Louis Sachs Vs. Michael Mock, Et Al.

22CV005828: BENTON, et al. vs CVS HEALTH CORPORATION, et al. 07/30/2024 Hearing on Motion to be Admitted Pro Hac Vice filed by Anthony Swetala (Plaintiff) + in Department 21 Tentative Ruling - 07/02/2024 Noël Wise The Motion to Be Admitted Pro Hac Vice filed by Melissa Greco, Ralph Milan, Anthony Swetala, Joyce Benton on 06/18/2024 is Granted. Pursuant to Government Code section 70617(e)(2), on or before the anniversary of the date of this order Pro Hac Vice Applicant ANDREA CLISURA shall pay a renewal fee of five hundred dollars ($500) for each year that Pro Hac Vice Applicant maintains pro hac vice status in this case. The Court hereby sets a compliance hearing for 08/25/2025 at 01:30 PM in Department 21 at Rene C. Davidson Courthouse. If the renewal fee has been paid at least 10 calendar days before the hearing, no appearance will be required. PLEASE NOTE: This tentative ruling will become the ruling of the court if uncontested by 04:00pm the day before your hearing. If you wish to contest the tentative ruling, then both notify opposing counsel directly and the court at the eCourt portal found on the court’s website: www.alameda.courts.ca.gov. If you have contested the tentative ruling or your tentative ruling reads, “parties to appear,” please use the following link to access your hearing at the appropriate date and time: https://alameda-courts-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/my/department21 . If no party has contested the tentative ruling, then no appearance is necessary.

Case Number: 23STCV13328 Hearing Date: July 17, 2024 Dept: 19 After consideration of the briefing filed and oral argument at the hearing, the Court rules as follows: The Court grants Defendant City of Los Angeles request for a stay of proceedings. (Code of Civ. Proc. section 128). The Court will not issue its final ruling on the Demurrer by Defendant City of Los Angeles until the pending proceedings on the Petitions For Writ of Mandate filed by Plaintiffs Mathhew Mammone (Case No. 23STCP02876) and Timmothy Hamson (Case No. 23STCP03315), and any other writ petitions by named Plaintiffs, are completed. The Court sets a Status Conference Re: Petitions For Writ of Mandate for November 7, 2024, at 8:30. The parties are ordered to file and serve Status Reports by November 1, 2024. The hearing on Demurrer is CONTINUED TO November 18, 2024, at 8:30 a.m. On the Courts own motion, the Case Management Conference is CONTINUED TO November 18, 2024, at 8:30 a.m. Counsel for Defendant City of Los Angeles to give notice. STATEMENT OF THE CASE This action arises out of alleged civil rights violations. Plaintiffs John Knox, Adin Waldrip, Jeffery Ochoa, Michael Hayes, Nicholas Collins, Morgan Bradley, Shane Nelson, Nathaniel Helton, Nicholas Watkins, Ian Tarango, Matthew Mammone, Timothy Hamson, Chris Curtis, Eliott Jones, Gabriela Mendo, Richard Tanguay, Edward Brockschmidt, and Armando Carranza (collectively, Plaintiffs) bring suit against Defendants The City of Los Angeles, a municipality, and its Fire Department (the City), Ralph Terrazas, Kristin Crowley, Alfred Poirier, John Drake, Armando Hogan, Graham Everett, David Perez, Kristina Kepner, Carlos Calvillo, Kairi Brown, Eric Talamantes, Amir Caspian, Albert Valle, Timothy Wuerfel, Glenn Baham, and Michael Henderson (collectively, Defendants) alleging the following causes of action: 1. Denial Of Due Process (FBOR, Skelly, and §1060); 2. Denial Of Equal Protection; 3. Denial Of Right To Privacy; 4. Denial Of Right To Refuse Medical Treatment; 5. Redress Of Perceived Disability Discrimination; 6. Redress Of Religious Discrimination; 7. Redress Of Genetic Testing Discrimination; 8. Redress Discrimination Due To Association; 9. Lack Of Good Faith Interactive; 10. Failure To Accommodate; 11. Redress Harassment; 12. Redress Unlawful Retaliation; 13. Redress Failure To Prevent Discrimination, Harassment And Retaliation; And 14. Declaratory Relief. Defendant City of Los Angeles filed the instant Demurrer to Plaintiffs Complaint. GROUNDS FOR DEMURRER Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 430.10, subdivisions (d), (e), and (f), Defendant City demurs to each cause of action on the grounds that (1) there is a defect or misjoinder of parties; (2) uncertainty; and (3) failure to allege facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. MEET/CONFER The Court finds that Defendant City substantially complied with the meet and confer requirements. (See M. Aaron Neishlos Decl., ¶¶ 2-3.) REQUESTS FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE The Court GRANTS Defendant Citys request to take judicial notice of Exhibits 1 through 7. (Evid. Code, § 452(d), (h).) The Court also GRANTS Plaintiffs request to take judicial notice of Exhibits A and B. (Evid. Code, § 452(d), (h); see Fremont Indem. Co. v. Fremont General Corp. (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 97, 113-14]; StorMedia Inc. v. Sup. Ct. (1999) 20 Cal.4th 449, 457 n. 9; see also Cruz v. County of Los Angeles (1985) 173 Cal.App.3d 1131, 1134). DISCUSSION I. DEMURRER Misjoinder of Parties Defendant City demurs to the entire Complaint on the ground that [t]he 18 Plaintiffs claims do not arise out of the same transaction(s) or occurrence(s) and nothing in the Complaint indicates that their respective disciplinary proceedings were sufficiently related so as to constitute a single series of occurrences or a common plan pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 378. The Court does not rule on the arguments regarding misjoinder under section 378 at this time. However, Defendant City alternatively demurs on the ground that the inclusion of Plaintiffs Hamson and Mammone, who have pending petitions for writ of mandate and must first succeed in overturning the determination of the Board of Rights before proceeding with the instant action, would create the risk of inconsistent rulings and would waste judicial resources. Defendant City requests that the Court stay the action pending resolution of Plaintiffs Hamson and Mammones writ of mandates. Plaintiffs fail to address this alternative request for a stay. Defendant highlights this in its Reply brief. The Court notes that in the Opposition, Plaintiff state that another Writ by Plaintiff Chris Curtis will soon be filed. (Opposition at pp. 7-8.) The Court agrees with the Defendant Citys argument that because Plaintiffs Hamson and Mammone both have pending Petitions for Writ of Mandate (Defendants RJN, Exhibits 2 and 3), and another soon to be filed by Plaintiff Chris Curtis, this action should be stayed. (Code of Civ. Proc. section 128). The Court finds that this is warranted in the interest of justice. ( Frieberg v. City of Mission Viejo (1995) 33 Cal. App. 4 th 1484, 1489). In those writ petitions, Plaintiffs Hamson and Mammone generally name the same Defendants as in this case, complain about the City of Los Angeles COVID-19 Ordinance and its vaccination requirements for all employees, and allege, among other things, that they were placed on suspension without pay, the actions by the City were unlawful, including violations of the federal and state labor and employment laws, violations of State and Federal Constitutions, as well as violations of the due process requirements under the Firefighters Bill of Rights, section 1060 of the City Charter, and Skelly v. State of California (1975) 15 Cal. 3d. 194. The Court finds that a stay of proceedings is proper at this time for the above reasons. After the writ proceedings are completed, the Court will proceed to finalize its ruling on the demurrer. If the parties request time for additional briefing, they may request such in their respective Status Reports.

Case Number: 23NWCV04034 Hearing Date: July 18, 2024 Dept: C BHAMBA v. DOORDASH, INC. CASE NO.: 23NWCV04034 HEARING: 07/18/24 #8 Defendant DOORDASH, INC.s u nopposed motion to compel arbitration is GRANTED as to Plaintiff and DOORDASH, INC . The entire action is STAYED until conclusion of the arbitration. Moving Party to give notice. No Opposition filed as of July 15, 2024. This action for assault and battery was filed by Plaintiff MANISH BHAMBA against Defendants DOORDASH, INC. (Doordash) and TRAMELLE LALMORE WILLIAMS (Williams) on December 11, 2023. Plaintiff alleges that [o]n or about December 13, 2021, Defendant WILLIAMS assaulted and battered Plaintiff BHAMBA while Defendant WILLIAMS was in the scope and course of employment with Defendant DOORDASH. (Complaint ¶8.) The assault and battery occurred outside of the Red Robin restaurant located at 112 Lakewood Center, Lakewood, California, 90712. (Complaint ¶9.) Plaintiff Bhamba was also at the Red Robin restaurant to pick up a DoorDash order. (Complaint ¶11.) Plaintiffs Complaint asserts the following causes of action: (1) Assault and Battery; (2) Negligent Hiring, Supervision, and Training; and (3) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress All three claims are alleged against each defendant. Defendant Doordash moves to compel arbitration pursuant to a written agreement to arbitrate between Doordash and Plaintiff. Except for specifically enumerated exceptions, the court must order the petitioner and respondent to arbitrate a controversy if the court finds that a written agreement to arbitrate the controversy exists. (See CCP §1281.2.) In California, [g]eneral principles of contract law determine whether the parties have entered a binding agreement to arbitrate. ( Craig v. Brown & Root, Inc . (2000) 84 Cal.App.4th 416, 420.) A petition to compel arbitration or stay proceedings pursuant to CCP §§1281.1 and 1281.4 must state, in addition to other required allegations, the provisions of the written agreement and the paragraph that provides for arbitration. The provisions must be stated verbatim or a copy must be physically or electronically attached to the petition and incorporated by reference. (C.R.C. Rule 3.1330.) The petitioner bears the burden of proving the existence of a valid arbitration agreement by the preponderance of the evidence, and a party opposing the petition bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence any fact necessary to its defense. In these summary proceedings, the trial court sits as a trier of fact, weighing all the affidavits, declarations, and other documentary evidence, as well as oral testimony received at the courts discretion, to reach a final determination. ( Engalia v. Permanente Medical Group, Inc . (1997) 15 Cal.4th 951.) The Court finds that Doordash has met the burden of proving the existence of a valid arbitration agreement between Plaintiff and Doordash. The Updated Independent Contractor Agreement states: CONTRACTOR and DOORDASH mutually agree to this Mutual Arbitration Provision& and shall apply to any and all disputes arising out of or relating to this Agreement&.Any disputes in this regard shall be resolved exclusively by an arbitrator. (Nachazel Decl., ¶14, Ex. C.) As of July 15, 2024, no Opposition has been filed. The Court finds that a valid arbitration agreement exists, and because there is no Opposition, the motion to compel arbitration between Plaintiff and Doordash is GRANTED. Pursuant to CCP §1281.2(c) and (d): [T]he court (1) may refuse to enforce the arbitration agreement and may order intervention or joinder of all parties in a single action or special proceeding; (2) may order intervention or joinder as to all or only certain issues; (3) may order arbitration among the parties who have agreed to arbitration and stay the pending court action or special proceeding pending the outcome of the arbitration proceeding ; or (4) may stay arbitration pending the outcome of the court action or special proceeding& when [a] party to the arbitration agreement is also a party to a pending court action or special proceeding with a third party, arising out of the same transaction or series of related transactions and there is a possibility of conflicting rulings on a common issue of law or fact. (emphasis added.) Accordingly, the Court will GRANT the Motion, and order arbitration of the dispute as to the Plaintiff and Defendant Doordash only. However, the entire case will be STAYED until conclusion of the arbitration.

C23-02161 CASE NAME: VALERIE MCDUFFIE VS. AHMAD FAIZI *HEARING ON MOTION IN RE: MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL FILED BY VALERIE MCDUFFIE FILED BY: *TENTATIVE RULING:* Hearing required.

MSC21-02561 CASE NAME: BURREY VS DECKER BULLOCK DREYFUS, INC., ET AL. *HEARING ON MOTION FOR DISCOVERY TO COMPEL FURTHER DISCOVERY RESPONSES AND REQUESTS FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS FILED BY: CHEN, YIJIAN *TENTATIVE RULING:* Cross-Complainants Yijian Chen, Kehua Xu, Bellanna Xu, and New Bellca Limited Corporation filed a motion to compel further responses and grant monetary sanctions against Cross-Defendants William Leone and Decker Bullock Dreyfus, Inc. dba Golden Gate Sotheby’s International Realty. Cross- Defendants filed opposition to the motion and request sanctions against counsel for Cross- Complainants, Nelson Goodell. For the reasons set forth below, the court rules as follows: 1. The motion to compel Cross-Defendants’ further responses is granted. 2. The motion to grant monetary sanctions against Cross-Defendants and counsel for Cross-Defendants is denied. 3. The motion to grant sanctions against counsel for Cross-Complainants, Nelson Goodell, is denied. 4. Cross-Complainants are ordered to amend their requests for production to comply with statute. Cross-Defendants are ordered to respond in compliance with statute. Background: SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, CONTRA COSTA COUNTY MARTINEZ, CA DEPARTMENT 27 JUDICIAL OFFICER: TERRI MOCKLER HEARING DATE: 07/10/2024 The case before the court has a long procedural history and numerous complaints, cross- complainants, and amended pleadings. On April 4, 2024, Cross-Complainants Yijian Chen, Kehua Xu, Bellanna Xu, and New Bellca Limited Corporation (“Cross-Complainants”) filed a motion to compel further responses to certain requests contained in Cross-Complainant’s First Set of Requests for Production of Documents against Cross- Defendants William Leone (“Leone”) and Decker Bullock Dreyfus, Inc. dba Golden Gate Sotheby’s International Realty (“Decker Bullock Dreyfus”) (together, “Cross-Defendants”). Cross-Complainants seek monetary sanctions in the amount of $10,905.00 against Cross-Defendants for having to file this motion. Cross-Complainants allege that on December 19, 2023, Cross-Defendants sent an electronic link that contained a document production of over 3,300 pages, with no directions as to which documents pertained to individual requests. Cross-Complainants filed a motion for further responses to their Request for Production Documents no. 15, 16 to William Leone, and Documents no. 3, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, and 22. On June 24, 2024, Cross-Defendants filed opposition to the motion to compel further responses and monetary sanctions in the amount of $3,600.00 against counsel for Cross-Complainant, Nelson Goodell. Cross-Defendants allege the Requests for Production of Documents were defective and failed to comply with the mandatory requirement of specifying a reasonable time for inspection under CCP Section 2031.030(2). Nevertheless, Cross-Defendants allege they comported with the discovery requests and produced every document in their possession. Cross-Defendants claim since they voluntarily produced documents in response to the request, the documents produced are not subject to any statutory requirement, specifically CCP Section 2031.280. This case arises from the purchase and sale of real property located at 205 Glorietta Boulevard in Orinda, California (the “Property”). Plaintiffs Lori and Leighton Burrey purchased the Property from Cross-Complainants in 2021. Shortly after becoming owners of the Property, the Burreys discovered defects which they assert were not disclosed to them during the sale of land transaction. This included the facts that the Property had a septic tank and was not connected to the public sewer system and that certain improvements were made to the Property without proper permits. Plaintiffs filed two separate lawsuits on December 9, 2021, both related to the same issues. The case before us (MSC21-02561) alleges claims against Cross-Defendants, the second suit (MSC21-02562) alleges claims against Cross-Complainants. On April 21, 2022, the two cases were consolidated into the current case (MSC21-02561). In May 2023, Plaintiffs reached a settlement agreement with Cross-Complainants. On May 30, 2023, Plaintiffs filed and received a request for dismissal with prejudice as to the Cross-Complainants. Plaintiffs filed the operative Second Amended Complaint on August 14, 2023, asserting claims against the Cross-Defendants and other defendants that are not subject to the motion at hand. SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, CONTRA COSTA COUNTY MARTINEZ, CA DEPARTMENT 27 JUDICIAL OFFICER: TERRI MOCKLER HEARING DATE: 07/10/2024 Legal Standard: Civil discovery in California is governed by the Civil Discovery Act. (CCP §§2016.010–2036.050.) Civil discovery is essentially self-executing by the parties. (Clement v. Alegre (2009) 177 Cal. App. 4th 1277, 1291.) Civil discovery is intended to operate with a minimum of judicial intervention. (Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal. App. 4th 390, 402) (emphasis added). “. . . [A]ny party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action or to the determination of any motion made in that action.” (CCP §2017.010.) A motion to compel production of documents and grant monetary sanctions is governed by the Discovery Act. (CCP §2031.020(d); 2023.010.) A party demanding inspection, copying, testing, or sampling shall specify a reasonable time for the inspection, copying, testing, or sampling that is at least 30 days after service of the demand. (CCP §2031.030(c)(2).) Any documents or category of documents produced in response to a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling shall be identified with the specific request number to which the documents respond. (CCP §2031.280(a).) Each statement of compliance, each representation, and each objection in the response shall bear the same number and be in the same sequence as the corresponding item or category in the demand, but the text of that item or category need not be repeated. (CCP §2031.210(c).) A representation of inability to comply with the particular demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling shall affirm that a diligent search and a reasonable inquiry has been made in an effort to comply with that demand. This statement shall also specify whether the inability to comply is because the particular item or category has never existed, has been destroyed, has been lost, misplaced, or stolen, or has never been, or is no longer, in the possession, custody, or control of the responding party. The statement shall set forth the name and address of any natural person or organization known or believed by that party to have possession, custody, or control of that item or category of item. (CCP §2031.230.) Analysis: Reasonable Time for Inspection: Cross-Defendants allege the request for production was defective because the Cross-Complainants did not provide a reasonable time for inspection as mandated in CCP 2031.030(c)(2). Cross- Defendants are correct that the request must contain a reasonable time for inspection, and Cross- Complainants shall amend their request to comport with the statute. Inability to Comply/Excepted from Compliance with Statute: SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, CONTRA COSTA COUNTY MARTINEZ, CA DEPARTMENT 27 JUDICIAL OFFICER: TERRI MOCKLER HEARING DATE: 07/10/2024 Cross-Complainants allege that Cross-Defendants’ responses to their requests for production are not statute compliant because they are unnumbered and unorganized. Cross-Complainants allege they were given a file of 3,300 pages with no direction. Cross-Defendants allege that because their production of documents was voluntary in the face of a defective request, their response and production are exempt from statute. Cross-Defendants cite no relevant authority or case law. Cross-Defendants must comply with mandatory discovery statutes if they produce discovery in response to a request. Sanctions: Courts have broad discretion to grant sanctions against parties for discovery abuses. The court will not punish the parties by granting thousands of dollars of sanctions for disputes between counsel. These discovery issues could be avoided if both counsels complied with discovery statutes. Disposition: Discovery is meant to be conducted with a minimum of judicial intervention. Both parties allege the other has not properly complied with discovery statute mandates. Both parties are correct, but both nitpick one another to an extent that appears disingenuous. The meet and confer emails are extensive and full of hair-splitting. Cross-Complainants are ordered to amend their discovery requests to comply with CCP Section 2031.030(c)(2) by August 9, 2024, thirty days after the hearing date on July 10, 2024. The motion to compel Cross-Defendants’ further responses to discovery is granted. The motion to grant monetary sanctions against Cross-Defendants and counsel for Cross-Defendants is denied. Cross-Defendants are ordered to amend their discovery responses to comply with CCP Section 2031.210(c). Cross-Defendants have until September 5, 2024, to amend their responses, thirty days following August 9, 2024. The motion to grant monetary sanctions against counsel for Cross-Complainants, Nelson Goodell, is denied.

Case Number: 24BBCV00455 Hearing Date: July 19, 2024 Dept: NCB Superior Court of California County of Los Angeles North Central District Department B lena mestrandrea , Plaintiff, v. nancy ming ling chen, Defendant. Case No.: 24BBCV00455 Hearing Date: July 19, 2024 [ TENTATIVE] order RE: motions to compel further responses BACKGROUND A. Allegations Plaintiff Lena Mestrandrea (Plaintiff) alleges that on August 22, 2023 at approximately 1 P.M. at or near 4041 Whitset Avenue in Studio City, she was attacked and bit by Defendant Nancy Ming Ling Chens (Defendant) German Shepherd Mix dog. Plaintiff alleges that she was jogging past Defendant on a public street when Defendant was unable to control her dog and, without warning or provocation, the dog viciously attacked and bit Plaintiff. The complaint, filed February 23, 2024, alleges causes of action for: (1) negligence; and (2) strict liability. B. Motion on Calendar On June 28, 2024, Plaintiff filed 3 motions to compel Defendants further responses to: (1) Form Interrogatories, set one (FROG); (2) Requests for Production of Documents, set one (RPD); and (3) Requests for Admissions, set one (RFA). On July 8, 2024, Defendant filed objections to the motions. DISCUSSION Plaintiff moves to compel Defendants further responses to FROG Nos. 2.2, 2.3, 2.5, 12.4, 16.3-16.5, and 17.1(b); RPD Nos. 17 and 18; and RFA Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10-13, 15, 17-19, and 23-29. Defendant filed objections to the three motions, arguing that they were not timely served by electronic mail pursuant to CCP §§ 1005(b) and 1010.6(a)(3)(B). Defendant argues that the motions were set for hearing on July 19, 2024, but they were filed with the Court and served by electronic service on June 28, 2024. To be timely, the motions were required to be filed 16 court days before the hearing (or June 26, 2024) and served at least 2 days prior to account for electronic service (or June 24, 2024). Thus, Defendant states in her objections that she will not address the merits of the motions or attend the hearing in order that she not waive her objections. As the motions were not timely filed and served, the Court will continue the hearing on the motions to August 16, 2024 so that issues regarding service and the time to file substantive opposition briefs are fully provided. CONCLUSION AND ORDER Plaintiff Lena Mestrandreas three motions to compel Defendant Nancy Ming Ling Chens further responses are continued to August 16, 2024 at 8:30 a.m. Defendants opposition briefs and Plaintiffs reply briefs shall be filed and served pursuant to code based on the August 16, 2024 hearing date. Plaintiff shall provide notice of this order. DATED: July 19, 2024 ___________________________ John Kralik Judge of the Superior Court

Case Number: 20STCV13665 Hearing Date: July 15, 2024 Dept: 32 PLEASE NOTE : Parties are encouraged to meet and confer concerning this tentative ruling to determine if a resolution may be reached. If the parties are unable to reach a resolution and a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the Court at sscdept32@lacourt.org indicating that partys intention to submit. The email shall include the case number, date and time of the hearing, counsels contact information (if applicable), and the identity of the party submitting on this tentative ruling. If the Court does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may place the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court. If all parties do not submit on this tentative ruling, they should arrange to appear in-person or remotely. Further, after the Court has posted/issued a tentative ruling, the Court has the inherent authority to prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion and adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court . TENTATIVE RULING DEPT : 32 HEARING DATE : July 15, 2024 CASE NUMBER : 20STCV13665 MOTIONS : Motion to Compel Plaintiffs Medical Examination MOVING PARTY: Defendant Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority OPPOSING PARTY: Plaintiff Dieudonne Ngnie BACKGROUND On April 8, 2020, Plaintiff Dieudonne Ngnie (Plaintiff) filed a complaint against Defendant Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Defendant) for damages resulting from an alleged motor vehicle accident. Defendant now moves to compel Plaintiffs appearance at a physical examination. Defendant also seeks monetary sanctions. Alternatively, Defendant seeks issue and evidentiary sanctions. Plaintiff opposes. No reply has been filed. LEGAL STANDARD 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. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2032.220, subd. (a).)¿¿ Code of Civil Procedure section 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. The motion must be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration. The court shall impose a monetary sanction against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel 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. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2032.250 (b).) MEET AND CONFER The Declaration of Nyasha A. Buchongo, Defendants counsel, states the following: On March 29, 2024, Defense Counsel sent a letter to Plaintiff Counsel to meet and confer regarding Plaintiffs availability for the independent medical examination; to which, Defense Counsel received no response. (Buchongo Decl. ¶ 11.) DISCUSSION Plaintiff alleges physical injuries due to the motor vehicle accident, including neck and back injuries and difficulty standing and sitting for extended periods of time. (Buchongo Decl. ¶¶ 34.) Defendant first served notice of the medical examination on December 13, 2023, set for January 23, 2024, with Dr. Russell W. Nelson, a board-certified orthopedic surgeon. On January 16, 2024, Plaintiffs counsel informed Defendant that Plaintiff could not attend. (Buchongo Decl. ¶ 7.) Plaintiff did not appear. As a result, Defendant seeks to compel Plaintiffs examination on July 25, 2024 at 1:30 p.m. at Dr. Nelsons office. Plaintiff has not undergone any previous independent medical examination. In opposition, Plaintiff asserts that he will appear at the examination on July 25, 2024. Plaintiff did not appear because he was out of the country until late March 2024. Plaintiffs counsel states that he then lost contact with Plaintiff. (Ghobrial Decl. ¶ 5.) On July 1, 2024, counsel re-established contact and learned that Plaintiff currently resides in Togo, due to personal family reasons, but intends to appear at the examination on July 25, 2024. ( Id. ¶ 7.) Defendant has not filed a reply. Therefore, based on the information above, because Plaintiff failed to appear at the first noticed examination, the motion to compel is granted. Because the motion is granted, the Court will not address the request for issue and evidentiary sanctions. Defendants seek $3,000 in monetary sanctions, representing an hourly rate of $250, and the $750 late cancellation fee. Because Plaintiff failed to inform Defendant within ten days that he could not attend the examination to avoid a late cancellation fee, and it appears Plaintiff did not respond to Defendants efforts to meet and confer in late-March, the Court finds sanctions are warranted, but the amount requested is excessive. Therefore, the Court awards $1,125 in monetary sanctions (1.5 hours of attorney time plus the late cancellation fee). CONCLUSION AND ORDER Accordingly, Defendants motion to compel Plaintiffs medical examination is GRANTED. Plaintiff Dieudonne Ngnie shall appear on July 25, 2024 at Dr. Russell W. Nelsons office for a medical examination . The Court further grants Defendants request for monetary sanctions in the reduced amount of $1.125 against Plaintiff and his counsel of record, jointly and severally. Said monetary sanction shall be paid to counsel for Defendant within 30 days. Defendant shall provide notice of the Courts order and file a proof of service of such.

MATHESON, ET AL. VS. WATTS, ET AL. Case Number: 23CV-0203077 Tentative Ruling on Order to Show Cause Re Sanctions: An Order to Show Cause Re: Sanctions (“OSC”) issued on May 29, 2024, to Plaintiffs and their Counsel for failure to appear at the Mandatory Settlement Conference on May 28, 2024. No response to the OSC has been filed. Sanctions will be imposed in the amount of $250. The clerk is instructed to prepare a separate Order of Sanctions. The Court confirms hearing of a new Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal set for Monday, September 9, 2024, at 8:30 a.m. in Department 64.