Notice Entry of Order

Cal. Super. - 6th Dist.September 26, 2019

ATTORNEY OR PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY (Name, Stale Ssr number, and address). - Rebecca D. Nartino, Esq. SBN: 236094 Coddington, Hicks & Danforth 555 Twin Dolphin Drive, Suite 300 Redwood City, CA 94065 TstEPHONENO 650 - 592 - 5400 FAXNO (Optionet) 650-592-5027 EMAI(ADDRESB(opmnat) rmartinoechdlawyers. corn ATTDRNEY FQR (Name)t De fendant, BOnnie Stein sUPERIoR coURT DF GALIFoRNIA, coUNTY QF SANTA CLARA sTREETADDREss'91 North First Street MAIUNGADDREss. San JOSe, Califamia 95 1 13 CITY AND ZIP CODE: BRANCH NAME PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER: MICHAEL NAHNOU FOR COURT USE ONLY CIV-130 DEFENDANT/REsPONDENT: BONNIE STEIN, et al. NOTICE OF ENTRY OF JUDGMENT OR ORDER CASE NUMBER 19CV355713 (Check ona)) QQ UNLIMITED CASE (Amount demanded exceeded $25,000) ~ LIMITED CASE (Amount demanded was $25,000 or less) TO ALL PARTIES: t. A judgment, decree, or order was entered in this action on (date)( July 14, 2021 2. A copy of the judgment, decree, or order is attached to this notice. Date: July 28, 2021 Rmbmr r a n Mzvt.n Ttn (TYPE OR PRINT NAME OF Qg ATTORNEY ~ PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY) /s / Rmtnmr rm TI Mnvt I nn(SIGNATURE) Form Approved for Optional Use Judtoial Counml of California 0 IV-120 (New January I, 2010) NOTICE OF ENTRY OF JUDGMENT OR ORDER Page I of 2 www.saudrnm.oe gov ('tjo; Essential ja;Forms. Nahmou v. Stein, et al. Electronically Filed by Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, on 7/28/2021 4:45 PM Reviewed By: System System Case #19CV355713 Envelope: 6944905 19CV355713 Santa Clara - Civil System System PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER MICHAEL NAHMOU DEFENDANT/REsPQNDENT: BONNIE STEIN, et al . CASE NUMBER. 19CV355713 CIV-130 PROOF OF SERVICE BY FIRST-CLASS MAIL NOTICE OF ENTRY OF JUDGIIENT OR ORDER (NOTE( You cannot serve the Notice of Entry of Judgment or Order if you are a partyin the action. The person who served the notice must complete this proof of service.) 1. I am at least 18 years old and not a party to this action. I am a resident of or employed in the county where the mailing took place, and my residence or business address is (specify): See attached proof of service. 2. I served a copy of the Notice of Entry of Judgment or Order by enclosing it in a sealed envelope with postage fully prepaid and (check one): a. ~ deposited the sealed envelope with the United States Postal Service. b. ~ placed the sealed envelope for collection and processing for mailing, following this business's usual practices, with which I am readily familiar. On the same day correspondence is placed for collection and mailing, it is deposited in the ordinary course of business with the United States Postal Service. 3. The Notice of Entry of Judgmenl or Order was mailed: a. on (dale): b. from (cily and state): 4. The envelope was addressed and mailed as follows: a. Name of person served: c. Name of person served: Street address: City: State and zip code: b. Name of person served: Street address: City: State and zip code: d. Name of person served: Street address: City: State and zip code; Street address: City: State and zip code: ~ Names and addresses of additional persons served are attached. (You may use form POS-030(P).) 5. Number of pages attached I dedare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Caiifomia that the foregoing is true and correct. Date; (TYPE OR PRINT NAME OF DECLARANT) (SIGNATURE OF DECLARANT) CIV 130 [New Jenunry I, 20)0) CLI3'ssential ensennr nn)FOlme. Pose 2 of 2 Nahmou v. Stein, et al. NOTICE OF ENTRY OF JUDGMENT OR ORDER H. Gregory Nelch, Esq. - SBN 118258 Rebecca D. Martino, Esq. - SBN 236094 CODDINGTON& HICKS 80 DANFORTH A Professional Corporation, Lawyers 555 Twin Dolphin Drive, Suite 300 Redwood City, CA 94065-2133 Tel.: 650.592.5400 Fax: 650.592.5027 Filed July 14, 2021 Clerk of the Court Superior Court of CA County of Santa Clara 19CV355713 By: afloresca ATTORNEYS FOR Defendant Bonnie Stein Signed ~7/14 024 01.00 004 10 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 MICHAEL NAHMOU, Plaintiff, vs. BONNIE STEIN; and DOES 1 to 25, inclusive, Defendants. Case No. 19CV355713 ~PBSEI3] ORDER GRANTING i MOTION FOR AN ORDER THAT PLAINTIFF COMPLY WITH DEFENDANT'S DEMAND FOR A PSYCHIATRIC EVALUATION Date: July 6, 2021 Time: 9:00 a.m. Dept: 19 19 20 21 22 23 24 26 27 28 On July 6, 2021 at 9:00 a.m. in Department 19 of the above-referenced court, the motion of Defendant Bonnie Stein for an order that Plaintiff comply with Defendant's demand for a psychiatric evaluation, came on regularly for hearing, and good cause appearing therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that defendant Bonnie Stein's motion that plaintiff Michael Nahmou comply with defendant's demand For a psychiatric evaluation is GRANTED. The Court's ruling is based on the following: CCP Il 2032.020 states that any party may obtain discovery by means of a mental examination in any action in which the mental condition of that party "is in controversy in the I [Prttpttsed] Order Granting Motion for an Order for Plaintiff to Comply with Demand for Psych. EvaluationCase No: 19CV355713 785106 action." Cal. Civ. Code) 2032.020(a). Furthermore, the mental examination "shall be performed only by a licensed physician, or by a licensed clinical psychologist who holds a doctoral degree in psychology and has had at least five years of postgraduate experience." Cal. Civ. Code) 4 2032.020(c)(I). If a party makes such a motion, it must "specify the time, place, manner, conditions, scope, and nature oE the examination, as well as the identity and the specialty, if any, or the person or persons who will perform the examination." Cal. Civ. Code ij 2032.310(b ). Finally, "the motion shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040." Id. 10 12 13 15 17 First, the parties agree that Plaintiff's mental condition is in controversy in this action, since he claims that his depression was aggravated by the accident and has ruined his plans to attend medical school, and he seeks damages to that effect. Second, in Defendant's notice of the mental examination, her counsel specified the time and place of the examination, as well as the identities and specialties of Dr. Gould and Dr. Bramson. The notice also included the approximate length of time for the examination and listed the tests that would be conducted. Plaintiff's opposition argues that Stein did nor specify what tests would be conducted in the examination because the notice stated that "some or all" 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 of the following t.ests would be conducted. Plaintiff also points out that Dr. Gould's declaration lists the tests again, but also adds "an any other neuropsychological tests deemed necessary by the consulting psychologist." However, Dr. Gould's Declaration in support of Defendant's Reply to the Opposition clarifies that there will not be any neuropsychological tests administered and that the exhibit with that language attached to his first declaration was a "general IME description." Overall, since all possible tests were listed in the initial notice of the examination from Stein, it is diEficult to see how CCP Ij 2032.310(b) is not satisfied by the notice. 26 27 28 What is therefore at issue here is whether or not Plaintiff can limit the scope and dut'ation of the mental examination. Edtvards v. Superior Court, 16 Cal.3d 905 (1976) is quite helpful in addressing this question. In that case, the court denied Plaintiffs objection to the 2 IPropoaed] Order Granting Motion for an Order for Plaintiff to Comply with Demand for Psych. Evaluation Case No: 19CV355713 785106 10 duration of Defendant's proposed mental examination. Plaintiff requested a period less than four hours, but the court rejected this because Plaintiff "has not shown that an effective examination could be performed in less than four hours." Icy. Additionally, the court specified that "the trial court had discretion to require" the plaintiff to undetgo a longer examination. Itf. Finally, and perhaps most notably, the court compared the defendant's proposed examination to the relationship Plaintiff already had with his previous psychiatrist, pointing out that "fundamental fairness requires that a similar unrestricted professional exposure" should be allowed for the Defendant. Id. at 912. "This will assist the trier in obtaining a balanced and even-handed professional evaluation of the relationship of trauma to plaintiffs mental condition." Id. 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Here, Plaintiff argues in his opposition that "duplicative testing" places "an undue burden on the plaintiff," citing the good cause requirement as justification. Regarding good cause, Defendant requests the mental examination in the first place because Plaintiff seeks large amounts of damages for loss of earning capacity due to depression aggravated by the incident at hand. "Good cause" is therefore satisfied. Regarding the potential for duplicate tests, the Edwards case addresses the fact that a Defendant should be allowed "unrestricted professional exposure." While Plaintiff may have aheady undergone some of this testing with Dr. Reading, his own psychologist, it is reasonable that Stein should want her own hired psychiatrist to conduct an examination. 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Next, Plaintiff argues extensively that Stein's demand for "psychological testing and neuropsychological testing" is excessive. However, Dr. Gould's Reply clarified that tie neuropsychological testing will take place. As Plaintiff's Opposition points out, introducing new facts in a reply brief may not be appropriate, but Stein's i tris'aI notice of the mental examination was quite clear as to the scope of the testing. Therefore, Dr. Gould's clarification is not necessarily "new." Regarding Plaintiffs additional request that only one person conduct the entire examination, the statute says that notice must provide the "person or persons" conducting the examination, which Defendant did supply in her initial notice. It is therefore unclear what grounds Plaintiff has for rejecting the two professionals. 3 t 'l Order Granting Motion for an Order for Plaintiff to Comply with Demand for Psych. Evaluation Case No: 19CV355713 785106 IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED: The psychiatric examination, including interview to be conducted by Dr. Gould and testing to be conducted by Dr. Bramson, will be limited to seven hours, exclusive of breaks. Should the seven hours prove not to be enough time to complete the examination, the parties can contact Judge Kirwan in Dept. 19 to arrange to appear ex parte by conference call to address the matter with Judge Kirwan. sened: tl14I2021 11a4AM c By: The Honorable Judge of the Superior Court 10 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 27 28 4 Case o; 19CV355713 sedl Order Granting Motion for an Order for Plaintiff to Comply with Demand for Psych. Evaluation 785106 PROOF OF SERVICE California Code of Civil Procedure sections 1011, 1013, 1013a, 2015.5 California Rule of Court rule 2.251 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 5(b) I, the undersigned, declare that I am employed in the County of San Mateo, State of California. I am over the age oE eighteen (18) years and not a party to the within action. My business address is 555 Twin Dolphin Drive, Suite 300, Redwood City, California 94065. My electronic mail address is hporter(Rchdlawyers.corn 10 I am readily familiar with my employer's business practice for collection and processing of correspondence and documents for mailing with the United States Postal Service, mailing via overnight delivery, transmission by facsimile machine, and delivery by hand. 12 On July 28, 2021, I served a copy of each of the documents listed below by placing them for processing as indicated herein. 13 NOTICE OF ENTRY OF JUDGMENT OR ORDER 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 United States Mail:The correspondence or documents were placed in sealed, labeled envelopes with postage thereon fully prepaid on the above date placed for collection and mailing at my place of business to be deposited with the U.S. Postal Service at Redwood City, California on this same date in the ordinary course of business. Overnight Delivery: The correspondence or documents were placed in sealed, labeled packaging Eor overnight delivery, with Federal Express, with all charges to be paid by my employer on the above date for collection at my place of business to be deposited in a facility regularly maintained by the overnight delivery carrier, or delivered to a courier or driver authorised by the overnight delivery carrier to receive such packages, on this date in the ordinary course of business. Hand Delivery: The correspondence or documents were placed in sealed, labeled envelopes and served by personal delivery to the party or attorney indicated herein, or if upon attorney, by leaving the labeled envelopes with a receptionist or other person having charge of the attorney's office. Facsimile Transmission: The correspondence or documents were placed for ttansmission from (650) 592-5027 at Redwood City, California, and were transmitted to a facsimile machine maintained by the party or attorney to be served at the facsimile machine telephone number provided by said party or attorney, on this same date in the ordinary course of business. The transmission was reported as complete and without error, and a record oE the transmission was properly issued by the transmitting Eacsimile machine. XX Electronic Transmission: The correspondence or documents were transmitted electronically to the electtonic addtess set forth below. State. The recipient has filed and served notice that he or she accepts electronic service; the recipient has electronically filed a document with the court; and/or the Court has mandated that the parties serve documents through its Court approved vendor. The printed form of this document bearing the original signature is on file and available for inspection at the request of the court or any party to the action or proceeding in which it is 61ed, in the manner provided in California Rule of Court Rule 2.257(a). FederaL The recipient of this electronic service has consented to this method of service in writing, a copy of which is on file and available for inspection in my employer's office. I have received no indication the electronic transmission did not reach the recipient. PERSONS OR PARTIES SERVED: Plaintiff's Attorney PlafntifPs Attorney 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Rodney Mesriani, Esq. Sanaz Imani, Esq. Mesriani Law Group 510 Arizona Avenue Santa Monica, CA 90401 Telephone: (310) 826-6300 Facsimile: (310) 820-1258 rodnev(RmesrianLcom sanazSmesriani.corn Assistant: Rossy rossv&mesrianLcom James E. Fox, Esq. Fox 8c Fox Law Corporation 1800 North Vine Street Los Angeles, CA 90028 Office: (818) 986-4494 Mobile: (818) 613-0665 Facsimile: (818) 981-1181 james(Rfoxandfoxlawcorn.corn Assistant: Ana Feliciano foxandfox(RsbcglobaLnet 18 19 20 21 I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct and that this declaration was ex 28, 2021. 22 23 Helen Poater 24 25 26 Conte Suppers'or Court ofCakfatuia, Santa Ctara Couutt Action No: 19CV355713 Case Name: Nahtuou o. Stein 27 28