FLORENDO v. DOLLAR TREE STORES, INC.

(Norwalk Courthouse: Dept. R) September 8, 2026 DEPARTMENT R LAW AND MOTION RULINGS Case Number: 23NWCV02321 Hearing Date: September 8, 2026 Dept: R #20 FLORENDO v. DOLLAR TREE STORES, INC. CASE NO.: 23NWCV02321 HEARING: Thursday, August 13, 2026, at 9:30 AM I. Defendant DOLLAR TREE STORES, INC's Motion to Compel an Independent Mental Examination is CONTINUED to Wednesday, October 7, 2026, at 9:30 AM in Dept. SE-R. II. Defendant DOLLAR TREE STORES, INC's Motion for Protective Order is CONTINUED to Wednesday, October 7, 2026, at 9:30 AM in Dept. SE-R. Moving Party to give notice.

Background

On July 24, 2023, Plaintiff JENNIFER FLORENDO ("Plaintiff") filed this Negligence action against Defendants DOLLAR TREE STORES, INC. ("Defendant") and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive. Defendants WHITTIER CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT and ROBERTO PETER MEDINA ("Defendants") now seek an order granting leave of the Court to obtain a neurosurgical examination of Plaintiff AGUSTINA CISNEROS ("Plaintiff").

Discussion

On August 13, 2026, the Court issued the following orders: "Further, the Court does not believe Counsel have exhausted their meet and confer obligations pursuant to Code. Indeed, Counsel Sallander declared that on May 28, 2026, he sent a letter to Plaintiff Counsel asking Counsel to withdraw the cumulative, excessive, and duplicative discovery requests. Counsel are advised that their meet and confer efforts should go beyond merely sending letters stating their respective positions. (See Townsend v.

Superior Court (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 1431, 1439.) "A determination of whether an attempt at informal resolution is adequate...involves the exercise of discretion. The level of effort at an informal resolution which satisfies the 'reasonable and good faith attempt' standard depends upon the circumstances. In a larger, more complex discovery request, a greater effort at informal resolution may be warranted. In a simpler, or more narrowly focused case, a more modest effort may suffice. The history of the litigation, the nature of the interaction between counsel, the nature of the issues, the type and scope of the discovery requested, the prospects for success and other similar factors can be relevant.

Judges have broad powers and responsibilities to determine what measures and procedures are appropriate in varying circumstances." (Obregon v. Sup. Ct. (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 424, 431.)¿¿ Therefore, the Court ORDERS the parties to meet and confer. Thereafter, the parties must submit a JOINT PROTECTIVE ORDER. If the parties agree on a protective order, the matter will be taken off calendar. If the parties are unable to stipulate to a protective order, each party may submit a proposed protective order to the Court by Friday, August 28, 2026.

The Court will consider the proposed protective orders and issue a ruling thereafter." (08/13/26, M.O.) "Therefore, the Court ORDERS the parties to meet and confer. Thereafter, the parties must submit a JOINT PROTECTIVE ORDER limiting what documents may and may not be produced. If the parties agree on a protective order, the matter will be taken off calendar. If the parties are unable to stipulate to a protective order, each party may submit a proposed protective order to the Court by Friday, August 28, 2026.

The Court will consider the proposed protective orders and issue a ruling thereafter." (08/13/26, M.O.)

On September 1, 2026, Defendant submitted "Declaration of Spencer T. Sallander Re Proposed Protective Order(s) Per Court Order and Plaintiff submitted Dr. Richard Frederick's declaration in response to Defendant's, "Declaration of Spencer T. Sallander Re Proposed Protective Order(s) Per Court Order." Given the parties' late filings, the Court requires additional time to rule on the instant motions. Thus, the matter is continued.

Case Number: 24NWCV00331 Hearing Date: September 8, 2026 Dept: R #18 GARCIA v. LA MIRADA POST ACUTE, LLC ET AL. CASE NO.: 24NWCV00331 HEARING: Tuesday, September 8, 2026, at 9:30 AM I. Defendants SUN MAR MANAGEMENT SERVICES and SUN MERIDIAN MANAGEMENT SERVICES, LLC's Demurrer is OVERRULED. II. Defendants SUN MAR MANAGEMENT SERVICES and SUN MERIDIAN MANAGEMENT SERVICES, LLC's Motion to Strike is DENIED. Defendants to Answer within 10 days. Moving Party to give notice.

Background

On January 31, 2024, Plaintiff MARCOS GARCIA filed this action against Defendants LA MIRADA POST ACUTE, LLC ("Sunny") and DOES 1 through 200, inclusive. On April 6, 2026, Plaintiffs MARCOS GARCIA, by and through his Successor-in-Interest, Perla Garcia; PERLA GARCIA; LUZ MARIA GARCIA; MAIRA GARCIA; and DANIEL GARCIA ("Plaintiffs") filed the operative Second Amended Complaint. ("SAC").