This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 06/09/2019 at 00:07:18 (UTC).

SHAUN RYAN VS REBECCA LYON ET AL

Case Summary

On 07/06/2017 SHAUN RYAN filed a Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle lawsuit against REBECCA LYON. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is STEPHEN I. GOORVITCH. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.
Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****6930

  • Filing Date:

    07/06/2017

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

STEPHEN I. GOORVITCH

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner

RYAN SHAUN

Defendants and Respondents

LYON REBECCA

DOES 1-50

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorney

PANAH D. HESS

Defendant Attorney

FITZHUGH TIMOTHY

 

Court Documents

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

7/25/2018: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

Notice of Ruling

5/17/2019: Notice of Ruling

Ex Parte Application

5/16/2019: Ex Parte Application

Minute Order

5/16/2019: Minute Order

Minute Order

5/15/2019: Minute Order

Notice of Related Case

5/15/2019: Notice of Related Case

Unknown

5/15/2019: Unknown

Notice of Change of Firm Name

4/17/2019: Notice of Change of Firm Name

Disassociation of Attorney

3/19/2019: Disassociation of Attorney

Stipulation to Continue Trial/FSC [and Related Motion/Discovery Dates] Personal Injury Courts Only (Department 91, 92, 93, 97)

12/13/2018: Stipulation to Continue Trial/FSC [and Related Motion/Discovery Dates] Personal Injury Courts Only (Department 91, 92, 93, 97)

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

8/14/2018: DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

NOTICE OF POSTING JURY FEES

8/14/2018: NOTICE OF POSTING JURY FEES

Unknown

8/14/2018: Unknown

ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

8/14/2018: ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

2 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 06/03/2019
  • Docketat 10:00 AM in Department 5, Stephen I. Goorvitch, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Continued - Stipulation

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 05/17/2019
  • DocketNotice of Ruling; Filed by Rebecca Lyon (Defendant)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 05/16/2019
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 5, Stephen I. Goorvitch, Presiding; Hearing on Ex Parte Application (to postpone trial and FSC) - Held - Motion Granted

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 05/16/2019
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Hearing on Ex Parte Application to postpone trial and FSC)); Filed by Clerk

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 05/16/2019
  • DocketEx Parte Application (EX PARTE APPLICATION TO POSTPONE TRIAL AND FSC; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF TIMOHY B. FITZHUGH; DECLARATION OF KATHLEEN SANBORN RE NOTICE; PROPOSED ORDER); Filed by Rebecca Lyon (Defendant)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 05/15/2019
  • Docketat 11:02 AM in Department 5, Stephen I. Goorvitch, Presiding; Court Order

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 05/15/2019
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Court Order: Notice of Related Case)); Filed by Clerk

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 05/15/2019
  • DocketCertificate of Mailing for (Minute Order (Court Order: Notice of Related Case) of 05/15/2019); Filed by Clerk

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 05/15/2019
  • DocketNotice of Related Case; Filed by Rebecca Lyon (Defendant)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 04/17/2019
  • DocketNotice of Change of Firm Name; Filed by Rebecca Lyon (Defendant)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
7 More Docket Entries
  • 08/14/2018
  • DocketReceipt; Filed by Rebecca Lyon (Defendant)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 08/14/2018
  • DocketDEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 08/14/2018
  • DocketDemand for Jury Trial; Filed by Rebecca Lyon (Defendant)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 08/14/2018
  • DocketNotice; Filed by Rebecca Lyon (Defendant)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 08/14/2018
  • DocketAnswer; Filed by Rebecca Lyon (Defendant)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 07/25/2018
  • DocketProof-Service/Summons; Filed by Shaun Ryan (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 07/25/2018
  • DocketPROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 07/06/2017
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Shaun Ryan (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 07/06/2017
  • DocketSummons; Filed by Shaun Ryan (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 07/06/2017
  • DocketComplaint

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: ****6930    Hearing Date: July 30, 2020    Dept: 32

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 32

shaun ryan,

Plaintiff,

v.

rebecca lyon,

Defendant.

Case No.: ****6930

Hearing Date: July 27, 2020

[TENTATIVE] order RE:

Plaintiff’s motion to re-open discovery

Background

Plaintiff Shaun Ryan (“Plaintiff”) moves to designate expert witnesses after the deadline and to reopen expert discovery. Defendant Rebecca Lyon (“Lyon”) opposes the motion. The motion is granted in part and denied in part.

LEGAL STANDARD

Per Code of Civil Procedure section 2034.710, “On motion of any party who has failed to submit expert witness information on the date specified in a demand for that exchange, the court may grant leave to submit that information on a later date.” (Code Civ. Proc., ; 2034.710, subd. (a).) The party seeking leave to serve an untimely expert witness designation must do so prior to the cut-off date for expert witness depositions unless the court concludes that “exceptional circumstances” exist. (Code Civ. Proc., ; 2034.710, subd. (b).) The court must grant leave to submit an untimely expert witness designation if: “(a) The court has taken into account the extent to which the opposing party has relied on the absence of a list of expert witnesses. [¶] (b) The court has determined that any party opposing the motion will not be prejudiced in maintaining that party's action or defense on the merits. [¶] (c) The court has determined that the moving party did all of the following: [¶] (1) Failed to submit the information as the result of mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect. [¶] (2) Sought leave to submit the information promptly after learning of the mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect. [¶] (3) Promptly thereafter served a copy of the proposed expert witness information . . . on all other parties who have appeared in the action. [¶] (d) The order is conditioned on the moving party making the expert available immediately for a deposition . . . , and on any other terms as may be just, including, but not limited to, leave to any party opposing the motion to designate additional expert witnesses or to elicit additional opinions from those previously designated, a continuance of the trial for a reasonable period of time, and the awarding of costs and litigation expenses to any party opposing the motion.” (Code Civ. Proc., ; 2034.720.)

Discussion

Plaintiff proffers the declaration of his counsel, Hess Panah (“Counsel”). Counsel states that his office failed to calendar the date for Plaintiff to designate witnesses. (Declaration of Hess Panah, ¶¶ 5-6.) Defendant disclosed her experts on February 10, 2020, and Plaintiff designated her experts on March 13, 2020. (Id., ¶ 5.) Counsel represents that his legal assistant, who was charged with calendaring tendered her resignation in mid-February, during the operative time period. (Id., ¶ 7.) This constitutes good cause to show that Plaintiff failed to timely designate experts as a result of Counsel’s mistake. The Court also notes that Plaintiff has tendered her expert witnesses, and trial is at least six months away, per the Presiding Judge’s order of July 10, 2020.

Based upon the foregoing, the Court grants Plaintiff’s motion to designate witnesses after the deadline. The Court also grants in part and denies in part Plaintiff’s motion to reopen expert discovery. In determining whether to re-open discovery, the court must consider the necessity of and reasons for the additional discovery, the diligence or lack thereof by the party seeking to reopen discovery in attempting to complete discovery prior to the cutoff, whether permitting the discovery will prevent the case from going forward on the trial date or will otherwise prejudice any party, and any past continuances of the trial date. (See Code Civ. Proc., ; 2024.050, subd. (b).)

Given the prior trial date of March 30, 2020, the expert discovery cut-off was March 16, 2020. (Code Civ. Proc., ; 2024,030.) However, Defendant must have the opportunity to depose Plaintiff’s belatedly-designated experts. Accordingly, the Court reopens expert discovery with respect to Plaintiff’s designated experts only. Fact discovery remains closed. Further, as Defendant points out, Plaintiff has had Defendant’s expert designation since February 10, 2020. Plaintiff has not set forth good cause to re-open discovery with respect to Defendant’s experts. Therefore, the motion is denied with respect to fact discovery and expert discovery relating to Defendant’s experts.

Conclusion and Order

Plaintiff’s motion for leave to designate expert witnesses is granted. Plaintiff’s motion to reopen discovery is granted in part and denied in part. The Court re-opens expert discovery only with respect to Plaintiff’s designated experts. Fact discovery and discovery relating to Defendant’s designated experts shall remain closed. Plaintiff shall provide notice and file proof of such with the Court.

DATED: July 27, 2020 ___________________________

Stephen I. Goorvitch

Judge of the Superior Court



Case Number: ****6930    Hearing Date: July 27, 2020    Dept: 32

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 32

shaun ryan,

Plaintiff,

v.

rebecca lyon,

Defendant.

Case No.: ****6930

Hearing Date: July 27, 2020

[TENTATIVE] order RE:

Plaintiff’s motion to re-open discovery

NOTICE

Department #32 will be dark for motions on Monday, July 27, 2020.  The parties are ordered to email the Court’s clerk at SSCDept32@lacourt.org to inform the clerk whether they are submitting on the Court’s tentative or whether they are requesting a hearing.  If any party requests a hearing, one will be scheduled.  If the parties do not email the Court’s clerk before the hearing time to request a hearing, they will waive the right to be heard and shall submit to this tentative order, which shall issue.

Background

Plaintiff Shaun Ryan (“Plaintiff”) moves to designate expert witnesses after the deadline and to reopen expert discovery. Defendant Rebecca Lyon (“Lyon”) opposes the motion. The motion is granted in part and denied in part.

LEGAL STANDARD

Per Code of Civil Procedure section 2034.710, “On motion of any party who has failed to submit expert witness information on the date specified in a demand for that exchange, the court may grant leave to submit that information on a later date.” (Code Civ. Proc., ; 2034.710, subd. (a).) The party seeking leave to serve an untimely expert witness designation must do so prior to the cut-off date for expert witness depositions unless the court concludes that “exceptional circumstances” exist. (Code Civ. Proc., ; 2034.710, subd. (b).) The court must grant leave to submit an untimely expert witness designation if: “(a) The court has taken into account the extent to which the opposing party has relied on the absence of a list of expert witnesses. [¶] (b) The court has determined that any party opposing the motion will not be prejudiced in maintaining that party's action or defense on the merits. [¶] (c) The court has determined that the moving party did all of the following: [¶] (1) Failed to submit the information as the result of mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect. [¶] (2) Sought leave to submit the information promptly after learning of the mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect. [¶] (3) Promptly thereafter served a copy of the proposed expert witness information . . . on all other parties who have appeared in the action. [¶] (d) The order is conditioned on the moving party making the expert available immediately for a deposition . . . , and on any other terms as may be just, including, but not limited to, leave to any party opposing the motion to designate additional expert witnesses or to elicit additional opinions from those previously designated, a continuance of the trial for a reasonable period of time, and the awarding of costs and litigation expenses to any party opposing the motion.” (Code Civ. Proc., ; 2034.720.)

Discussion

Plaintiff proffers the declaration of his counsel, Hess Panah (“Counsel”). Counsel states that his office failed to calendar the date for Plaintiff to designate witnesses. (Declaration of Hess Panah, ¶¶ 5-6.) Defendant disclosed her experts on February 10, 2020, and Plaintiff designated her experts on March 13, 2020. (Id., ¶ 5.) Counsel represents that his legal assistant, who was charged with calendaring tendered her resignation in mid-February, during the operative time period. (Id., ¶ 7.) This constitutes good cause to show that Plaintiff failed to timely designate experts as a result of Counsel’s mistake. The Court also notes that Plaintiff has tendered her expert witnesses, and trial is at least six months away, per the Presiding Judge’s order of July 10, 2020.

Based upon the foregoing, the Court grants Plaintiff’s motion to designate witnesses after the deadline. The Court also grants in part and denies in part Plaintiff’s motion to reopen expert discovery. In determining whether to re-open discovery, the court must consider the necessity of and reasons for the additional discovery, the diligence or lack thereof by the party seeking to reopen discovery in attempting to complete discovery prior to the cutoff, whether permitting the discovery will prevent the case from going forward on the trial date or will otherwise prejudice any party, and any past continuances of the trial date. (See Code Civ. Proc., ; 2024.050, subd. (b).)

Given the prior trial date of March 30, 2020, the expert discovery cut-off was March 16, 2020. (Code Civ. Proc., ; 2024,030.) However, Defendant must have the opportunity to depose Plaintiff’s belatedly-designated experts. Accordingly, the Court reopens expert discovery with respect to Plaintiff’s designated experts only. Fact discovery remains closed. Further, as Defendant points out, Plaintiff has had Defendant’s expert designation since February 10, 2020. Plaintiff has not set forth good cause to re-open discovery with respect to Defendant’s experts. Therefore, the motion is denied with respect to fact discovery and expert discovery relating to Defendant’s experts.

Conclusion and Order

Plaintiff’s motion for leave to designate expert witnesses is granted. Plaintiff’s motion to reopen discovery is granted in part and denied in part. The Court re-opens expert discovery only with respect to Plaintiff’s designated experts. Fact discovery and discovery relating to Defendant’s designated experts shall remain closed. Plaintiff shall provide notice and file proof of such with the Court.

DATED: July 27, 2020 ___________________________

Stephen I. Goorvitch

Judge of the Superior Court



related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases represented by Lawyer YAZDANPANAH HESAM DEAN