Judge: Holly J. Fujie, Case: 22STCV35376, Date: 2023-01-23 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV35376    Hearing Date: January 23, 2023    Dept: 56

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff

The Court has reviewed the moving papers.  No opposition papers were filed.  Any opposition papers were required to have been filed and served at least nine court days before the hearing under California Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”) section 1005, subdivision (b).

BACKGROUND

On November 7, 2022, Plaintiff filed a complaint (the “Complaint”) to establish the Court’s jurisdiction over an uninsured motorist arbitration for purposes of enforcing discovery pursuant to Insurance Code section 11580.2, subdivision (f). 

On November 9, 2022, Plaintiff filed a motion to augment his expert witness designation (the “Motion”).  The Motion seeks to add Dr. Kasimian to Plaintiff’s expert witness list due to the unavailability of his current expert, Dr. Neil Ghodadra.[1]

DISCUSSION

The uninsured motorist law grants the superior court the exclusive jurisdiction to hear discovery matters arising under uninsured motorist arbitrations.  (Miranda v. 21st Century Ins. Co. (2004) 117 Cal.App.4th 913, 926.)

            Under CCP section 2034.620, the court shall grant leave to augment or amend an expert witness list or declaration only if all of the following conditions are satisfied: 

(a) The court has taken into account the extent to which the opposing party has relied on the list of expert witnesses. 

(b) The court has determined that any party opposing the motion will not be prejudiced in maintaining that party’s action or defense on the merits. 

(c) The court has determined either of the following: 

(1)   The moving party would not in the exercise of reasonable diligence have determined to call that expert witness or have decided to offer the different or additional testimony of that expert witness. 

(2)   The moving party failed to determine to call that expert witness, or to offer the different or additional testimony of that expert witness as a result of mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect, and the moving party has done both of the following: 

(A)  Sought leave to augment or amend promptly after deciding to call the expert witness or to offer the different or additional testimony. 

(B)  Promptly thereafter served a copy of the proposed expert witness information concerning the expert or the testimony described in Section 2034.260 on all other parties who have appeared in the action. 

(CCP § 2034.620, subds. (a)-(c).)  

As it is unopposed, the Court GRANTS the Motion.  (Sexton v. Superior Court (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1410.)  

             Moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

In consideration of the current COVID-19 pandemic situation, the Court¿strongly¿encourages that appearances on all proceedings, including this one, be made by LACourtConnect if the parties do not submit on the tentative.¿¿If you instead intend to make an appearance in person at Court on this matter, you must send an email by 2 p.m. on the last Court day before the scheduled date of the hearing to¿SMC_DEPT56@lacourt.org¿stating your intention to appear in person.¿ The Court will then inform you by close of business that day of the time your hearing will be held. The time set for the hearing may be at any time during that scheduled hearing day, or it may be necessary to schedule the hearing for another date if the Court is unable to accommodate all personal appearances set on that date.¿ This rule is necessary to ensure that adequate precautions can be taken for proper social distancing. 

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMC_DEPT56@lacourt.org as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  If the department does not receive an email and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion will be placed off calendar.

       Dated this 23rd day of January 2023