Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 19STCV25342, Date: 2023-01-13 Tentative Ruling



Case Number: 19STCV25342    Hearing Date: January 13, 2023    Dept: 32

PLEASE NOTE:  Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at sscdept32@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  If the Court does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on the tentative and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may place the motion off calendar.  If a party submits on the tentative, the party’s email must include the case number and must identify the party submitting on the tentative.  If the parties do not submit on the tentative, they should arrange to appear in-person or remotely which is highly encouraged.  Further, after the Court has posted/issued a tentative ruling, the Court has the inherent authority to prohibit the withdrawal of a motion and adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.  

 

TENTATIVE RULING

 

DEPARTMENT

32

HEARING DATE

January 13, 2023

CASE NUMBER

19STCV25342

MOTIONS

Motion to Compel Mental Examination

MOVING PARTY

Defendants Universal Waste Systems, Inc. and Luis Manuel Zarate

OPPOSING PARTY

None

 

            Defendants Universal Waste Systems, Inc. and Luis Manuel Zarate (collectively, Defendants) move to compel Plaintiff Joseph Davison (Plaintiff) to submit to a mental examination by Dean Delis, Ph.D.  Plaintiff has not filed an opposition.

 

            Preliminarily, the Court notes Defendants have failed to attach a copy of the notice of the mental examination noticing the subject mental examination to Plaintiff.  From the declaration of Defendants’ counsel, Kevin L. Henderson, it seems Defendants have not yet noticed a mental examination on Plaintiff.  (Declaration of Kevin L. Henderson, ¶¶ 9-11.)  Because Plaintiff has not yet been noticed for the mental examination, it is unclear whether Plaintiff will submit to the subject mental examination, and by extension whether a motion to compel mental examination is necessary.  Accordingly, the Court denies the instant motion as premature and thus procedurally defective.