LAINEZ, JUANA CASTILLO DE vs CITY OF CERES

Stanislaus County - Civil - https://www.stanislaus.courts.ca.gov/online-services/tentative-rulings/civil-tentati ve-rulings Civil Tentative Rulings June 5, 2026 The following are the tentative rulings for cases calendared before Judge John R. Mayne in Department 21:

CV-23-006360 - LAINEZ, JUANA CASTILLO DE vs CITY OF CERES - Defendant County of Stanislaus' Motion for Order Compelling Plaintiff to Submit to an Examination - DENIED.

Code of Civil Procedure Sec. 2032.220(a) states, "In any case in which a plaintiff is seeking recovery for personal injuries, any defendant may demand one physical examination of the plaintiff, if both of the following conditions are satisfied: [P.] (1) The examination does not include any diagnostic test or procedure that is painful, protracted, or intrusive. [P.] (2) The examination is conducted at a location within 75 miles of the residence of the examinee."

A party seeking to deviate from these parameters must first seek leave from the Court (see Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 2032.310(a)) and must show good cause (see Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 2032.320(a)). In addition, where the examination is noticed for a location more than 75 miles from the examinee's residence, the Court may make the order only if "(1) [t]he court determines that there is good cause for the travel involved," and "(2) [t]he order is conditioned on the advancement by the moving party of the reasonable expenses and costs to the examinee for travel to the place of examination." (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 2032.320(e).)

As Defendant notes, " " 'Good cause' in the context of this motion is a demonstration of 'relevance and specific facts showing the need for the information and the lack of means for obtaining it elsewhere.' (Vinson v. Superior Court (1987) 43 Cal. 3d 833, 840.)" (Mem., at p. 4 [emphasis added].)

None of the reasons set forth in the motion meet this standard. Defendant asserts, inter alia, that "Defendant cannot be sure of retaining a North Carolina physician with the same attributes as Dr. Purnell and would have no reasonable way of vetting out-of-state doctors to find one with the appropriate professional qualifications and the ability to testify in a reasonable manner and to not have some unknown, disqualifying history." (Mem., at p. 5.)

However, as Plaintiff has noted in her opposition, Durham, North Carolina probably has competent physicians for this task. The Court is not convinced that Defendant's efforts have been sufficient to overcome the code's requirements. Defendant's other stated reasons-- that Defendant would like to use the Modesto doctor it already knows and would prefer in-person testimony from its expert--also do not rise to the level of showing a lack of means.

On reply, Defendant further contends, "Plaintiff has not presented any evidence she is currently unable to travel." (Reply, at p. 1.) This contention, however, reverses the burden of proof. The burden is not on Plaintiff to demonstrate that she cannot currently travel; rather, the burden is on Defendant to show why Plaintiff's travel is necessary.

CV-24-009613 - RUIZ, ANA vs G3 ENTERPRISES INC - Final Approval Hearing - HEARING REQUIRED.

The Court would like additional information regarding the costs incurred by the Koul Law Firm. Provided that Class Counsel can explain the costs to the Court's satisfaction, and further providing that there are no unexpected issues, the Court is inclined to GRANT the motion.

It appears that proper notice to the settlement class has been given in compliance with the law and as required by the Court's order granting preliminary approval. Having considered the unopposed motion herein and the supporting declarations and evidence, the Court finds that the settlement was entered into good faith, is fair, reasonable, and adequate, and satisfies the standards for final approval under California law. (Civil Code Sec. 1781; Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 382; Cal. R. Ct., rule 3.769.)

Good cause appearing to the satisfaction of the Court, the proposed settlement and the associated fees and costs are approved as set forth in the motions and supporting papers, as follows: Fees and costs of Settlement Administrator: $12,000;