This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 07/16/2019 at 00:13:05 (UTC).

SIENNA BOORMAN VS ELYSE KATZ ET AL

Case Summary

On 01/11/2018 SIENNA BOORMAN filed a Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury lawsuit against ELYSE KATZ. 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:

    ****0046

  • Filing Date:

    01/11/2018

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

STEPHEN I. GOORVITCH

 

Party Details

Defendants, Respondents, Cross Plaintiffs and Cross Defendants

KATZ ELYSE

ALBARRACIN DIANA FLORES

DOES 1 TO 25

CITY OF SANTA MONICA

UCLA HEALTH INFO MANAGEMENTT SERVICE

BINA SHARON

Minor

BOORMAN SIENNA

Guardian Ad Litem

BOORMAN EVAN

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Defendant Attorneys

CAVANAUGH YUKEVICH

BOUCHE JACQUELINE ESQ.

Minor Attorney

HASHEMI MAJID

 

Court Documents

CROSS DEFENDANT DIANA FLORES ALBARRACINS ANSWER TO ELYSE KATZA CROSS COMPLAINT

6/13/2018: CROSS DEFENDANT DIANA FLORES ALBARRACINS ANSWER TO ELYSE KATZA CROSS COMPLAINT

DEFENDANT ELYSE KATZ' ANSWER TO DIANA FLORES ALBARRACIN AND CITY OF SANTA MONICA'S CROSS-COMPLAINT

6/18/2018: DEFENDANT ELYSE KATZ' ANSWER TO DIANA FLORES ALBARRACIN AND CITY OF SANTA MONICA'S CROSS-COMPLAINT

CIVIL DEPOSIT

6/20/2018: CIVIL DEPOSIT

PLAINTIFF SIENNA BOORMAN BY HER GAL EVAN BOORMAN?S NOTICE OF POSTING JURY FEES

6/20/2018: PLAINTIFF SIENNA BOORMAN BY HER GAL EVAN BOORMAN?S NOTICE OF POSTING JURY FEES

NOTICE OF CHANGE OF MAILING ADDRESS

9/14/2018: NOTICE OF CHANGE OF MAILING ADDRESS

Motion for Summary Judgment

3/22/2019: Motion for Summary Judgment

Notice

5/21/2019: Notice

Motion to Compel

6/11/2019: Motion to Compel

Proof of Personal Service

6/13/2019: Proof of Personal Service

Notice

7/12/2019: Notice

DEFENDANT CITY OF SANTA MONICA'S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

5/14/2018: DEFENDANT CITY OF SANTA MONICA'S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

CROSS-COMPLAINANTS DIANA FLORES ALBARRACIN AND CITY OF SANTA MONICA CROSS-COMPLAINT AGAINST CROSS-DEFENDANT ELYSE KATZ

5/14/2018: CROSS-COMPLAINANTS DIANA FLORES ALBARRACIN AND CITY OF SANTA MONICA CROSS-COMPLAINT AGAINST CROSS-DEFENDANT ELYSE KATZ

CROSS-COMPLAINT FOR 1. IMPLIED INDEMNITY; 2 CONTRIBUTION; AND 3. DECLARATORY RELIEF

5/17/2018: CROSS-COMPLAINT FOR 1. IMPLIED INDEMNITY; 2 CONTRIBUTION; AND 3. DECLARATORY RELIEF

ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

5/17/2018: ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

SUMMONS

5/17/2018: SUMMONS

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

4/19/2018: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

3/14/2018: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

APPLICATION AND ORDER FOR APPOINTMENT OF GUARDIAN AD LITEM CIVIL- EX PARTE

1/30/2018: APPLICATION AND ORDER FOR APPOINTMENT OF GUARDIAN AD LITEM CIVIL- EX PARTE

22 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 07/12/2019
  • Notice (of Withdrawing Motion to Compel); Filed by Diana Flores Albarracin (Defendant); City of Santa Monica (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/11/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 5, Stephen I. Goorvitch, Presiding; Jury Trial - Not Held - Continued - Stipulation

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/27/2019
  • at 10:00 AM in Department 5, Stephen I. Goorvitch, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Continued - Stipulation

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/13/2019
  • Proof of Personal Service; Filed by Diana Flores Albarracin (Defendant); Elyse Katz (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/13/2019
  • Proof of Personal Service; Filed by Diana Flores Albarracin (Defendant); Elyse Katz (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/11/2019
  • Motion to Compel (third party treating); Filed by City of Santa Monica (Cross-Defendant); Diana Flores Albarracin (Cross-Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/06/2019
  • at 1:30 PM in Department 5, Stephen I. Goorvitch, Presiding; Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment (or in the Alternative Adjudicatio of Issues) - Not Held - Taken Off Calendar by Party

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/21/2019
  • Notice (of Taking Motionfor Summary Judgment Off Calendar); Filed by Diana Flores Albarracin (Defendant); City of Santa Monica (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/17/2019
  • Request for Dismissal; Filed by Sienna Boorman (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/14/2019
  • [Proposed Order] and Stipulation to Continue Trial, FSC (and Related Motion/Discovery Dates) Personal Injury Courts Only (Central District); Filed by Elyse Katz (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
40 More Docket Entries
  • 03/15/2018
  • PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/14/2018
  • PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/14/2018
  • Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by Sienna Boorman (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/13/2018
  • Summons Issued; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/13/2018
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/13/2018
  • Summons; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/30/2018
  • Application ; Filed by Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/30/2018
  • APPLICATION AND ORDER FOR APPOINTMENT OF GUARDIAN AD LITEM CIVIL- EX PARTE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/11/2018
  • COMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/11/2018
  • Complaint; Filed by null

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC690046    Hearing Date: October 24, 2019    Dept: 5

Sienna Boorman v. Elyse Katz, et al.

Case No. BC690046

Motions to Compel Further Responses

Motion to Compel Plaintiff's Mental Examination

Order #1 - Motions to Compel Further Responses

The parties took the informal discovery conference off-calendar, and no opposition to the motions to compel further responses were filed.  Therefore, the Court assumes these motions are off-calendar.Order #2 - Motion to Compel Plaintiff's Mental Examination

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Sienna Boorman (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Diana Flores Albarracin and City of Santa Monica (“Defendants”), among others, after she was attacked by a dog. Defendants move to compel a mental health examination by a psychiatrist, Dr. Richard Shaw, M.D. The motion is granted.

LEGAL STANDARD

Per Code of Civil Procedure section 2032.310, a party that seeks to require another party to submit to a mental examination must obtain leave of court. The motion to compel a mental examination must specify the time, place, manner, conditions, scope, and nature of the examination, as well as the identity and specialty of the person who will perform the examination. (Code Civ. Proc., §2032.310.) The court must grant the motion if the moving party shows good cause for the mental examination. (Code Civ. Proc., §2032.320, subd. (a).)

DISCUSSION

Defendant moves to compel Plaintiff to attend a mental examination because Plaintiff claims she has been diagnosed with PTSD as a result of the dog bite. (Declaration of Patrick J. Cimmarusti, Exhibits 4, 5.) This constitutes good cause for the examination. Although Plaintiff did not file an opposition to the motion, Plaintiff objected to the mental examination on the basis that “Plaintiff is 5 years old and there is nothing to be gained from a mental examination.” (Declaration of Patrick J. Cimmarusti, Exhibit 6.) Plaintiff cannot seek to recover based on psychological injuries while at the same time prohibiting Defendants from conducting discovery on those injuries. Plaintiffs “may not withhold information which relates to any physical or mental condition which they have put in issue by bringing this lawsuit.” (Britt v. Superior Court (1978) 20 Cal.3d 844, 864; City & County of San Francisco v. Superior Court (1951) 37 Cal.2d 227, 232.) Should Plaintiff stipulate not to seek any psychological injuries beyond those necessarily inherent in such an incident and stipulate not to call any expert witnesses on the issue of psychological injuries, the Court will revisit this order. In the absence of such a stipulation, however, Defendants are entitled to conduct discovery to defend themselves against Plaintiff’s claim.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Defendant’s motion to compel the mental examination is granted. The nature and scope of the examination is to be as set forth in Exhibit 1 to the Declaration of Patrick J. Cimmarusti. The examination shall occur within thirty (30) days absent a stipulation by the parties. Defendant shall provide notice and file proof of such with the Court.

DATED: October 24, 2019 ___________________________

Stephen I. Goorvitch

Judge of the Superior Court