TEESHA GREEN VS ALYSSIA BIANCA CHAVIS ET AL

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: ****3389 Hearing Date: January 10, 2022 Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

On August 23, 2017, plaintiff Teesha Green (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against defendant Alyssia Bianca Chavis and Adebayo Samuel (“Defendant”) (erroneously sued as “Adebhyo Adegoriola Samuel”) arising from an August 28, 2015 motor vehicle accident. Before the Court is Defendant’s motion to compel Plaintiff’s attendance at an independent medical examination (“IME”) before Barry I. Ludwig, M.D., a neurologist.

In any case in which a plaintiff is seeking recovery for personal injuries, any defendant may demand one physical examination of the plaintiff where: (1) the examination does not include any diagnostic test or procedure that is painful, protracted, or intrusive; and (2) the examination is conducted at a location within 75 miles of the residence of the examinee. (Code Civ. Proc., 2032.220, subd. (a).) A defendant may make a demand for physical examination without leave of the court after that defendant has been served or has appeared (Code Civ. Proc., 2032.220, subd. (b)), and the physical examination demanded shall be scheduled for a date at least 30 days after service (Code Civ. Proc., 2032.220, subd. (d)).

“If a party is required to submit to a physical or mental examination . . . but fails to do so, the court, on motion of the party entitled to the examination, may make those orders that are just, including the imposition of an issue sanction, an evidence sanction, or a terminating sanction . . . In lieu of or in addition to that sanction, the court may, on motion of the party, impose a monetary sanction . . .” (Code Civ. Proc., 2032.410.)

Defendant scheduled Plaintiff’s IME with Dr. Ludwig for March 3, 2020 at 1:30 p.m. However, Plaintiff did not appear. (McFarlane Decl., 7.) On November 16, 2020, Defendant served an amended demand for her IME rescheduling the exam for December 22, 2020. (McFarlane Decl., Ex. 3.) Plaintiff did not attend this exam and has not cooperated with rescheduling her IME. (McFarlane Decl., 9.) This motion followed on December 8, 2021.

Plaintiff did not oppose this motion and it is undisputed that she has failed to comply with Defendant’s demand for an IME. Defendant’s motion for an IME is therefore GRANTED and Plaintiff is ordered to appear for her IME with Dr. Ludwig within 15 days.

The Court finds Plaintiff’s refusal to appear at her scheduled examinations to be without substantial justification. Accordingly, Defendants’ request for monetary sanctions is GRANTED and imposed against Plaintiff and counsel of record, jointly and severally, in the reduced amount of $235 for one hour at defense counsel’s hourly rate of $175.00 and $60.00 in filing fees, to be paid within 15 days of the date of this Order.

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 as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org. Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the matter. Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue.

b'

Case Number: ****3389 Hearing Date: December 22, 2021 Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

On August 23, 2017, plaintiff Teesha Green (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against defendant Alyssia Bianca Chavis (“Defendant”) arising from an August 28, 2015 motor vehicle collision. On September 1, 2020, Defendant served Plaintiff with the following discovery requests: (1) Demand to Supplement Prior Responses to Request for Production of Documents and (2) Supplemental Interrogatories. On September 13, 2021, Defendant served a second set of supplemental discovery requests after trial was continued, even though Plaintiff had not yet served responses to the first set of supplemental discovery. To date, Plaintiff has not served responses to either the first or second set of supplemental discovery requests.

Defendant filed these motions on October 26, 2021, requesting the Court issue an order compelling Plaintiff’s responses to the discovery requests “served October 16, 2020” within ten days of the hearing and for monetary sanctions. The record does not reflect that discovery requests were propounded on October 16, 2020. Instead, on October 16, 2020, defense counsel had sent a letter to Plaintiff’s counsel inquiring of any forthcoming responses to the supplemental discovery requests served the month earlier on September 13, 2020. Accordingly, the Court construes Defendant’s two motions as those seeking to compel Plaintiff’s responses to the discovery requests propounded on September 13, 2020.

A party may propound a supplemental interrogatory or supplemental demand for production of documents to elicit any later acquired information bearing on all answers previously made by any party. (Code of Civ. Proc., 2030.070, subd. (a), 2031.050, subd. (a).) Where a party fails to serve timely responses to discovery requests, the court may make an order compelling responses. (Code Civ. Proc., 2030.290, 2031.300; Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 403.)

Plaintiff did not oppose these motions and it is undisputed that she did not serve responses to Defendant’s supplemental discovery requests. Accordingly, Defendant’s motions are GRANTED and Plaintiff is ordered to serve verified responses, without objections, to Defendant’s Supplemental Interrogatories and Demand to Supplement Prior Responses to Request for Production of Documents within 20 days of the date of this order.

The Code of Civil Procedure provides that the court shall impose a monetary sanction against the party who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel, unless the party acted with substantial justification or the sanction would otherwise be unjust. (Code Civ. Proc., 2030.290, subd. (c), 2031.300, subd. (c).) The Court finds evidence of neither.

Therefore, Defendant’s request for sanctions is GRANTED and imposed against Plaintiff and counsel, jointly and severally, in the reduced amount of

$470 consisting of 2 hours at defense counsel’s hourly rate of $175 and $120 in filing fees, to be paid within 20 days of the date of this order.

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 as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org. Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the matter. Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue.

Case Number: ****3389    Hearing Date: December 03, 2019    Dept: 4B

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO SET ASIDE/VACATE JULY 5, 2019 DISCOVERY ORDER

On August 23, 2017, plaintiff Teesha Green (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against defendants Alyssia Bianca Chavis and Adebhyo Adegoriola Samuel (“Samuel”) for motor vehicle negligence arising out of an August 28, 2015 automobile accident. Samuel served Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, Request for Production of Documents, and Request for Admissions on Plaintiff on November 8, 2018. On February 14, 2019, Samuel sent a meet and confer letter, but according to Samuel, Plaintiff did not respond and did not serve discovery responses.

On April 2, 2019, Samuel filed motions to compel Plaintiff’s responses. Plaintiff did not oppose and did not appear at the hearing. On July 5, 2019, the Court granted Samuel’s motions to compel and deem requests for admission admitted, and imposed monetary sanctions in the amount of $630. Plaintiff now seeks to vacate or set aside the July 5 order. Samuel does not oppose.

Plaintiff argues she did not receive notice of the motions to compel and deem admitted, she served the verified discovery responses on June 17, 2019 by email and first class mail, and she did not learn about the discovery motions until July 8, 2019. Plaintiff’s counsel attaches a June 17, 2019 email transmitting the verified discovery responses to defense counsel. Also, Plaintiff’s counsel attaches emails showing that counsel for the other defendant Chavis was equally ignorant of the discovery motions.

The filed versions of the discovery motions each attach a proof of service showing service on Plaintiff’s counsel by mail on April 1, 2019, but not service on counsel for the other defendant Chavis. Whether or not Samuel properly served Plaintiff with the discovery motions, by the time of the July 5, 2019 hearing they were moot as Plaintiff had already served verified discovery motions.

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the unopposed motion and sets aside the July 5, 2019 order.

Moving party to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SSCDEPT4B@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative.