Judge: Michelle C. Kim, Case: 20STCV45945, Date: 2023-04-19 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV45945    Hearing Date: April 19, 2023    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

1. Background

Plaintiff Adriana Dorantes (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendant Mohsen Hamidi Hashemi (“Defendant”) for damages arising from a motor vehicle accident.   

On August 9, 2022, Defendant propounded a notice of demand for physical examination on Plaintiff, setting Plaintiff’s exam for October 17, 2022.  Plaintiff served a Response and Opposition to the demand, which Defendant asserts Plaintiff improperly used to attempt to impose additional conditions on the exam.  Plaintiff did not appear for the exam and did not respond to Defendant’s meet and confer attempts to reschedule her exam. 

At this time, Defendant moves to compel Plaintiff’s physical examination with David Hoenig, M.D.  Defendant also seeks an order imposing sanctions against Plaintiff.  The motion is unopposed. 

2. Motion to Compel Physical Examination

CCP § 2032.220 states:

(a) In any case in which a plaintiff is seeking recovery for personal injuries, any defendant may demand one physical examination of the plaintiff, if both of the following conditions are satisfied:

(1) The examination does not include any diagnostic test or procedure that is painful, protracted, or intrusive.

(2) The examination is conducted at a location within 75 miles of the residence of the examinee.

CCP § 2032.250 provides that, when a plaintiff fails to respond to a demand, or refuses to submit to the physical examination, the defendant may move for an order compelling a response to the demand and compelling compliance with the request for an exam. 

Except for defense physicals in personal injury cases (in which one examination is permitted as a matter of course) and exams arranged by stipulation, a court order is required for a physical or mental examination. Such order may be made only after notice and hearing, and for “good cause shown.”  (CCP §2032.320(a).)  Where the plaintiff's injuries are complex, several exams may be necessary by specialists in different fields. There is no limit on the number of physical or mental exams that may be ordered on a showing of good cause.  The good cause requirement checks any potential harassment of the plaintiff.  (See Shapira v. Superior Court (1990) 224 Cal.App.3d 1249, 1255.) 

Here, the evidence shows that Defendant properly served Plaintiff with a demand for a physical exam, and that Plaintiff failed to appear for the examination.  Moreover, Plaintiff does not oppose this motion, and thus, does not otherwise establish that Plaintiff was not required to comply with the demand. 

Therefore, Defendant’s motion to compel physical exam is granted. 

Plaintiff is ordered to appear for examination with David Hoenig, M.D. on May 1, 2023, at 10:00 a.m. at the office of Dr. Hoenig located at Regus Encino Corporate Center, 16501 Ventura Blvd., Suite 400, Encino, California, 91436.  The Court notes that Defendant has set forth the proposed scope of the examination, as well as the manner, conditions, and nature of the examination, in the prior notice demand served on Plaintiff, (Mot. Exh. A), and that the scope of the examination may not be expanded in connection with the compelled physical exam. 

3. Sanctions

            CCP § 2032.250(b) requires the Court to impose sanctions in connection with a motion to compel physical exam unless the Court finds Plaintiff acted with substantial justification or other circumstances make imposition of sanctions unjust. 

            Defendant is awarded two hours for preparing the motion and one hour for appearing at the hearing all at the reasonable rate of $200 per hour, for a total attorney fees award of $600.00.  Further, Defendant is awarded the $60 motion filing fee as costs. 

Sanctions are sought and imposed against Plaintiff.  Plaintiff is ordered to pay sanctions to Defendant, by and through counsel of record, in the amount of $660.00, within twenty days.

Defendant is ordered to give notice. 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE:

• Parties are encouraged to meet and confer after reading this tentative ruling to see if they can reach an agreement.
• If a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the court at sscdept31@lacourt.org with the Subject line “SUBMIT” followed by the case number.  The body of the email must include the hearing date and time, counsel’s contact information, and the identity of the party submitting.  
• Unless all parties submit by email to this tentative ruling, the parties should arrange to appear remotely (encouraged) or in person for oral argument.  You should assume that others may appear at the hearing to argue.  
• If the parties neither submit nor appear at hearing, the Court may take the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.  After the Court has issued a tentative ruling, the Court may prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion without leave. 

Dated this 19^th day of April 2023