that one or more of the requirements of the subpoena was\r\noppressive. CCP §1987.2 (a).

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Here,\r\nthe motion before the court was not opposed by neither of the plaintiffs, and\r\ntherefore, imposing sanctions is not mandatory. Furthermore, once the subpoena\r\nwas served, it was on the plaintiff to file a protective order to narrow the\r\nscope of the subpoena. However, plaintiff did not file a protective order to\r\nnarrow the scope of the subpoena, nor did plaintiff oppose this motion to\r\ncompel compliance. In this case, sanctions are not mandatory, and therefore,\r\nwill not be imposed.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Thus, the Court orders\r\ncompliance with the subpoena within 10 days of this order, and no monetary\r\nsanctions are to be imposed.

Moving party to give notice.'b"

Case Number: BC672652 Hearing Date: August 26, 2021 Dept: 29

TENTATIVE

After considering the evidence and moving papers presented, the Court denies Defendant Holliday Rock’s Motion To Compel Soheir Gendy's Appearance At Additional Medical Examination and Motion To Compel Safwat Gendy's Appearance At Additional Medical Examination. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2032.310(c).)

Legal Standard

“As a general matter, a defendant may obtain a physical or mental examination of the plaintiff, in accordance with those provisions, if the plaintiff has placed his or her physical or mental condition in controversy.” (Carpenter v. Superior Court (2006) 141 Cal. App. 4th 249, 258.)

Code Civ. Proc., section 2032.310, provides:

(a) If any party desires to obtain discovery by a physical examination other than that described in Article 2 (commencing with Section 2032.210), or by a mental examination, the party shall obtain leave of court.

(b) A motion for an examination under subdivision (a) shall specify the time, place, manner, conditions, scope, and nature of the examination, as well as the identity and the specialty, if any, of the person or persons who will perform the examination. The motion shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040.

(c) Notice of the motion shall be served on the person to be examined and on all parties who have appeared in the action.

Furthermore, Code Civ. Proc., section 2032.320(a), provides that “[t]he court shall grant a motion for a physical or mental examination under Section 2032.310 only for good cause shown.” (Id.)

Discussion

Here, Defendant Holliday Rock moves the Court for orders compelling Plaintiffs to submit to additional Independent Medical Examinations (Neurological), pursuant to Code Civ. Proc., sections 2032.310 and 2032.320.

In the instant case, Plaintiffs claim that they suffered personal injuries as a result of Subject Incident. Accordingly, based upon Code of Civil Procedure section 2032.220(a), Defendants were entitled to one physical examination of Plaintiffs without leave of Court, which was completed on February 6, 2020, by Defendants' orthopedic expert Dr. Grogan (the “First IME”).

Next, Defendant Holliday Rock alleges that subsequent to the First IME, the Plaintiffs have made ongoing neurological complaints which have placed their medical condition(s), future prognosis, and the overall exposure in this matter in limbo. Thus, the Defendant argues that good cause exists for the second IMEs with neurologist Dr. Kowell, without which, Defendant Holliday Rock will be severely prejudiced.

On June 23, 2021, Defendant served a Demand for IME on Plaintiffs to appear on July 29, 2021, for the subject IMEs with Dr. Kowell, pursuant to Code Civ. Proc., section 2032.220(a). (Barcena Decl. ¶ 12). On June 25, 2021, Plaintiffs’ counsel objected to the subject IMEs. (Barcena Decl. ¶ 13).

On August 2, 2021, the Defendant Holliday Rock filed the pending motions. However, the Notices of the pending motions were not personally served on the Plaintiffs as required by Code Civ. Proc., section 2032.310(c). (See generally Defendant’s Motions for to Compel IME (for Proofs of Service). Notice and hearing are deemed essential to protect against unreasonable examinations and to safeguard the examinee's bodily and mental privacy and other constitutional rights. (See Reuter v. Sup.Ct. (Tag Enterprises) (1979) 93 Cal.App.3d 332, 343.)

Accordingly, the Court denies Defendant Holliday Rock’s Motion To Compel Soheir Gendy's Appearance At Additional Medical Examination and Motion To Compel Safwat Gendy's Appearance At Additional Medical Examination.

Conclusion

Therefore, the Court DENIES Defendant Holliday Rock’s Motion To Compel Soheir Gendy's Appearance At Additional Medical Examination and Motion To Compel Safwat Gendy's Appearance At Additional Medical Examination. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2032.310(c).)

Moving party is ordered to give notice.

"
related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where HOLIDAY ROCK INC is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer ROSS JONATHAN A