On 11/30/2017 SHIRLY ETZIONY filed a Personal Injury - Other Product Liability lawsuit against BAXTON STUDIO. 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.
Pending - Other Pending
Los Angeles County Superior Courts
Stanley Mosk Courthouse
Los Angeles, California
GEORGINA T. RIZK
ETZIONY SHIRLY AND INDIVIDUALLY
HUDSON'S BAY COMPANY
DOES 1 TO 25
WHOLESALE INTERIORS INC
GILT GROUPE INC
SPANIAC KATHERINE L. ESQ.
8/27/2018: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS
9/21/2018: NOTICE OF ERRATA RE: COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
9/21/2018: COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
10/12/2018: Other -
11/15/2018: Notice of Posting of Jury Fees
11/15/2018: Demand for Jury Trial
7/13/2018: NOTICE OF REJECTION-APPLICATION AND ORDER FOR APPOINTMENT OF GUARDIAN AD LITEM
7/13/2018: APPLICATION AND ORDER FOR APPOINTMENT OF GUARDIAN AD LITEM-CIVIL EX PARTE
8/15/2018: PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS
11/30/2017: COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1. NEGLIGENCE ;ETC
at 10:00 AM in Department 2, Georgina T. Rizk, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Continued - StipulationRead MoreRead Less
[Proposed Order] and Stipulation to Continue Trial, FSC (and Related Motion/Discovery Dates) Personal Injury Courts Only (Central District); Filed by WHOLESALE INTERIORS, INC (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
Summons (on Cross Complaint); Filed by ETZIONY, SHIRLY, AND INDIVIDUALLY (Cross-Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
Cross-Complaint; Filed by WHOLESALE INTERIORS, INC (Cross-Complainant)Read MoreRead Less
Answer (To Cross-Complaint); Filed by ETZIONY, SHIRLY, AND INDIVIDUALLY (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
Notice of Posting of Jury Fees; Filed by WHOLESALE INTERIORS, INC (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
Demand for Jury Trial; Filed by WHOLESALE INTERIORS, INC (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
Answer (Defendant Wholesale Interiors Inc.'s Answer to Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint); Filed by WHOLESALE INTERIORS, INC (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
Other - (First Amended Complaint For Damages); Filed by ETZIONY, SHIRLY, AND INDIVIDUALLY (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
NOTICE OF ERRATA RE: COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGESRead MoreRead Less
Declaration; Filed by WHOLESALE INTERIORS, INC (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONSRead MoreRead Less
Proof of Service by Substituted Service; Filed by ETZIONY, SHIRLY, AND INDIVIDUALLY (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONSRead MoreRead Less
Proof of Service by Substituted Service; Filed by ETZIONY, SHIRLY, AND INDIVIDUALLY (Plaintiff); JONATHAN ETZIONY (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
NOTICE OF REJECTION-APPLICATION AND ORDER FOR APPOINTMENT OF GUARDIAN AD LITEMRead MoreRead Less
Application ; Filed by Plaintiff/PetitionerRead MoreRead Less
APPLICATION AND ORDER FOR APPOINTMENT OF GUARDIAN AD LITEM-CIVIL EX PARTERead MoreRead Less
Complaint; Filed by nullRead MoreRead Less
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1. NEGLIGENCE ;ETCRead MoreRead Less
Case Number: BC685017 Hearing Date: December 15, 2020 Dept: 29
Motion by Defendant, Wholesale Interiors, Inc. for Sanctions in the Amount of $3,935.00 against Plaintiff, Shirly Etziony, and her Counsel of Record is DENIED.
The court does not find that Plaintiff’s failure to proceed with the examination with Dr. Thomas on 7/11/2020 was willful or that it constituted discovery abuse. Rather, the court finds that it was the result of mistakes on both sides.
Moving party is ordered to give notice.
Case Number: BC685017 Hearing Date: July 17, 2020 Dept: 29
Motion to Compel Mental/Psychological Examination of Plaintiff Jonathan Etziony, filed by Defendant Wholesale Interiors Inc., is GRANTED. Plaintiff is to be made available for the examination by Dr. Lulow at a mutually agreeable date and time to be duly noticed by Defendant.
In this action, Plaintiff Jonathan Etziony, through his guardian ad litem, alleges that he suffered physical and mental injury as the result of a cabinet falling on him. Defendant Wholesale Interiors Inc. seeks an order compelling a mental examination with psychologist Dr. Jeffrey Lulow.
Section 2032.020, subdivision (a) of the Code of Civil Procedure provides: “Any party may obtain discovery . . . by means of a . . . mental examination of  a party to the action . . . in any action in which the mental . . . condition . . . of that party is in controversy in the action.” “A mental examination conducted under this chapter shall be performed only by a licensed physician, or by a licensed clinical psychologist who holds a doctoral degree in psychology and has had at least five years of postgraduate experience in the diagnosis of emotional and mental disorders.” Code Civ. Proc. § 2032.020(c)(1).
A party must obtain leave of court for a mental examination, which the Court must grant for good cause shown. (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2032.310; 2032.320(a).) The motion shall “specify the time, place, manner, conditions, scope and nature of the examination, as well as the identify and specialty, if any, of the person or persons who will perform the examination.” (Id. § 20320.310(b)).
Here, Defendant has shown good cause for the mental examination. Plaintiff seeks recovery for mental and emotional distress and therefore his mental state is in controversy. (Vinson v. Superior Court (1987) 43 Cal. 3d 833, 839). Dr. Lulow is a licensed clinical psychologist with a doctoral degree of psychology and decades of clinical experience and thus has the credentials required by the statute.
Plaintiff argues that the examination would be duplicative of the physical examination by Defendant’s neurologist, to which Plaintiff has already agreed. But an examination by a neurologist and a psychologist serve two different purposes.
Plaintiff also argues that the motion and notice are silent as to which diagnostic tests and procedures will be performed. However, the notice states that the examination will consist of taking the patient’s history, conducting an interview and observing the patient. There is no indication in the motion that the examination will go beyond those parameters; for example, the motion does not say that neuropsychological testing will be performed. The reply papers confirm that no such tests will be performed. Defendant is entitled to have an examination by Dr. Lulow that is limited to the parameters set forth in the notice.
Plaintiff also suggests that the Court should decline to order the examination because Dr. Lulow’s CV does not indicate that he has any specialized expertise in child psychology. But the statute does not require any particularized expertise with a particular age group (except in instances of alleged sexual abuse, which does not apply here). Dr. Lulow has the credentials required by statute; Plaintiff’s counsel can rely on his purported lack of expertise with children for impeachment purposes.
Plaintiff finally argues that the examination should be subject to various conditions, to which Defendant does not object. To the extent that either party believes that these conditions need to be incorporated into a court order, the parties are ordered to prepare a stipulation and proposed order setting forth the conditions. If an order is required, Defendant is ordered to file the stipulation electronically and to call the judicial assistant in Department 29 to inform the Court that the stipulation has been filed.
Moving party is ordered to give notice.
Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases