Final Compliance Hearing
On December 1, 2025, Plaintiffs filed proof of service of summons on “House Agent AAA NCNU.” (RJN, Exhiti A.) It indicates Plaintiff served CT Corporation System, Registered Agent” at 330 N. Brand Blvd., Ste 700, Glendale, CA 91203. (Ibid.)
This motion is based upon evidence presented in and attached to the declaration of Kimberlei Evans. That declaration has not been filed. Instead, it appears AAA inadvertently twice filed the declaration of Kristin Choi. Accordingly, the motion is CONTINUED to June 10, 2026, at 3:00 p.m., in Department 16, to allow AAA to file the Evans declaration.
6. SCV-267534, Garcia v. Rustic Bakery, Inc.
This matter was inadvertently set twice for a final compliance hearing. When the parties appeared on March 18, 2026, the final compliance hearing was continued to July 29, 2026, at 3:00 p.m., in Department 16. Therefore, this hearing is taken off calendar and the final compliance hearing will be on July 29.
7. SCV-273553, Insurance Company of the West, a California Corporation v. Blakeslee
Defendant Christopher Terrell Blakeslee (“Defendant”) moves pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 2023.030(a) and 2023.010(d) for an order compelling Plaintiff Ephraim Giron Goltiao (“Plaintiff”) to respond to and answer Dr. McIntire’s questions regarding Plaintiff’s medical history at the time of the IME with Dr. McIntire. Defendant requests sanctions in the amount of $4,440.
1. Independent Medical Examination (“IME”)
In response to Defendant’s noticing an IME for Plaintiff, Plaintiff provided a response and objections. (McGruder decl., Exhibit B.) Plaintiff objected, in part: “Defendants’ demand for the physical examination of Plaintiff improperly seeks to subject Plaintiff to an oral examination of his history. The Civil Discovery Act does not expressly authorize a medical examiner to conduct an oral examination of a party’s ‘history’. Accordingly, Defendants are not entitled to take a history of Plaintiff.”
Defendant argues not allowing the medical examiner to obtain an oral history related to Plaintiff’s injuries would be prejudicial as it would significantly limit the utility of the IME. Plaintiff alleges he sustained neck and back injuries as well as a traumatic brain injury as a result of the subject accident, reporting ongoing symptoms including dizziness and vertigo, severe headache episodes, constant ringing in his ears, tingling and numbness in his right arm, and intermittent right knee pain. In taking an oral history related to the accident, Dr. McIntire, a board-certified neurologist physician, will seek to understand the exact nature of each of these symptoms, how they evolved since the accident, and whether the symptoms/conditions make sense neurologically or can be reasonably attributed to the accident in question.
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
Defendant cites Britt v. Superior Court (1978) 20 Cal.3d 844 for the proposition that the scope of permitted inquiry depends upon the nature of the injuries which the patient litigant himself has brought before the court. As relevant here, Britt discussed the defendant’s challenge to the trial court’s discovery order compelling them to disclose their entire lifetime medical histories. “Plaintiffs stress, in this regard, that while they are completely willing to provide defendant with medical information which relates in any way to the physical or emotional injuries for which they seek recovery in the underlying action—and, indeed, that they have already done so—they object to the trial court's unlimited order which requires them to comply with defendant's request for 10