DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
2024CUPA024590·ventura·Civil·Mental Examination
Hearing 3 months agoCONTINUED

NICHOLAS MARINARO vs KEN Z KUANG

Motion for Leave to Obtain Mental Examination of Plaintiff

Hearing date
Jun 2, 2026
Department
20
Judge
Prevailing
N/A
Next hearing
Jun 30, 2026

Motion type

Browse all Other rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffNICHOLAS MARINARO
DefendantKEN Z KUANG

Ruling

2024CUPA024590: NICHOLAS MARINARO vs KEN Z KUANG 06/02/2026 in Department 20 Motion for Leave to Obtain Mental Examination of Plaintiff

Motion: Defendant Ken Z. Kuang’s Motion for Leave to Obtain Mental Examination of Plaintiff

Tentative: The Court intends to CONTINUE the Motion for Leave to Obtain Mental Examination of Plaintiff to June 30, 2026, at 8:20 a.m. to allow Defendant to serve the “Exhibit List For Defendant's Motion for Leave to Obtain Mental Examination of Plaintiff.”

If Plaintiff’s counsel appears at the hearing and waives notice, or alternatively, if in advance of the hearing, Defendant files a proof of service showing that the Exhibit List For Defendant's Motion for Leave to Obtain Mental Examination of Plaintiff was timely served on Plaintiff’s counsel, the Court is prepared to grant the motion since Defendant has established that Plaintiff has placed his mental condition in controversy and has established good cause for the proposed mental examination. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2032.310.)

Defendant shall provide notice of continuance, a proposed order reflecting the new date for the examination, and five days in advance of the hearing, shall file a proof of service of the Exhibit List For Defendant's Motion for Leave to Obtain Mental Examination of Plaintiff and the proposed order.

1

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