This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 10/11/2019 at 02:17:16 (UTC).

SHIVA NAJAFI VS NANCY M MAPLES ET AL

Case Summary

On 11/17/2017 SHIVA NAJAFI filed a Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle lawsuit against NANCY M MAPLES. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is LAURA A. SEIGLE. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****3798

  • Filing Date:

    11/17/2017

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

LAURA A. SEIGLE

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner

NAJAFI SHIVA

Defendants and Respondents

MAPLES NANCY M.

MAPLES STEPHEN P.

DOES 1 TO 100

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorney

GEOULLA DANIEL D. ESQ.

Defendant and Respondent Attorney

PATRICK J. GIBBS

 

Court Documents

Notice of Ruling

9/30/2019: Notice of Ruling

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER DISCOVERY RESPONSES; HEAR...)

9/30/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER DISCOVERY RESPONSES; HEAR...)

Notice of Ruling

9/16/2019: Notice of Ruling

Notice - NOTICE REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCE AS A MATTER OF COURSE

9/17/2019: Notice - NOTICE REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCE AS A MATTER OF COURSE

Ex Parte Application - EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER CONTINUING TRIAL AND ALL TRIAL RELATED DATES

9/18/2019: Ex Parte Application - EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER CONTINUING TRIAL AND ALL TRIAL RELATED DATES

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER CONTINUING TRIAL...)

9/18/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER CONTINUING TRIAL...)

Reply - REPLY PLAINTIFF SHIVA NAJAFI'S OMNIBUS NOTICE OF NO OPPOSITION AND REPLY TO MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S INTERROGATORIES, SET TWO, AND REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS, SET TWO

9/23/2019: Reply - REPLY PLAINTIFF SHIVA NAJAFI'S OMNIBUS NOTICE OF NO OPPOSITION AND REPLY TO MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S INTERROGATORIES, SET TWO, AND REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS, SET TWO

Opposition - OPPOSITION DEFENDANTS OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL

9/24/2019: Opposition - OPPOSITION DEFENDANTS OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL

Separate Statement

8/22/2019: Separate Statement

Memorandum of Points & Authorities

8/22/2019: Memorandum of Points & Authorities

Notice of Motion

8/22/2019: Notice of Motion

Separate Statement

8/22/2019: Separate Statement

Declaration - DECLARATION DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO RFAS

8/22/2019: Declaration - DECLARATION DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO RFAS

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (INFORMAL DISCOVERY CONFERENCE (IDC))

9/6/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (INFORMAL DISCOVERY CONFERENCE (IDC))

ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

4/19/2018: ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

4/19/2018: DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Civil Case Cover Sheet -

11/17/2017: Civil Case Cover Sheet -

Complaint -

11/17/2017: Complaint -

20 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 11/17/2020
  • Hearing11/17/2020 at 08:30 AM in Department 4B at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; : OSC RE Dismissal

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/05/2020
  • Hearing02/05/2020 at 08:30 AM in Department 4B at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Jury Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/22/2020
  • Hearing01/22/2020 at 10:00 AM in Department 4B at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Final Status Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/09/2019
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 4B, Laura A. Seigle, Presiding; Jury Trial - Not Held - Continued - Party's Motion

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/30/2019
  • Docketat 10:00 AM in Department 4B, Laura A. Seigle, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses - Held - Motion Denied

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/30/2019
  • Docketat 10:00 AM in Department 4B, Laura A. Seigle, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses - Held - Motion Denied

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/30/2019
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses; Hear...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/30/2019
  • DocketNotice of Ruling; Filed by Nancy M. Maples (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/25/2019
  • Docketat 10:00 AM in Department 4B, Laura A. Seigle, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Continued - Party's Motion

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/24/2019
  • DocketOpposition (defendants opposition to motion to compel); Filed by Nancy M. Maples (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
30 More Docket Entries
  • 04/19/2018
  • DocketAnswer; Filed by Nancy M. Maples (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/19/2018
  • DocketANSWER TO COMPLAINT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/09/2018
  • DocketProof of Service by Substituted Service

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/09/2018
  • DocketProof of Service by Substituted Service

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/09/2018
  • DocketProof-Service/Summons; Filed by Shiva Najafi (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/09/2018
  • DocketProof-Service/Summons; Filed by Shiva Najafi (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/17/2017
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Shiva Najafi (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/17/2017
  • DocketSummons; Filed by null

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/17/2017
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/17/2017
  • DocketComplaint

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC683798    Hearing Date: February 27, 2020    Dept: 27

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM WAIVER OF LATE EXPERT DESIGNATION

On November 17, 2017, plaintiff Shiva Najafi (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against defendant Nancy Maples (“Defendant”) for injuries relating to a February 1, 2017 motor vehicle accident.

On December 17, 2019, the parties agreed to continue the deadline for exchanging expert designations to December 31, 2019. On December 23, 2019, Plaintiff’s counsel sent an email asking whether defense counsel would be amenable to continuing designations to January 7, 2020. Defense counsel did not respond by December 3, so on December 31, Plaintiff served expert designations. Eleven days later, on January 3, 2020, defense counsel wrote back stating, “Sorry for the delay. We have been in and out of the office and this email was missed. We are agreeable to continuing the designation to 1/7/20.” On January 6, 2020, Plaintiff’s counsel emailed defense counsel that because Plaintiff’s counsel had not responded to the proposal before the December 31 deadline, there was no agreement, and Defendant’s designations served after December 31 would be untimely and objected to. Defendant served expert designations on January 7, 2020.

On January 16, 2020, Defendant applied ex parte to continue the trial from February 5, 2020 to March 3, 2020 due to a conflicting trial. The Court continued the trial as requested, but ruled that the time for expert designations and fact discovery was closed and could not be reopened via an ex parte application. On January 20, 2020, Plaintiff’s counsel informed defense counsel that Plaintiff objected to Defendant’s tardy expert witness designations. On February 3, Defendant filed this motion for relief from her failure to provide timely expert designations.

As an initial matter, Defendant seeks relief under Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (b). That statute concerns relief from a judgment, dismissal, order, or other proceeding taken against a party due to a party’s mistake, or relief from entry of default, default judgment or dismissal due to attorney mistake. That is not the situation here. There has been no entry of default, judgment, dismissal, order or other proceeding taken against Defendant.

The proper procedure for seeking leave for a late expert exchange is set forth in 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 motion shall be made a sufficient time in advance of the time limit for the completion of discovery to permit the deposition of any expert to whom the motion relates to be taken within that time limit. Under exceptional circumstances, the court may permit the motion to be made at a later time. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2034.710, subd. (b).) The court shall grant leave to submit tardy expert witness information only if all of the following conditions are satisfied: (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, and (2) sought leave to submit the information promptly after learning of the mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; and (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.) Defendant does not mention these statutes.

Defendant argues that based on Plaintiff’s counsel’s December 23, 2019 email proposing an extension of the December 31 deadline for expert designations, defense counsel believed the parties had reached an agreement that expert designations were due on January 7, 2020. However, defense counsel stated in her January 3, 2020 email that she was delayed in responding to the December 23 email because she had missed the email. Both of those statements cannot be true. If defense counsel had missed seeing the December 23 email, then she had no reason to believe the December 31 deadline had been continued. On the other hand, if defense counsel had seen the December 23 email before December 31, then she has no excuse for not responding before December 31 to agree to the extension proposal. Therefore, Defendant has not shown she failed to submit the information as the result of mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect.

Defendant does not explain why Defendant waited until February 3, 2020 to bring this motion with a hearing date five days before trial, which is not “sufficient time in advance of the time limit for the completion of discovery to permit the deposition of any expert to whom the motion relates to be taken within that time limit.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2034.720.) By January 6, 2020, Defendant knew that Plaintiff contended any designations served after December 31 was late and objectionable. Defendant then waited a month to file this motion. Defendant has not shown any circumstances, let alone exceptional circumstances, for filing the motion with insufficient time to complete the expert depositions. Nor has Defendant shown she sought leave to submit the information promptly after learning of the mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect.

In addition, this motion is late under Code of Civil Procedure section 2024.030, which allows expert discovery motions to be heard up to ten days before trial.

Plaintiff does not object to the designation of Philip Yuan, who Defendant designated in an earlier expert exchange. Plaintiff does object to the other two experts, Whitney Pope and Sephani Engler. Defendant argues there is no prejudice in adding Pope, a radiologist, as all parties have had the images. Defendant likewise argues the addition of Stephanie Engler, a life care planner will not prejudice Plaintiff because the parties previously discussed whether a biller or life care planner would be designated. Plaintiff asserts without any details that he will be prejudiced by their late addition. Plaintiff has not shown that he relied on the absence of a list of expert witnesses or would be prejudiced.

Finally, Defendant did not state the experts would be available immediately for depositions, and in any event, expert discovery has closed.

Because Defendant did not satisfy the statutory requirements, the motion regarding leave to designate Pope and Engler late is DENIED. Because Plaintiff states he does not object to the designation of Philip Yuan, the motion is GRANTED regarding Yuan.

Moving party to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SSCDEPT27@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative.