This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 12/23/2020 at 15:22:22 (UTC).

YUKA TAMURA VS ESTELLE CAMPBELL ET AL

Case Summary

On 02/26/2018 YUKA TAMURA filed a Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury lawsuit against ESTELLE CAMPBELL. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are C. EDWARD SIMPSON, LAURA A. MATZ, CURTIS A. KIN and DENNIS J. LANDIN. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****5119

  • Filing Date:

    02/26/2018

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

C. EDWARD SIMPSON

LAURA A. MATZ

CURTIS A. KIN

DENNIS J. LANDIN

 

Party Details

Petitioner, Plaintiff and Cross Defendant

TAMURA YUKA

Respondents, Defendants and Cross Plaintiffs

STUDIOS AT WALNUT LLC

CAMPBELL ESTELLE

DOES 1 TO 25

DE MIRANDA MANAGEMENT

STUDIO AT WALNUT LLC

Defendants, Respondents and Cross Plaintiffs

CAMPBELL ESTELLE

DE MIRANDA MANAGEMENT

STUDIO AT WALNUT LLC

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Petitioner and Plaintiff Attorneys

KIM JAE H. ESQ.

JHK LAW GROUP APLC

ERIC STRONGIN

STRONGIN ERIC BURTON

Respondent and Defendant Attorneys

RICHARD DAGGENHURST

DAGGENHURST RICHARD GEOFFREY

SARKISSIAN AREG ALLEN

FELMAN DAGGENHURST & EL DABE

WEBB LANE ELLIS

 

Court Documents

Notice of Change of Address or Other Contact Information

1/31/2020: Notice of Change of Address or Other Contact Information

Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

1/31/2020: Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

3/16/2020: Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

Ex Parte Application - EX PARTE APPLICATION DEFENDANTS EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER SHORTENING TIME ON DEFENDANTS MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO WRITTEN DISCOVERY; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AN

3/16/2020: Ex Parte Application - EX PARTE APPLICATION DEFENDANTS EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER SHORTENING TIME ON DEFENDANTS MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO WRITTEN DISCOVERY; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AN

Notice - NOTICE DEFENDANT CONSENT TO ELECTRONIC SERVICE AND NOTICE OF ELECTRONIC SERVICE ADDRESS

3/17/2020: Notice - NOTICE DEFENDANT CONSENT TO ELECTRONIC SERVICE AND NOTICE OF ELECTRONIC SERVICE ADDRESS

Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

3/17/2020: Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (HEARING ON EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER SHORTENING TIME ...) OF 03/17/2020

3/17/2020: Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (HEARING ON EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER SHORTENING TIME ...) OF 03/17/2020

Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 2

3/17/2020: Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 2

Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (COURT ORDER) OF 03/23/2020

3/23/2020: Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (COURT ORDER) OF 03/23/2020

Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: Order

5/24/2018: Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: Order

Case Management Statement

7/9/2018: Case Management Statement

Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: Notice of Hearing on Demurrer

7/12/2018: Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: Notice of Hearing on Demurrer

Complaint - Second amended

8/23/2018: Complaint - Second amended

Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for Minute Order (Court Order) of 12/28/2018

12/28/2018: Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for Minute Order (Court Order) of 12/28/2018

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON DEMURRER - WITHOUT MOTION TO STRIKE)

4/26/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON DEMURRER - WITHOUT MOTION TO STRIKE)

Cross-Complaint

5/9/2019: Cross-Complaint

Answer

6/12/2019: Answer

COMPLAINT

2/26/2018: COMPLAINT

85 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 03/22/2021
  • Hearing03/22/2021 at 09:00 AM in Department E at 600 East Broadway, Glendale, CA 91206; Jury Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/11/2021
  • Hearing03/11/2021 at 10:00 AM in Department E at 600 East Broadway, Glendale, CA 91206; Final Status Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/18/2020
  • Docketat 11:00 AM in Department E, Curtis A. Kin, Presiding; Order to Show Cause Re: (Setting of Hearing on Motion To Compel Production Of Plaintiffs Psychological And Psychiatric Records) - Held - Advanced and Heard

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/11/2020
  • Docketat 2:00 PM in Department E, Curtis A. Kin, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Compel (Production of Plaintiff's Psychological and Psychiatric Records) - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/11/2020
  • Docketat 2:00 PM in Department E, Curtis A. Kin, Presiding; Trial Setting Conference - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/11/2020
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Hearing on Motion to Compel Production of Plaintiff's Psychol...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/10/2020
  • DocketProof of Service by Mail; Filed by YUKA TAMURA (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/10/2020
  • DocketDeclaration (Declaration of Eric B Strongin in Response and Opposition to September 11, 2020 hearing); Filed by YUKA TAMURA (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/10/2020
  • DocketDeclaration (Declaration of Victoria Cuevas-Carey in Response to Motion Compel Hearing); Filed by YUKA TAMURA (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/02/2020
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department E, Curtis A. Kin, Presiding; Trial Setting Conference - Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
140 More Docket Entries
  • 02/27/2018
  • DocketOrder on Court Fee Waiver (Superior Court); Filed by Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/27/2018
  • DocketOrder-Court Fee Waiver (AS TO YUKA TAMURA ); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/27/2018
  • DocketOrder on Court Fee Waiver (Superior Court); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/26/2018
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by YUKA TAMURA (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/26/2018
  • DocketComplaint

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/26/2018
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/26/2018
  • DocketCOMPLAINT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/26/2018
  • DocketRequest-Waive Court Fees; Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/26/2018
  • DocketRequest to Waive Court Fees; Filed by Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/18/2018
  • DocketSubstitution of Attorney; Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC695119    Hearing Date: April 9, 2021    Dept: E

MOTION FOR SEPARATE TRIAL

[CCP § 598]

Date: 4/9/21 (8:30 AM)

Case: Yuka Tamura v. Estelle Campbell et al. (BC695119)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendants Estelle Campbell and Studios at Walnut, LLC’s UNOPPOSED Motion for Separate Trial is GRANTED.

Moving defendants have a right to bifurcation under Civil Code § 3295(d). Thus, the motion to bifurcate plaintiff’s claim for punitive damages is GRANTED. During the first phase of trial on the issue of liability and damages, the Court shall preclude plaintiff Yuka Tamura from presenting any evidence of defendants Estelle Campbell and Studios at Walnut, LLC’s wealth, assets, incomes, or financial condition, unless and until a trier of fact finds them guilty of malice, oppression, or fraud in accordance with Civil Code § 3294.

Case Number: BC695119    Hearing Date: September 11, 2020    Dept: E

MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF PSYCHOLOGICAL AND PSYCHIATRIC RECORDS

Date: 9/11/20 (2:00 PM)

Case: Yuka Tamura v. Estelle Brees Campbell et al. (BC695119)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendants Estelle Campbell, The Studios at Walnut, LLC, and De Miranda Management’s Motion to Compel Production of Psychological and Psychiatric Records is DENIED.

As an initial matter, it appears defendants did not serve plaintiff with the instant motion. The motion was served on plaintiff by mail at her counsel’s office located at 999 Corporate Drive, Ste. 2220, Ladera Ranch, CA 92694. However, the address for plaintiff’s counsel listed on the operative Third Amended Complaint and on file with the Court is 999 Corporate Dr., Suite 220, Ladera Ranch, CA 92694. Defendants mailed the motion to the wrong suite. Nonetheless, the Court properly served all counsel of record with its August 4, 2020 Minute Order, which set this motion for hearing on September 11, 2020. Thus, while defendants appear to have failed to properly serve plaintiff with the motion, it nonetheless appears that plaintiff received actual notice of such motion. Plaintiff filed no opposition to the motion and the reasons for that are not altogether clear. Regardless, even without opposition, the result is the same.

Defendants ultimately seek to obtain plaintiff’s psychiatric and psychological records, but what they ask for in this motion is an order compelling plaintiff to sign the necessary authorizations permitting Kaiser Permanente to produce such records. There, however, appears to be no statutory mechanism or authority for this relief, and defendants cite none. The Court recognizes defendants very well may be correct that plaintiff has put her mental condition at issue such that defendants should be entitled to discovery of records bearing on her psychological and psychiatric treatment and history. It may also be true that there are various discovery mechanisms by which a defendant might seek to obtain such records from a plaintiff who has already produced such records herself (see CCP § 2031.310 [motion to compel further response to request for production]) or from a third-party in possession of such records (see CCP §§ 1985.3 [procedures to subpoena “personal records” of a “consumer”], 1987.1 [motion to compel compliance with subpoena]). But what appears not to be true is that this Court can and/or should order plaintiff to sign an authorization to release her medical records. Relatedly, the Court cannot grant defendants’ alternative request that the Court simply order Kaiser to release plaintiff’s psychiatric and psychological records from 2007 to the present due to defendants’ failure to follow the proper procedures for obtaining such relief. (See CCP §§ 1985.3, 1987.) Indeed, it is not even clear from defendants’ motion whether they subpoenaed such records from Kaiser, let alone whether it was done properly.

Finally, defendants’ request for sanctions must also be rejected. Because defendants have not appropriately invoked any discovery device to obtain the records they seek, it can hardly be said plaintiff engaged in misuse of the discovery process by failing to comply with defendants’ demands. (See CCP §2023.030.)

For all of the foregoing reasons, defendants’ motion is DENIED.

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where THE STUDIOS AT WALNUT LLC is a litigant

Latest cases where DE MIRANDA MANAGEMENT is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer STRONGIN ERIC B. ESQ.

Latest cases represented by Lawyer KIM JACE H. ESQ.