DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
S-CV-0050494·placer·Civil·Civil
Hearing 2 months agoAppearance required

Nicole Beaubien v. Cinemark

Defendant’s Motion to Compel Independent Medical Examination

Hearing date
Jun 12, 2026
Department
33
Prevailing
N/A

Motion type

Browse all Other rulings statewide →

Ruling

PLACER COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT CIVIL LAW AND MOTION TENTATIVE RULINGS FRIDAY, JUNE 12, 2026

These are the tentative rulings for civil law and motion matters set at 2:00 p.m. on Friday, June 12, 2026. The tentative ruling will be the court’s final ruling unless notice of appearance and request for oral argument are given to all parties and the court by 4:00 p.m., Thursday, June 11, 2026. Notice of request for oral argument to the court must be made by calling (916) 408-6481. Requests for oral argument made by any other method will not be accepted. Prevailing parties are required to submit orders after hearing to the court within 10 court days of the scheduled hearing date, and after approval as to form by opposing counsel. Court reporters are not provided by the court. Parties may provide a court reporter at their own expense.

Except as otherwise noted, these tentative rulings are issued by COMMISSIONER ALBERT A. ERKEL and if oral argument is requested, it will be heard in Department 33, located at 10820 Justice Drive, Roseville, California 95678.

1. S-CV-0049514 Liu, Ping v. The Original Mowbrays Tree Service

Motion to Compel Production of Documents by Plaintiff’s Expert Witness, Randall C. Epperson, PhD.

Appearance of the parties is required on June 12, 2026 at 2:00 p.m. in Department 33.

2. S-CV-0050494 Nicole Beaubien v. Cinemark

Defendant’s Motion to Compel Independent Medical Examination

Appearance of the parties is required on June 12, 2026 at 2:00 p.m. in Department 33.

3. S-CV-0052886 Foxx v. Roseville Joint Union High School District

Defendant’s Motion to Compel Independent Neuropsychological Examination

Pursuant to CCP § 2032.320(c), plaintiff has stipulated that: (1) no claim is being made for mental and emotional distress over and above that usually associated with the physical injuries claimed; and (2) no expert testimony regarding this usual mental and emotional distress will be presented at trial in support of the claim for damages.

Cited authorities

Extracting citations from the ruling text…
Verify against the source PDF — LLM extraction may miss or mis-normalize citations.

Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities

Ask about this ruling

Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”

Answers reference only this ruling's text. Not legal advice — always verify against the source PDF.

Find similar rulings

Source

Share