Judge: Kevin C. Brazile, Case: 22STCV22292, Date: 2023-09-06 Tentative Ruling

Hearing Date: April 16, 2024

Case Name: Roth, et al. v. 818 North Alfred Street LLC, et al.

Case No.: 20STCV39725 

Matter: Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony

Moving Party: Defendant D&A Endeavors, Inc.

Responding Party: Plaintiffs Jennifer Roth and Matthew Lifson

Notice: OK

Ruling: The Motion is granted.

Moving party to give notice.

If counsel do not submit on the tentative, they are strongly 

encouraged to appear by LACourtConnect rather than in person due to the COVID-19 pandemic. 

This is a habitability matter.  Defendant D&A Endeavors, Inc. seeks to exclude or limit the testimony of Plaintiffs’ expert, Shilpa Sayana, M.D., because “she intends to opine that [Plaintiff] Roth suffered from a panoply of medical conditions causally related to the mold exposure, including ‘brain fog’, fatigue, immunosuppression, chronic sinusitis, bloating and irritable bowel syndrome, and skin rashes. Dr. Sayana is board certified only in internal medicine. She is not board certified in toxicology, neurology, immunology, as an allergist, psychiatry or epidemiology. The only training she had with respect to the putative health effects of mold exposure was on-line courses from the Institute for Functional Medicine which is not accredited by any generally recognized medical professional accrediting organization. Further, Dr. Sayana’s opinions lack a proper foundation in science/medicine and she is neither qualified to provide the requisite evidence of general or specific causation with respect to any of the putative medical conditions/illnesses she claims Roth suffers from as a result of the mold exposure, nor has she provided any such evidence.”

“[U]nder Evidence Code sections 801, subdivision (b), and 802, the trial court acts as a gatekeeper to exclude expert opinion testimony that is (1) based on matter of a type on which an expert may not reasonably rely, (2) based on reasons unsupported by the material on which the expert relies, or 3) speculative. Other provisions of law, including decisional law, may also provide reasons for excluding expert opinion testimony.”  (Sargon Enterprises, Inc. v. Univ. of S. California (2012) 55 Cal.4th 747, 771–72.)

Sayana testified that her opinion that Plaintiff Jennifer Roth suffered various illnesses as a result of mold exposure at the property was based on the following “main factors”: Roth’s statements about the timing of her symptoms, Roth’s urine test, and testing of the apartment that Roth showed Sayana.  

Plaintiffs have failed to rebut that the urine test would not confirm that Roth was exposed to mold at the time she resided at the subject premises.  Defendants’ expert indicates that the half life of mycotoxins is measured in hours or days.  The test was done 6 months after Roth had moved.   Sayana herself admits that the test could not confirm anything about timing under the circumstances.  

If the only other factors that lead Sayana to believe that Roth suffers from a number of varying conditions due to mold are Roth’s own statements and testing done at her property, that alone is not sufficient to form a valid expert opinion.  Virtually no other medical tests were performed by Sayana.  Little differential testing was done—the only testing the Court is aware of was for food sensitivity as it relates to IBS.  

For these reasons, the Court finds that Sayana’s opinion is currently unsubstantiated and will, therefore, be excluded.  The Motion is granted.

Moving party to give notice.

If counsel do not submit on the tentative, they are strongly encouraged to appear by LACourtConnect rather than in person due to the COVID-19 pandemic.