Final Account
7. S-CV-0051033 Villacana, Ferman Ochoa v. Rua & Son Mechanical
Final Account
On September 30, 2025, the court granted preliminary approval of the class action and PAGA settlement. On March 10, 2026, the court granted final approval of the class action and PAGA settlement. The court issued a final judgment on April 3, 2026, which set this hearing for a final accounting.
The court has carefully reviewed the declaration of Makenna Snow filed June 18, 2026, together with the entire court file. The final accounting is approved. No further hearings are scheduled.
8. S-CV-0051202 Khachadourian, Gilbert Jr. v. Cook, Richard Noah
Cook defendants’ motion for protective order
The Cook defendants’ motion for protective order is continued to August 4, 2026, at 8:30 a.m. in Department 32.
9. S-CV-0052372 Baddawi, Samira vs. Mi Pueblito Taqueria et al
Defendants’ Joint Motion to Compel Neuropsychological Examination of Plaintiff
Defendants Mi Pueblito Taqueria, Lupe Ruiz Jr., and Restaurant Depot, LLC, move to compel a neuropsychological examination of plaintiff.
Plaintiff’s objections to the declaration of Dr. Kimberly Miller are overruled. Plaintiff’s procedural objections to the form of the motion and sufficiency of notice are overruled. Defendants are admonished for their failure to comply with an order of the court and failure to provide proper notice. However, as plaintiff has filed a substantive opposition on the merits and does not demonstrate prejudice, any notice issue is waived, and the court will reach the merits.
Plaintiff alleges traumatic brain injury and post-concussive cognitive symptoms arising an October 9, 2023 incident, after being struck by a U-boat cart at defendants’ restaurant. (Pl. Compl. ¶ 9; Pl. Opp’n at 2; Defs. Mot. at 1.) Defendants seek a neuropsychological examination by Dr. Kimberly Miller. (Daniels Decl., ¶¶ 2, 4; Miller Decl., ¶ 7.) On March 11, 2026, plaintiff agreed to one neuropsychological examination, with certain specified conditions. (Daniels Decl., Exh. 1.)
Defendants served a demand for neuropsychological examination of plaintiff on March 24, 2026. (Daniels Decl., Ex. 2.) In response to the demand, plaintiff raised several objections regarding the broad test menu, the prohibition on plaintiff recording the examination in its entirety, the restriction on raw data and audio access, the duration, the
12
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”