Judge: Lee S. Arian, Case: 22STCV22781, Date: 2025-02-03 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV22781 Hearing Date: February 3, 2025 Dept: 27
SUPERIOR COURT OF
THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 
FOR THE COUNTY OF
LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT
| 
   JANET HUERTA, et al.,            Plaintiff,             vs. MARCUS GOMEZ, et al., Defendants.  | 
  
   ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )  | 
  
  
   [TENTATIVE RULING] MOTION TO COMPEL
  IME AND FOR SANCTIONS GRANTED Dept. 27 1:30 p.m. February 3, 2025  | 
 
Plaintiffs
Giselle Huerta and Janet Huerta filed the present lawsuit alleging injuries
arising from an automobile collision that occurred on July 16, 2020.
On
October 31, 2024, Defendants Marcus Gomez and Inland Metro Services Inc. served
Plaintiffs with a notice of an independent medical examination (IME) scheduled
for December 16, 2024. This was the first IME for each Plaintiff. However, on
the scheduled date, Plaintiffs failed to appear. Plaintiffs did not provide
prior notice that they would not attend the examination, nor did they offer any
explanation for their failure to appear.
Defendants
now move the Court to compel Plaintiffs' IME. Plaintiffs did not file any
opposition to the motion.
Under
California Code of Civil Procedure § 2032.220(a), a defendant is entitled to
one physical examination of a plaintiff as a matter of right. The statute
requires that the demand specify the time, place, manner, conditions, scope,
and nature of the examination, as well as the identity and specialty, if any,
of the examining physician. Additionally, the examination must be scheduled for
a date at least 30 days after service of the demand. Defendant has complied
with all statutory requirements; as this is Plaintiffs' first IME, the notice
specified the place, manner, conditions, scope, and nature of the examination,
and the IME was scheduled more than 30 days after service. Plaintiffs did not
file an opposition contesting these facts. Accordingly, Defendants’ motions are
granted. Plaintiffs are ordered to appear for their IME within 20 days of
today.
Defendants
also request sanctions. The Court finds that Plaintiffs failed to act with
substantial justification. Plaintiffs did not object to the IME, did not notify
Defendants that they would not appear, and failed to attend the scheduled
examination, thereby causing Defendants to incur unnecessary expenses for the
IME and the present motion. Accordingly, the Court imposes sanctions on
Plaintiffs and their attorney of record, jointly and severally, in the amount
of $2,000, payable to Defendants within 20 days.
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.
 
| 
      | 
  
   | 
 
| 
   | 
  
   Hon. Lee S. Arian Judge of the Superior Court  |