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.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)
)
)

 

    CASE NO.: 22STCV22781

 

[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