Judge: Lee S. Arian, Case: 22STCV18631, Date: 2025-02-14 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV18631    Hearing Date: February 14, 2025    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

On June 7, 2022, Plaintiff filed this case. Defendants 6851 Sepulveda Blvd. Inc., J.K. Residential Services, Inc., and Anza Management Company (“Defendants”) move the Court to compel Plaintiff to appear for an Oral and Maxillofacial Examination (IME) with Dr. Hamlet Garabedian, DMD, MD, FACS at 242 N. Glendale Ave, Glendale, CA 91206, on a date at least 30 days after the hearing on this motion.

Defendants previously conducted an IME related to Plaintiff’s traumatic brain injury on January 10, 2025. This is Defendants’ first request for an oral examination. The basis for the motion is that approximately 30% of Plaintiff’s alleged damages in this lawsuit are for dental, oral, and maxillofacial treatment, with Plaintiff claiming at least $28,100.00 in dental expenses for treatment with Dr. Kambiz Kashfian.

Plaintiff filed a Conditional Non-Opposition. Plaintiff does not contest that good cause exists for the oral evaluation. Plaintiff states that the parties are meeting and conferring regarding the parameters of the examination and expect to reach an agreement. Plaintiff further suggested that if the parties cannot agree, any disputes could be addressed through an informal discovery conference or a subsequent motion. However, Plaintiff’s opposition does not specify the nature of the disagreements between the parties or the conditions Plaintiff would agree to if the motion to compel is granted.

In reply, Defendants remind the Court that trial is set for April 4, 2025 and argue that even if the Court grants their request for a second IME, serving a demand under CCP § 2032.220 would likely push the examination date close to or beyond the discovery cutoff, creating a risk that Plaintiff could ignore the demand, rendering it unenforceable. Defendants suspect Plaintiff’s Conditional Non-Opposition was filed with this issue in mind. Without an enforceable demand within the discovery period, Defendants would be unable to proceed with the IME if Plaintiff objects. Accordingly, Defendants request either a three-month trial continuance with extended discovery deadlines or a shortened notice period for the second IME to ensure it occurs before the discovery cutoff.

Defendants’ request to continue the trial is denied. This case was filed on June 7, 2022, and trial is set for April 4, 2025, nearly three years later. Under California Rules of Court, Standard 2.2, cases of this nature should be resolved within two years, and this case is already approaching the three-year mark.

Furthermore, the request for a continuance is based on Plaintiff’s oral IME and the mediation scheduled for February 13, 2025. However, mediation has already occurred before the hearing, and if the Court orders the IME to take place before the discovery deadline, there is no basis to continue the trial.

The Court finds good cause for the oral examination. In light of Plaintiff’s failure to raise any issues regarding the parameters of the examination for the court to adjudicate, as well as the pending trial date and discovery cutoff, the Court grants the motion and orders Plaintiff to appear for her IME with Dr. Hamlet Garabedian within 30 days of this order.

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’s 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.  If the Court does not receive emails from the parties indicating submission on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may, at its discretion, adopt the tentative as the final order or place the motion off calendar.