This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 08/27/2020 at 02:45:38 (UTC).

WADENYA AMENYA VS ANGELUS FUNERAL HOME ET AL

Case Summary

On 09/19/2017 WADENYA AMENYA filed a Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury lawsuit against ANGELUS FUNERAL HOME. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are JON R. TAKASUGI, SAMANTHA JESSNER, TERESA A. BEAUDET and HOLLY E. KENDIG. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****6486

  • Filing Date:

    09/19/2017

  • 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 Judges

JON R. TAKASUGI

SAMANTHA JESSNER

TERESA A. BEAUDET

HOLLY E. KENDIG

 

Party Details

Plaintiff, Petitioner and Guardian Ad Litem

AMENYA WADENYA

Defendants and Respondents

NELSON EDWIN E.

ANGELUS FUNERAL HOME

MCCONNELL BLANCHE

DAVENPORT TODD

DOES 1 TO 10

TODD DAVENPORT

Minor

AMENYA TERRENCE

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff, Petitioner and Minor Attorney

KENT CLAYTON W.

Defendant and Respondent Attorneys

KJAR MCKENNA & STOCKALPER LLP

ONYEMAOBIM OBIORA IKEDI

 

Court Documents

Stipulation and Order - STIPULATION AND ORDER JOINT STIPULATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL DATE AND RELATED DATES; [PROPOSED] ORDER

7/13/2020: Stipulation and Order - STIPULATION AND ORDER JOINT STIPULATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL DATE AND RELATED DATES; [PROPOSED] ORDER

Stipulation and Order - STIPULATION AND ORDER JOINT STIPULATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL DATE AND RELATED DATES

6/23/2020: Stipulation and Order - STIPULATION AND ORDER JOINT STIPULATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL DATE AND RELATED DATES

Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

1/6/2020: Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

Reply - REPLY DEFENDANTS REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR LEAVE TO OBTAIN MENTAL EXAMINATION OF PLAINTIFFS WADENYA AMENYA AND TERRENCE AMENYA

1/14/2020: Reply - REPLY DEFENDANTS REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR LEAVE TO OBTAIN MENTAL EXAMINATION OF PLAINTIFFS WADENYA AMENYA AND TERRENCE AMENYA

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION FOR LEAVE TO OBTAIN MENTAL EXAMINATION OF P...)

1/22/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION FOR LEAVE TO OBTAIN MENTAL EXAMINATION OF P...)

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE)

6/24/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE)

Notice of Change of Address or Other Contact Information

6/28/2019: Notice of Change of Address or Other Contact Information

Notice of Ruling

6/18/2019: Notice of Ruling

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER RE REASSIGNMENT TO INDEPENDENT CALENDAR COURT)

3/20/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER RE REASSIGNMENT TO INDEPENDENT CALENDAR COURT)

Opposition - Opposition Opposition to Motion to Compel Compliance With Subpoena

2/14/2019: Opposition - Opposition Opposition to Motion to Compel Compliance With Subpoena

Opposition - Opposition Opposition to Motion to Bifurtcate

2/14/2019: Opposition - Opposition Opposition to Motion to Bifurtcate

Stipulation and Order - Stipulation and Order TO CONTINUE TRIAL,FSC [AND RELATED MOTION/DISCOVERY DATES] PERSONAL INJURY COURTS ONLY (CENTRAL DISTRICT)

2/19/2019: Stipulation and Order - Stipulation and Order TO CONTINUE TRIAL,FSC [AND RELATED MOTION/DISCOVERY DATES] PERSONAL INJURY COURTS ONLY (CENTRAL DISTRICT)

Notice - Notice Of Lodgment In Support In Support Of Defendants Motion For Summary Judgment

12/10/2018: Notice - Notice Of Lodgment In Support In Support Of Defendants Motion For Summary Judgment

Proof of Service by Mail

12/31/2018: Proof of Service by Mail

Motion for Order - Motion for Order NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR COURT ORDER COMPELLING COMPLIANCE WITH SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM FOR PRODUCTION OF RECORDS

1/25/2019: Motion for Order - Motion for Order NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR COURT ORDER COMPELLING COMPLIANCE WITH SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM FOR PRODUCTION OF RECORDS

Motion to Bifurcate

1/25/2019: Motion to Bifurcate

ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

2/16/2018: ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

SUMMONS

11/28/2017: SUMMONS

57 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 06/30/2021
  • Hearing06/30/2021 at 09:30 AM in Department 50 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Jury Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/18/2021
  • Hearing06/18/2021 at 09:30 AM in Department 50 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Final Status Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/11/2021
  • Hearing06/11/2021 at 16:00 PM in Department 50 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Non-Appearance Case Review

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/13/2021
  • Hearing04/13/2021 at 10:00 AM in Department 50 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/25/2020
  • Docketat 10:00 AM in Department 50, Teresa A. Beaudet, Presiding; Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment - Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/25/2020
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 50, Teresa A. Beaudet, Presiding; Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment - Not Held - Continued - Court's Motion

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/10/2020
  • DocketNotice (OF ENTRY OF ORDER); Filed by ANGELUS FUNERAL HOME (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/07/2020
  • Docketat 4:11 PM in Department 50, Teresa A. Beaudet, Presiding; Court Order

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/07/2020
  • DocketCertificate of Mailing for ((Court Order) of 08/07/2020); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/07/2020
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Court Order)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
83 More Docket Entries
  • 02/16/2018
  • DocketANSWER TO COMPLAINT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/16/2018
  • DocketAnswer; Filed by ANGELUS FUNERAL HOME (Defendant); DAVENPORT TODD (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/16/2018
  • DocketCIVIL DEPOSIT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/28/2017
  • DocketSUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/28/2017
  • DocketSummons Issued; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/28/2017
  • DocketSummons; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/20/2017
  • DocketApplication ; Filed by Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/20/2017
  • DocketAPPLICATION AND ORDER FOR APPOINTMENT OF GUARDIAN AD LITEM CIVIL

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/19/2017
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by WADENYA AMENYA (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/19/2017
  • DocketCOMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC676486    Hearing Date: January 22, 2020    Dept: 50

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 50

wadenya amenya, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

vs.

angelus funeral home, et al.

Defendants.

Case No.:

BC 676486

Hearing Date:

January 22, 2020

Hearing Time:

8:30 a.m.

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE:

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR LEAVE TO OBTAIN MENTAL EXAMINATION OF PLAINTIFFS WADENYA AMENYA AND TERRENCE AMENYA

Background

Plaintiffs Wadenya Amenya and Terrence Amenya, a minor, by and through his guardian ad litem, Wadenya Amenya (jointly, “Plaintiffs”) filed the instant action on September 19, 2017 against Defendants Angelus Funeral Home (“Angelus”), Todd Davenport, Blance McConnell, and Edwin E. Nelson. The Complaint asserts causes of action for breach of contract, negligence, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, negligent infliction of emotional distress, negligence per se, intentional misrepresentation, and negligent misrepresentation.

Plaintiffs allege that after decedent Uzoma Ibeogu passed away, Angelus was contracted and entrusted to embalm the decedent and prepare the decedent for viewing and transport to Nigeria for a ceremonial burial in accordance with Nigerian custom. (Compl., ¶¶ 10-11.) The decedent’s body was in Angelus’s custody on or shortly after April 24, 2016. (Compl., ¶ 11.) However, it was not until August 22, 2016 that the decedent was embalmed. (Compl., ¶ 17.) At that point, the decedent had third-stage decomposition, skin slip, and mold, which was horrifying and shocking to Plaintiffs. (Compl., ¶¶ 17, 24.) When the decedent was transported to Nigeria in or about October 2016, the intended ceremonial burial custom was not able to be performed, and Plaintiffs felt humiliation and shame as a result. (Compl., ¶ 19.)

Angelus served a unilateral notice of Plaintiffs’ mental examination on September 20, 2019. (Petersen Decl., ¶ 10, Ex. 6.) Plaintiffs objected, and during meet and confer efforts, counsel for Angelus suggested a stipulation to allow for the mental examination on conditions agreeable to Plaintiffs. (Petersen Decl., ¶ 11, Ex. 7.) As of the filing of the instant motion, Plaintiffs had not agreed to such a stipulation. (Petersen Decl., ¶ 13.)

Angelus now moves for an order compelling Plaintiffs to submit to an independent medical examination (“IME”) to be conducted by David Braff at Regus – Continental Grand, 400 Continental Blvd., 6th Floor, El Segundo, California 90245 within 45 days of the entry of an order granting the instant motion. Plaintiffs oppose.

Discussion

Any party may obtain discovery … by means of a physical or mental examination of (1) a party to the action, (2) an agent of any party, or (3) a natural person in the custody or under the legal control of a party, in any action in which the mental or physical condition (including the blood group) of that party or other person is in controversy in the action.” ((Code Civ. Proc., § 2032.020(a).) Absent stipulation, mental examinations require a court order. Such order may be made only after notice and hearing, and “for good cause shown.” ((Code Civ. Proc., § 2032.320(a)); ((Carpenter v. Superior Court (2006) 141 Cal.App.4th 249, 259 [“To protect the plaintiff’s privacy interests from unnecessary intrusion, the mental examination may be ordered only upon a showing of good cause.”].) A showing of good cause requires that the party “produce specific facts justifying discovery and that the inquiry be relevant to the subject matter of the action or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” ((Vinson v. Superior Court (1987) 43 Cal.3d 833, 840.)

As a threshold matter, the Court notes that the parties disagree as to whether Code of Civil Procedure section 2032.320, subdivision (b) applies such that Angelus’s burden on this motion is to show “exceptional circumstances” rather than just “good cause.”

If a party stipulates that “no claim is being made for mental and emotional distress over and above that usually associated with the physical injuries claimed” and that “no expert testimony regarding this usual mental and emotional distress will be presented at trial in support of the claim for damages,” then the court “shall not order a mental examination of a person for whose personal injuries a recovery is being sought except on a showing of exceptional circumstances.” ((Code Civ. Proc., § 2032.320, subds. (b), (c).)

On December 5, 2019, which was after the filing of the instant motion, counsel for Plaintiffs sent an email to counsel for Angelus stating that “my clients are willing to stipulate in accordance with the provisions of CCP §2032.320(b).” (Kent Decl., ¶ 7, Ex. H.) Based on this stipulation, Plaintiffs contend that Angelus has not shown exceptional circumstances for compelling a mental examination of Plaintiffs. Angelus takes the position that Plaintiffs’ stipulation is ineffective without an agreement from Plaintiffs that they will withdraw their cause of action for negligent infliction of emotional distress and without a document signed by Plaintiffs setting forth the terms of the stipulation.

First, the Court notes that there is nothing in section 2032.320 requiring that a stipulation under subdivision (c) be signed by a party himself or herself. Thus, the Court finds that counsel’s written communications constitute an agreement to stipulate pursuant to the terms of subdivision (c). (See Kent Decl., ¶ 7, Ex. H; Kent Decl., ¶ 12, Ex. K [email from counsel for Plaintiffs stating, “I have sent to you, in writing, that my clients stipulate in accordance with [section 2032.320, subdivision (b)], and as their attorney, I am authorized by law to enter into such a stipulation on behalf of my clients”].) Although counsel for Plaintiffs did not use the exact language set forth in subdivision (c), the Court construes his statement that Plaintiffs are stipulating “in accordance with” subdivision (b) to mean that Plaintiffs are stipulating that (1) no claim is being made for mental and emotional distress over and above that usually associated with the physical injuries claimed, and (2) no expert testimony regarding this usual mental and emotional distress will be presented at trial in support of the claim for damages.

Second, nothing in section 2032.320 requires that a stipulation pursuant to subdivision (c) requires withdrawal of any causes of action. Granted, in cases where a plaintiff is asserting a cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress, which requires a showing that the plaintiff suffered “severe or extreme emotional distress,” a stipulation under section 2032.320, subdivision (c) would logically require withdrawal of the claim. ((See Vasquez v. Franklin Management Real Estate Fund, Inc. (2013) 222 Cal.App.4th 819, 832 [setting forth elements of a cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress].) But here, there is no cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress. To the extent that Plaintiffs assert a cause of action for negligent infliction of emotional distress, “[n]egligent infliction of emotional distress is not an independent tort.” ((Christensen v. Superior Court (1991) 54 Cal.3d 868, 884.) To prevail under a theory of negligent infliction of emotional distress, a plaintiff need only prove the elements for negligence. ((Ibid. .) Therefore, that Plaintiffs refuse to withdraw their “cause of action” for negligent infliction of emotional distress does not impact the validity of their stipulation. It is also worth noting that the specific language of the stipulation is that “no claim is being made for mental and emotional distress over and above that usually associated with the physical injuries claimed.” ((Code Civ. Proc., § 2032.320, subd. (c) [emphasis added].) That suggests that plaintiffs are not expected to completely withdraw all claims for emotional distress, only those claims that are “over and above” the usual emotional distress associated with their claims.

Accordingly, the Court finds that, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2032.320, subdivision (b), Plaintiffs have established that they have stipulated as provided in subdivision (c), and therefore, Angelus is required to show that exceptional circumstances exist to compel a mental examination of Plaintiffs. The Court finds that Angelus has failed to do so. The only arguments proffered by Angelus relate to whether good cause exists for a mental examination (and specifically, whether Plaintiffs have placed their mental condition in controversy), which is a much lower threshold than exceptional circumstances.

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, Angelus’s motion to compel is denied.

Plaintiffs are ordered to provide notice of this ruling.

DATED: January 22, 2020 ________________________________

Hon. Teresa A. Beaudet

Judge, Los Angeles Superior Court