DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
CGC24613355·sf·Civil·Personal Injury
Hearing 9 months agoDENIED

CAROLINA MAGALLANES MOLINA ET AL VS. YOGESH B. PARIKH ET AL

Motion For Leave To Compel Independent Mental Exam Of Plaintiff Carolina Magallanes Molina

Hearing date
Nov 24, 2025
Department
301
Judge
Prevailing
Plaintiff

Motion type

Browse all Motion to Compel Discovery rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffCAROLINA MAGALLANES MOLINA
DefendantYOGESH B. PARIKH
DefendantUBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

Ruling

SF Superior Court - Law & Motion / Discovery Dept 301 - CGC24613355 - November 24, 2025 Hearing date: November 24, 2025 Case number: CGC24613355 Case title: CAROLINA MAGALLANES MOLINA ET AL VS. YOGESH B. PARIKH ET AL Case Number: | | CGC24613355 | Case Title: | | CAROLINA MAGALLANES MOLINA ET AL VS. YOGESH B. PARIKH ET AL | Court Date: | | 2025-11-24 09:00 AM | Calendar Matter: | | Motion For Leave To Compel Independent Mental Exam Of Plaintiff Carolina Magallanes Molina | Rulings: | | On the Law and Motion/Discovery calendar for November 24, 2025, line 3. DEFENDANT UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.'S Motion For Leave To Compel Independent Mental Exam Of Plaintiff Carolina Magallanes Molina.

1. The motion is untimely under CCP 2024.010 and 2024.020(a).

2. In May of 2025, defendant filed a motion to continue trial on the basis that plaintiff recently disclosed that she had a head injury. (Ladva Decl., Ex. A.) Per the parties stipulation of June 30, 2025, the court continued the trial date to December 15, 2025. The parties also agreed that the new discovery cutoff would be based on that trial date. Despite knowing that it needed to file a motion and obtain an order to conduct the mental examination (CCP 2032.310(a)), defendant did not file a motion until the eve of trial. The request is untimely under CCP 2024.010 because the discovery needed to be completed (or the examination commence) at least 30-days before the current trial date. (CCP 2024.020(a).)

3. If the Presiding Judge grants the pending motion to continue the trial date and extends the discovery cut-off motion may be renewed.

For the 9:00 a.m. calendar, all attorneys and parties may appear in Department 301 remotely or in person. Remote hearings will be conducted by videoconference using Zoom. (Dept. 301 Zoom ID 161 502 4290; Passcode 700956.) To appear remotely at the hearing, go to the court's website at sfsuperiorcourt.org under "Online Services," navigate to "Tentative Rulings," and click on the appropriate link, or dial the corresponding phone number.

Any party who contests a tentative ruling must send an email to contestdept301tr@sftc.org with a copy to all other parties by 4pm stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests. The subject line of the email shall include the line number, case name and case number. The text of the email shall include the name and contact information, including email address, of the attorney or party who will appear at the hearing.

Counsel for the prevailing party is required to prepare a proposed order which repeats verbatim the substantive portion of the tentative ruling and must email it to contestdept301tr@sftc.org prior to the hearing even if the tentative ruling is not contested.

The court no longer provides a court reporter in the Law & Motion or Discovery Department. Parties may retain their own reporter, who may appear in the courtroom or remotely. A retained reporter must be a California certified court reporter (CSR), for only a CSR's transcript may be used in California courts. If a CSR is being retained, include in your email all of the following: their name, CSR and telephone numbers, and their individual work email address. =(301/VJ-BZ) | |

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