2015-00175462-CU-PO
Sara Lopstain vs. Wasatch Premier Communities, LLC
Nature of Proceeding: Motion to Compel Independent Medical Examination of Plaintiff
Filed By: Olson, James H.
Defendant Richard Roush dba Roush Landscape Services’ (“Roush”) motion to compel Plaintiff’s Independent Medical Examination is UNOPPOSED and is GRANTED.
Roush served a Demand for IME on February 21, 2017 for a March 24, 2017 examination. Plaintiff served an “opposition” to the examination, but agreed to appear. Plaintiff did not appear at the IME as noticed.
Roush moves to compel Plaintiff to appear for her examination on March 14, 2018 at 12:00 p.m. at 83 Scripps Dr., Suite 110 Sacramento, CA 95825. The exam will be conducted by Peter Sfakianos, M.D.
The Court construes Plaintiff’s failure to oppose the motion as a concession on the merits.
Plaintiff shall appear for her examination on March 14, 2018 at 12:00 p.m. at 83 Scripps Dr., Suite 110 Sacramento, CA 95825.
Roush to provide notice of this ruling and file proof of service of same within five (5) calendar days.
To the extent Roush requests sanctions, the request is DENIED. Roush’s notice of
motion fails to comply with CCP 2023.040. Roush also fails to identify the amount of sanctions it seeks or the basis of monetary sanctions.
Defendants Wasatch Premier Communities, LLC, Point Natomas Apartments, LP, and Point Natomas Holdings, LLC’s
joinder is DROPPED. Pursuant to Local Rule 2.09, a party desiring to join another party’s motion must comply with all procedural requirements for the filing of motions,
including proper notice. The proof of service shows that the joinder was served on Plaintiff’s former counsel. Plaintiff’s former counsel withdrew on August 1, 2017, and
Plaintiff is now appearing in pro per. The joinder was not served on Plaintiff. Additionally, the joinder was served via mail on February 2, 2018. This provided only 10 court days’ notice prior to the hearing. February 12th and 19th were court holidays. Defective service deprives the court of jurisdiction to act. (Lee v. Placer Title Co. (1994) 28 Cal.App.4th 503, 509.)