Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 22STCV01663, Date: 2025-01-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV01663    Hearing Date: January 6, 2025    Dept: 28

Having considered the moving papers, the Court rules as follows. 

BACKGROUND 

On January 14, 2022, Plaintiff Marguerita Ludwig (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Richard Lam (“Richard Lam”), Helen Lam (“Helen Lam”), Amy Lam (“Amy Lam”), 380 Sierra Madre, LLC (“380 Sierra Madre”), Lam Property Management (“Management”), Estate of William Jordison, and Does 1-45 for premises liability. 

On October 11, 2022, Plaintiff amended the complaint to change the name of Defendant Estate of William Jordison to Estate of William Jordison, Deceased. 

On December 16, 2022, Defendant Estate of William Jordison, Deceased (“Estate”) filed an answer. 

On March 15, 2023, Richard Lam, Helen Lam, Amy Lam, 380 Sierra Madre, and Management filed an answer and a cross-complaint against Cross-Defendants Estate and Roes 1-10 for declaratory relief, implied partial indemnity, and equitable apportionment. 

On May 19, 2023, the Estate filed an answer to the cross-complaint. 

On May 20, 2024, the Court granted Estate’s motion for a determination that its settlement with Plaintiff was in good faith. The Court dismissed all pending and future claims against Estate by the parties served with Estate’s motion (to the extent those claims arise from the facts giving rise to this case), including cross-complaints for equitable indemnity. 

On June 21, 2024, the Court dismissed Estate with prejudice at Plaintiff’s request. 

On July 15, 2024, the Court dismissed the cross-complaint filed by “Richard Lam, Helen, Lam, Amy Lam, et al.” on March 15, 2023 without prejudice at their request. 

On December 4, 2024, Richard Lam, Helen Lam, Amy Lam, 380 Sierra Madre, and Management (“Moving Defendants”) filed a motion to compel Plaintiff to appear for an independent medical examination on March 3, 2025 and for sanctions.  Plaintiff has not filed an opposition. 

Trial is currently scheduled for January 28, 2025. 

PARTIES’ REQUESTS 

Moving Defendants ask the Court to compel Plaintiff to appear for an independent medical examination on March 3, 2025 and to impose sanctions on Plaintiff. 

LEGAL STANDARD 

Code of Civil Procedure section 2024.020, subdivision (a), provides: 

“Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, any party shall be entitled as a matter of right to complete discovery proceedings on or before the 30th day, and to have motions concerning discovery heard on or before the 15th day, before the date initially set for the trial of the action.” 

(Code Civ. Proc., § 2024.020, subd. (a).) 

DISCUSSION 

Moving Defendants ask the Court for an order under Code of Civil Procedure section 2032.240 requiring Plaintiff to attend an independent medical examination on March 3, 2025.  Moving Defendants assert that they properly noticed Plaintiff’s physical examination but Plaintiff failed to appear. 

 March 3, 2025 is after the discovery cut-off date provided by Code of Civil Procedure section 2024.020, subdivision (a).  The Court has not granted a motion to reopen discovery that would allow Moving Defendants to conduct an independent medical examination on March 3, 2025.  

Moving Defendants have filed a separate motion to continue the trial and related dates which is set for hearing on January 17, 2025.  (The motion to continue the trial lists January 14, 2025 as the hearing date but the Court’s calendar states that the hearing is set for January 17, 2025.  Moving Defendants should determine the correct hearing date.)  The Court continues the hearing on Moving Defendants’ motion to compel Plaintiff’s independent medical examination to the same day as the hearing on Moving Defendants’ motion to continue the trial and related dates. 

CONCLUSION 

          The Court CONTINUES the hearing on the motion to compel Plaintiff Marguerita Ludwig’s independent medical examination filed by Defendants Richard Lam, Helen Lam, Amy Lam, 380 Sierra Madre, LLC, and Lam Property Management to the same day as the hearing on Defendants’ motion to continue the trial and related dates. 

          Moving parties are ordered to give notice of the Court’s ruling. 

          Moving parties are ordered to file the proof of service of this ruling with the Court within five days.