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.
****0046
01/11/2018
Pending - Other Pending
Los Angeles County Superior Courts
Stanley Mosk Courthouse
Los Angeles, California
STEPHEN I. GOORVITCH
KATZ ELYSE
ALBARRACIN DIANA FLORES
DOES 1 TO 25
CITY OF SANTA MONICA
UCLA HEALTH INFO MANAGEMENTT SERVICE
BINA SHARON
BOORMAN SIENNA
BOORMAN EVAN
CAVANAUGH YUKEVICH
BOUCHE JACQUELINE ESQ.
HASHEMI MAJID
6/13/2018: CROSS DEFENDANT DIANA FLORES ALBARRACINS ANSWER TO ELYSE KATZA CROSS COMPLAINT
6/18/2018: DEFENDANT ELYSE KATZ' ANSWER TO DIANA FLORES ALBARRACIN AND CITY OF SANTA MONICA'S CROSS-COMPLAINT
6/20/2018: CIVIL DEPOSIT
6/20/2018: PLAINTIFF SIENNA BOORMAN BY HER GAL EVAN BOORMAN?S NOTICE OF POSTING JURY FEES
9/14/2018: NOTICE OF CHANGE OF MAILING ADDRESS
3/22/2019: Motion for Summary Judgment
5/21/2019: Notice
6/11/2019: Motion to Compel
6/13/2019: Proof of Personal Service
7/12/2019: Notice
5/14/2018: DEFENDANT CITY OF SANTA MONICA'S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
5/14/2018: CROSS-COMPLAINANTS DIANA FLORES ALBARRACIN AND CITY OF SANTA MONICA CROSS-COMPLAINT AGAINST CROSS-DEFENDANT ELYSE KATZ
5/17/2018: CROSS-COMPLAINT FOR 1. IMPLIED INDEMNITY; 2 CONTRIBUTION; AND 3. DECLARATORY RELIEF
5/17/2018: ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
5/17/2018: SUMMONS
4/19/2018: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS
3/14/2018: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS
1/30/2018: APPLICATION AND ORDER FOR APPOINTMENT OF GUARDIAN AD LITEM CIVIL- EX PARTE
Notice (of Withdrawing Motion to Compel); Filed by Diana Flores Albarracin (Defendant); City of Santa Monica (Defendant)
at 08:30 AM in Department 5, Stephen I. Goorvitch, Presiding; Jury Trial - Not Held - Continued - Stipulation
at 10:00 AM in Department 5, Stephen I. Goorvitch, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Continued - Stipulation
Proof of Personal Service; Filed by Diana Flores Albarracin (Defendant); Elyse Katz (Defendant)
Proof of Personal Service; Filed by Diana Flores Albarracin (Defendant); Elyse Katz (Defendant)
Motion to Compel (third party treating); Filed by City of Santa Monica (Cross-Defendant); Diana Flores Albarracin (Cross-Defendant)
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
Notice (of Taking Motionfor Summary Judgment Off Calendar); Filed by Diana Flores Albarracin (Defendant); City of Santa Monica (Defendant)
Request for Dismissal; Filed by Sienna Boorman (Plaintiff)
[Proposed Order] and Stipulation to Continue Trial, FSC (and Related Motion/Discovery Dates) Personal Injury Courts Only (Central District); Filed by Elyse Katz (Defendant)
PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS
PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS
Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by Sienna Boorman (Plaintiff)
Summons Issued; Filed by Clerk
SUMMONS
Summons; Filed by Clerk
Application ; Filed by Plaintiff/Petitioner
APPLICATION AND ORDER FOR APPOINTMENT OF GUARDIAN AD LITEM CIVIL- EX PARTE
COMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)
Complaint; Filed by null
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