Smith v. Sprouts Farmers Market CA2/3

Filed 1/31/22 Smith v. Sprouts Farmers Market CA2/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

DONNA SMITH, B303727

Plaintiff and Appellant, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC675730) v.

SPROUTS FARMERS MARKET, INC.,

Defendant and Respondent.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Stephen I. Goorvitch, Judge. Affirmed. Donna Smith, in pro. per, for Plaintiff and Appellant. Bradley & Gmelich, Lindy F. Bradley, Mark I. Melo and Dawn Cushman for Defendant and Respondent.

‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗

Plaintiff Donna Smith appeals from a judgment entered against her and in favor of defendant SF Markets, LLC. (erroneously sued as Sprouts Farmers Market, Inc.).1 Plaintiff urges the judgment should be reversed because the trial court erroneously granted defendant’s motion to compel plaintiff to appear for an independent medical exam (IME) and issued a flawed and incomplete settled statement. We conclude that plaintiff has failed to demonstrate prejudicial error, and thus we will affirm. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND A. Complaint, Discovery Disputes, and Judgment Plaintiff filed the present action for negligence and premises liability against defendant in September 2017. The operative complaint alleged that plaintiff suffered serious bodily injuries as a result of slipping and falling on a slippery substance while shopping at a Sprouts Farmers Market. Plaintiff claimed

1 Plaintiff also purported to appeal from orders entered on December 11, 2018, and March 1, March 6, April 2, April 3, June 5, October 15, November 12, and November 14, 2019. The trial court issued prejudgment orders on several of these dates— specifically, on March 1, 2019, the court ruled on defendant’s motion to compel plaintiff’s deposition; on April 2, 2019, the court granted defendant’s motion to compel an independent medical exam; on June 5, 2019, the court granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment; and on October 15, 2019, the court denied plaintiff’s motion to strike/tax costs. These prejudgment orders are not separately appealable; they are, however, reviewable as part of plaintiff’s appeal from the judgment. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 904.1, 906; Abramson v. Juniper Networks, Inc. (2004) 115 Cal.App.4th 638, 648.) It does not appear that orders were entered on the remaining dates.