Julio Cesar Sandoval Madrid v. Margarita Robles Ortega

Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiff and Plaintiff's counsel are entitled to production of the raw test data and testing material from the neuropsychological examination at issue, subject to a protective order. Thus, the Court grants Plaintiff's request for Plaintiff's counsel to have access to the examination data, but the Court requires a protective order deeming all recordings and other data confidential, to be viewed and used by counsel and experts only, and requiring their destruction at the end of the instant case.

III. CONCLUSION

The Court GRANTS Defendant Buswest's Motion to Compel Mental Examination of Plaintiff.

[1] Per Buswest's counsel, during the meet and confer process, the parties agreed to the Sacramento location. (Cox Dec., P. 2.) Accordingly, the Court does not address the proposed location of the mental examination.

[2] The Court does not delve into Plaintiff's arguments as to the studies cited by Dr. Boone and the various studies cited by Plaintiff which Plaintiffs contends undermine Dr. Boone's asserted reasons for the proposed mental examination except to state, again, that counsel has laid no foundation that would suffice to substitute counsel's interpretation of medical treatises and the application of those treatises to the diagnosis of a medical condition for the interpretation and application of a medical professional.

[3] In the context of a claim for sexual assault, the Barrenda Court noted that "[t]he mere fact that a plaintiff has initiated an action seeking damages for extreme mental and emotional distress arising out of conduct of a sexual nature does not ipso facto provide "good cause" for discovery of other sexual conduct." (Barrenda, supra, 65 Cal.App.4th at p. 801.) Although the Barrenda Court's analysis was made in the context of a claim of sexual assault, the Court finds no reason the same analytic framework does not apply in instances such as are presented here. Plaintiff has claimed CRPD. The mere fact that Plaintiff has claimed CRPD does not warrant an inquiry into all aspects of Plaintiff's mental health.

[4] All audio recordings and test materials will be subject to a protective order as will be set forth herein.

[5] Further, as discussed in Randy's Trucking, "[w]hile this regulation requires psychologists to maintain test security, it does not address a psychologist's duty when a court order requires an attorney's access to psychological tests or devices, particularly subject to a protective order that requires the parties to safeguard the use of the tests or devices. Put another way, the regulation does not prohibit a psychologist from producing tests or devices when ordered by a court subject to a protective order." (Randy's Trucking, supra, 91 Cal.App.5th at p. 839.)

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - SOUTH CENTRAL DISTRICT Julio Cesar Sandoval Madrid, Plaintiff, vs. Margarita Robles Ortega and DOES to 20, inclusive, Defendants. |))))))))))) | CASE NO: 23CMCV01001 [TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: MOTION TO SET ASIDE AND VACATE ORDER OF DISMISSAL DATE: September 2, 2026 TIME: 8:30 A.M. DEPT.: E | Moving Party: Plaintiff Julio Cesar Sandoval Madrid Responding Party: None Notice: Ok SHAPE \* MERGEFORMAT Tentative Ruling: Plaintiff's Motion to Set Aside and Vacate Order of Dismissal is DENIED. SHAPE \* MERGEFORMAT

I. BACKGROUND

This is an action for personal injury. Plaintiff Julio Cesar Sandoval Madrid alleges that, on July 9, 2021, Defendant Margarita Robles Orega backed her vehicle at a high rate of speed and struck Plaintiff while he was standing in the parking lot of Plaza Mexico shopping Center.

On July 3, 2023, Plaintiff filed this action against Ortega and Does 1 to 20, inclusive, alleging cause of action for: (1) Negligence and (2) Unsafe Backing. Ortega filed her Answer on August 7, 2024.

At the January 14, 2026 Case Management Conference, the parties indicated to the Court that the matter had settled and the Court set an Order to Show Cause re: Dismissal for March 30, 2026. (See Minute Order, 1/14/26.)

At the March 30, 2026 Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal (Settlement), neither party made an appearance and the Court dismissed Plaintiff's Complaint without prejudice with the Court retaining jurisdiction pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Sec. 664.6. (See Minute Order, 3/30/26.)

On July 30, 2026, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Set Aside and Vacate Order of Dismissal. As of August 28, 2026, no opposition or reply papers have been filed.

Pursuant to Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 1005(b), all papers opposing a noticed motion must be filed with the court and served on all other parties "at least nine court days ... before the hearing" and all reply papers at least five court days before the hearing. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 1005(b).) Accordingly, any opposition or reply papers now filed are untimely, and the Court exercises its discretion to refuse to consider untimely filed papers. (Cal. R. Ct., Rule 3.1300(d); Mackey v. Bd. of Trustees of California State Univ. (2019) 31 Cal.App.5th 640, 657.)

II. ANALYSIS

A.

Legal Standard

Code of Civil Procedure section 473(b) "provides for both discretionary and mandatory relief. [Citation.]" (Pagnini v. Union Bank, N.A. (2018) 28 Cal.App.5th 298, 302.) An application for relief under this section must be made no more than six months after entry of the judgment, dismissal, order, or other proceeding from which relief is sought, and must be accompanied by an affidavit of fault attesting the mistake, inadvertence, surprise or neglect of the moving party or its attorney. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 473(b); English v. IKON Business Solutions (2001) 94 Cal.App.4th 130, 143.)

In addition, an application for relief under this section "shall be accompanied by a copy of the answer or other pleading proposed to be filed herein, otherwise the application shall not be granted." (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 473(b).) Relief under this section is mandatory when based on an attorney affidavit of fault; otherwise, it is discretionary. (Ibid.)

B.

Discussion

Plaintiff moves for an order to set aside and vacate the dismissal pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Sec. 473(b), arguing that Plaintiff's counsel mistakenly failed to appear at the March 30, 2026 hearing where the Court dismissed the matter and this mistake constitutes excusable neglect pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Sec. 473(b).

Plaintiff's counsel, Ricardo Antonio Perez ("Perez") attaches a declaration attesting to failing to appear at the hearing on March 30, 2026 because of his mistake, inadvertence, surprise, and neglect. (Perez Decl., P.4.)

Here, Plaintiff's counsel does not state any facts substantiating any mistake, inadvertence, surprise, and/or excusable neglect that led to his failure to appear at the March 30, 2026 hearing. Instead, Perez simply attests in a summary fashion that he failed to appear on March 30, 2026 "because of [his] mistake, inadvertence, surprise, and neglect." (Perez Decl., P. 4.)

Plaintiff argues that if the motion is not granted, Plaintiff will suffer the loss of his right to a jury trial and to a trial on the merits. (Mot.; p. 3:13-14.) However, the parties have indicated to the Court that the matter has settled, (see Minute Order 1/14/2026) and the Court has dismissed the Complaint without prejudice pursuant to the parties' settlement while retaining jurisdiction pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Sec. 664.6.

As the parties have represented to the Court, a settlement agreement is in place. There is no indication or explanation as to why, if a settlement agreement is in place, this matter need be reinstated to the Court's active calendar rather than simply enforcing the settlement agreement.

Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's Motion to Set Aside. The Court's denial is without prejudice to Plaintiff presenting further argument detailing what exact mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect warrants setting aside the dismissal and explaining why, if a settlement agreement is in place, the dismissal need be set aside

Case Number: 25CMCV01380 Hearing Date: September 2, 2026 Dept: E SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - SOUTH CENTRAL DISTRICT MERCURY INSURANCE COMPANY, a corporation, Plaintiff, vs. HUNTER NOA, an individual; JANNY DORA NOA, an individual, Defendants. |))))))))