Javier Napoles v. Hans Joerg Dau

(Santa Monica Courthouse: Dept. N) August 18, 2026 DEPARTMENT N LAW AND MOTION RULINGS

Plaintiff Tigran Hovanesyan's Motion to Compel Responses to Supplemental Interrogatory Directed to Daniel Croizat is DENIED as MOOT. Plaintiff Tigran Hovanesyan's Motion to Compel Responses to Supplemental Demand for the Production of Documents Directed to Daniel Croizat is DENIED as MOOT. Plaintiff Tigran Hovanesyan's Request for Monetary Sanctions is GRANTED in the amount of $520, payable by Defendant Daniel Croizat and defense counsel to Plaintiff Tigran Hovanesyan and Plaintiff's counsel within thirty (30) days of entry of this order. Plaintiff Tigran Hovanesyan to give notice.

Plaintiff Tigran Hovanesyan ("Plaintiff") served Defendant Daniel Croizat ("Defendant") with his Supplemental Interrogatory and Supplemental Demand for the Production of Documents on February 23, 2026. (Mots., Zador Decls. P. 2.) Responses were due on or before March 27, 2026, and Plaintiff's counsel also communicated with defense counsel to extend the response date to April 22, 2026, then May 11, 2026. (Mots., Zador Decls. P.P. 3-6.) As of the date of filing the motions, no responses had been received. (Mots., Zador Decls.

P. 7.) However, responses and verifications have now been provided. Accordingly, Plaintiff Tigran Hovanesyan's Motion to Compel Responses to Supplemental Interrogatory Directed to Daniel Croizat is DENIED as MOOT, and Plaintiff Tigran Hovanesyan's Motion to Compel Responses to Supplemental Demand for the Production of Documents Directed to Daniel Croizat is DENIED as MOOT.

If a motion to compel responses to interrogatories or requests for production is filed, the Court shall impose a monetary sanction against the losing party "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., Sec.Sec. 2030.290, subd. (c); 2031.300, subd. (c).) Further, "[t]he court may award sanctions under the Discovery Act in favor of a party who files a motion to compel discovery, even though no opposition to the motion was filed, or opposition to the motion was withdrawn, or the requested discovery was provided to the moving party after the motion was filed." (Cal.

Rules of Court, rule 3.1348(a).) An order granting a request for monetary sanctions is proper where unsworn responses are provided. (See Appleton v. Superior Court (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 632, 636.)

Plaintiff initially requested $260 in monetary sanctions for each motion but later increased the amount in his replies. The Court finds that monetary sanctions are proper, but the Court declines to award any amount beyond what was requested in the notice of motion, as the motion made no indication that Plaintiff intended to seek further sanctions, and Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.040 requires that a request for sanctions be included with the initial motion, i.e., it would be improper to increase the amount in the reply. Thus, Plaintiff Tigran Hovanesyan's Request for Monetary Sanctions is GRANTED in the amount of $520, payable by Defendant Daniel Croizat and defense counsel to Plaintiff Tigran Hovanesyan and Plaintiff's counsel within thirty (30) days of entry of this order.

Case Number: 23SMCV00149 Hearing Date: August 18, 2026 Dept: N TENTATIVE RULING

Defendant Hans Joerg Dau's Motion for Order Deeming Admitted the Truth of Facts and Genuineness of Documents Alleged in Defendant's Requests for Admissions, Set One, Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections [sic] 2033.280 is GRANTED. The matters identified in Defendant Hans Joerg Dau's Requests for Admissions, Set One, are deemed admitted as of the date of entry of this order. Defendant Hans Joerg Dau's Request for Monetary Sanctions is DENIED. Defendant Hans Joerg Dau to give notice.

REASONING

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.280, subdivision (b), a "party may move for an order that the genuineness of any documents and the truth of any matters specified in the requests be deemed admitted, as well as for a monetary sanction." The court "shall" grant the motion to deem requests for admission admitted "unless it finds that the party to whom the requests for admission have been directed has served, before the hearing on the motion, a proposed response to the requests for admission that is in substantial compliance with Section 2033.220." (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 2033.280, subd. (c).)

Defendant Hans Joerg Dau ("Defendant") served Plaintiff Javier Napoles ("Plaintiff") with his Requests for Admissions, Set One, on January 15, 2026. (Mot., Hancock Decl. P.P. 2, 3.) Responses were due on or before February 16, 2026, and defense counsel communicated with Plaintiff to obtain responses after the deadline. (Mot., Hancock Decl. P. 3.) To date, no responses have been received. (Mot., Hancock Decl. P.P. 2, 3.) Accordingly, Defendant Hans Joerg Dau's Motion for Order Deeming Admitted the Truth of Facts and Genuineness of Documents Alleged in Defendant's Requests for Admissions, Set One, Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections [sic] 2033.280 is GRANTED. The matters identified in Defendant Hans Joerg Dau's Requests for Admissions, Set One, are deemed admitted as of the date of entry of this order.

Defendant requests $1,560 in monetary sanctions for the motion. (See Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 2033.280, subd. (c).) Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.040, "[a] request for a sanction shall, in the notice of motion, identify every person, party, and attorney against whom the sanction is sought, and specify the type of sanction sought." Defendant made no request for sanctions in the notice of motion. For that reason, Defendant Hans Joerg Dau's Request for Monetary Sanctions is DENIED.

Case Number: 25SMCV01900 Hearing Date: August 18, 2026 Dept: N TENTATIVE RULING

Defendants Obaida Batal, M.D., and Batal Medical, Inc.'s Demurrer to Second Amended Complaint is OVERRULED. The Amended Second Amended Complaint filed on March 16, 2026 is deemed the operative pleading in this action. Defendants Obaida Batal, M.D., and Batal Medical, Inc. shall file and serve an answer to Plaintiff Sonya Daniels' Amended Second Amended Complaint within ten (10) days of entry of this order. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1320(j).) Defendants Obaida Batal, M.D., and Batal Medical, Inc. to give notice.

First Cause of Action: Violations of the Confidentiality of Medical Information Act (Civil Code section 56 et seq.)

The California Confidentiality of Medical Information Act (CMIA), codified at Civil Code section 56.35, provides a cause of action for "a patient whose medical information has been used or disclosed . . . and who has sustained economic loss or personal injury therefrom."

In the first cause of action, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants sent a text message on September 19, 2022 containing Plaintiff's preoperative medical video, which depicted Plaintiff "basically without clothing," without her consent. (SAC, p. 2.) Plaintiff further alleges that in October 2023, Defendants contacted Plaintiff, threatening to post the video online, and between September 2022 and November 2024, Defendants sent the video to other unauthorized third parties, relaying information from Plaintiff's patient filed to third party Robert Hashemiyoon without consent, and made jokes and comments about Plaintiff while sharing information in Plaintiff's file with unauthorized third parties. (Ibid.)

Defendants also allegedly made several phone calls threatening to post Plaintiff's information online, they shared information with unauthorized third party Marcus Cato, and they left a voicemail on October 6, 2023, making derogratory remarks using Plaintiff's confidential medical information. (SAC, p. 3.) Plaintiff further alleges that the personal information was sent from her phone to Defendants' phone while she was sedated. (Ibid.) Plaintiff alleges that she suffered emotional distress and damages as a result of this conduct. (SAC, p. 5.)

In an "Amended" version of the SAC, Plaintiff further alleges that the video was posted on Defendants' Facebook page without her consent, tagging Plaintiff, and information shared included her driver's license number, social security number, medical videos, and results; offensive comments were made to third parties Elyssa Geinfeld, Jessica Gil, and Robert Hashemiyoon; and third party Marcus Cato received a copy of the video. (Am. SAC, pp. 2-3.)

The Court finds that Plaintiff has sufficiently stated a claim for violation of the California Confidentiality of Medical Information Act. Notably, if Defendants had sufficiently met and conferred with Plaintiff, this dispute could have avoided court intervention because Plaintiff proceeded to address the points in Defendants' demurrer in the Amended SAC she filed on March 16, 2026. Rather than try to resolve the issues, Defendants opted to file this