Judge: William A. Crowfoot, Case: 20STCV05094, Date: 2023-01-13 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV05094    Hearing Date: January 13, 2023    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

I.            INTRODUCTION

The present action arises from an automobile collision, which occurred on approximately March 24, 2018, and upon Rosemead Boulevard in Los Angeles, California.  On said date, George Oketcho (“Plaintiff”) was stopped in his vehicle, when a separate vehicle driven by Carol Dubois-Chess (“Defendant Dubois-Chess”) collided with Plaintiff’s vehicle from behind at a high rate of speed.  Plaintiff alleges he suffered significant personal injury as a result of the aforementioned collision.

On February 7, 2020, Plaintiff commenced the instant action by filing a Complaint against Defendant Dubois-Chess, Hertz Vehicles, LLC, and Does 1 through 50 (collectively, “Defendants”).  Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges the following causes of action: (1) Negligence; and (2) Negligence Per Se.

On January 6, 2021, Defendant Dubois-Chess filed an Answer.  Subsequently, on January 27, 2021, Defendant Hertz Vehicles, LLC filed an Answer.

On February 26, 2021, Plaintiff filed a Request for Dismissal, dismissing Defendant Hertz Vehicles, LLC from this action, without prejudice.

On December 14, 2022, Defendant Dubois-Chess filed the instant Motion for Leave to Conduct Independent Medical Examination of Plaintiff (Orthopedic), and Request for Monetary Sanctions in the Amount of $939.15 against George Oketcho and Counsel of Record, Jointly and Severally.  The motion is unopposed.

II.          LEGAL STANDARD

CCP § 2032.220(a) states: “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 § 2032.310 states: “(a) If any party desires to obtain discovery by a physical examination other than that described in Article 2 (commencing with Section 2032.210), or by a mental examination, the party shall obtain leave of court. (b) A motion for an examination under subdivision (a) shall specify the time, place, manner, conditions, scope, and nature of the examination, as well as the identity and the specialty, if any, of the person or persons who will perform the examination. The motion shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040. (c) Notice of the motion shall be served on the person to be examined and on all parties who have appeared in the action.”

CCP § 2032.320 states: “(a) The court shall grant a motion for a physical . . . examination under Section 2032.310 only for good cause shown. . . . (d) An order granting a physical . . . examination shall specify the person or persons who may perform the examination, as well as the time, place, manner, diagnostic tests and procedures, conditions, scope, and nature of the examination. . . . (e) If the place of the examination is more than 75 miles from the residence of the person to be examined, an order to submit to it shall be entered only if both of the following conditions are satisfied: (1) The court determines that there is good cause for the travel involved. (2) The order is conditioned on the advancement by the moving party of the reasonable expenses and costs to the examinee for travel to the place of examination.” 

Under CCP § 2032.240(c), “[t]he court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel response and compliance with a demand for a physical examination, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.”

III.        DISCUSSION

Defendant Dubois-Chess (hereinafter, “Defendant”) moves for an Order compelling Plaintiff to submit to an independent physical (orthopedic) examination, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2032.310, with Dr. Scott K. Forman, M.D., located at 360 San Miguel, Suite 701, Newport Beach, CA 92660, on March 16, 2023 at 1:30 p.m.

Defendant has shown good cause for the orthopedic examination based on Plaintiff’s responses to discovery. Specially, in response to Form Interrogatory no. 6.2, Plaintiff attributed neck injuries, low back injuries, chest injuries, bilateral wrist injuries, and injuries to both knees, due to the subject accident. Plaintiff further indicated that he still has complaints and is making claims for these attributed injuries, based upon his response to Defendant’s Supplemental Interrogatories, Form Interrogatory no. 6.3. (Lascola Decl., ¶4.) Defendant has also complied with the procedural requirements of CCP § 2032.310.

Further, the Court finds monetary sanctions warranted against Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel of record, jointly and severally, pursuant to CCP § 2032.240(c). As Plaintiff has failed to submit an opposition explaining the reasons for which Plaintiff has refused to submit to the examination, the Court cannot find Plaintiff acted with substantial justification in refusing the same. (LaScola Decl., ¶¶6-7, Exhs. D-F.)  Accordingly, the Court concludes monetary sanctions are warranted against Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel, jointly and severally, in the sum of $451.65 (hourly rate of $195 multiplied by 2 hours in preparing and appearing for Motion, plus $61.65 filing fee).  (LaScola Decl., ¶8.)

IV.         CONCLUSION

Defendant Carol Dubois-Chess’ motion is GRANTED.  Additionally, Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel of record are ordered to pay monetary sanctions, jointly and severally, in the amount of $451.65, within 30 days of this Court’s Order.

Moving party to give notice.

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 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.