arrow left
arrow right
  • MARIE UNDERHILL VS ESTATE OF TESTA Premises Liablty (e.g. slip & fall (General Jurisdiction) document preview
  • MARIE UNDERHILL VS ESTATE OF TESTA Premises Liablty (e.g. slip & fall (General Jurisdiction) document preview
						
                                

Preview

Hetal J. Kommes, State Bar No. 255838 MARK R. WEINER & ASSOCIATES Employees of the Law Department State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company FILED i Superior Court of 655 North Central Avenue, 12" Floor Ounty nf Ine Aanalas, Glendale, California 91203-1434 Telephone: (818) 543-4000 / FAX: (855) 396-3606 NOW 17 2077 E-Mail Address: Cali.Law-Kommes@StateFarm.com Shi \erri Cariat, canine uiicer/Clerk Attorneys for defendant Estate of Lynne S. Testa, Deceased, By,ideal Ne Rau! Sanchez Deputy erroneously sued and served as Estate of Testa (Deceased) SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES 10 i Marie Underhill, ) NO. BC638507 ) Complaint Filed: October 26, 2016 12 Plaintiff, ) Judge: Hon. Dennis Landin ) Department: 9 13 Vv. ) Trial Date: April 26, 2018 14 Estate of Testa (Deceased) and Does 1 to 100, } Hearing Date: November 28, 2017 Time: 1:30 p.m. 15 Defendants. ) Department: 93 ) RES. ID: 171009 257274 16 Motion ID: 257276 17 REPLY MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION 18 FOR LEAVE TO OBTAIN MENTAL EXAMINATION OF PLAINTIFF BY A 19 NEURO-PSYCHOLOGIST; DECLARATION OF HETAL KOMMES 20 21 I 22 PLAINTIFF MISREADS AND MISREPRESENTS THE HOLDING 23 OF THE CARPENTER CASE 24 25 Plaintiff, citing Carpenter, argues that the specific listing in defendant’s motion of all of 26 the tests that Dr. Hinkin might perform in order to examine and diagnose plaintiff is not 27 adequate. Not so. First, because plaintiff has misrepresented Carpenter. In Carpenter, the 28 problem was not that the court’s order specified all potential tests by name, but did not narrow 2 -1- ~ REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR ORDER COMPELLING PLAINTIFF TO SUBMIT TO MENTAL EXAMINATION