Beykpour v. Lysenko CA1/3

Filed 8/2/16 Beykpour v. Lysenko CA1/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

PEYMAN BEYKPOUR, Plaintiff and Appellant, A142838 v. ESTATE OF LYSENKO, (Sonoma County Super. Ct. No. SCV252819) Defendant and Respondent.

Peyman Beykpour appeals from a judgment on a jury verdict awarding him $4,600 in his suit against the Estate of Helen P. Lysenko (the Estate) for damages arising from an automobile accident. Beykpour contends that the court abused its discretion when it allowed the Estate to amend its answer to the complaint at the beginning of trial, and denied his request to continue the trial. The court had reasonable grounds for the rulings and we affirm the judgment. I. BACKGROUND Lysenko rear ended Beykpour’s car on December 2, 2010. She died in August 2012, and Beykpour filed a verified amended complaint against Lysenko’s estate in December 2012. The Estate’s answer asserted a general denial and affirmative defenses. Beykpour moved to strike the answer, and the Estate amended its answer. The amended answer asserted a general denial, affirmative defenses, and responses to specific allegations of the amended complaint. The responses to the specific allegations admitted Lysenko’s fault in the accident, and that the collision caused personal injury and property damage.

1

Paragraph 8 of the amended complaint alleged: “Long before, immediately prior to, and at the time of the collision, plaintiff was healthy with no acute or chronic physical or nervous conditions resulting in pain and/or suffering.” Paragraph 12 alleged: “Plaintiff is informed and believes as a proximate result of this violent collision, plaintiff was injured in his health, strength, and activity, and sustained injury to his body and shock and injury to his nervous system and person, and sustained the following personal injuries, among others: spinal cord contusion and shearing resulting in pain in cervical plexus, brachial plexus, thoracic nerves, lumbar and sacral plexus, and sciatica, along with wrist and shoulder sprain, all of which injuries have caused and continue to cause plaintiff great mental, physical, and nervous pain and suffering. These injuries will result in some permanent disability to plaintiff, all to his general damage.” The amended answer responded to paragraph 8: “Defendant lacks information or belief sufficient to answer the allegations of this paragraph as defendant has no information regarding the plaintiff (sic) prior health status.” The answer responded to paragraph 12: “Defendant admits that the plaintiff sustained some pain and personal injuries as a result of this incident. Defendant has not yet retained any experts and is unable to admit whether plaintiff ‘sustained spinal cord contusion and shearing’ or ‘permanent disability.’ ” In July 2013, Beykpour moved to strike the general denial, the affirmative defenses, and the response to paragraph 1 of the amended complaint. The Estate’s opposition stated in part: “[D]espite the fact that defense counsel has on multiple occasions represented that the only issues in this case are causation and damages, and discovery responses substantiate this, the plaintiff persists in making arguments over practically every sentence in the answer, insisting that the answer be amended once again until he is satisfied with the way each sentence reads. This is despite the fact that on May 28, 2013, the plaintiff served Requests for Admissions, that addressed almost all the issues and problems he finds with the answer, and these requests have been responded