| Case | County / Judge | Motion | Ruling | Indexed | Hearing |
|---|
Motion For Appointment Of Neutral Expert Under Evidence Code 730; Motion for Judicial Notice
2024CUMM031915: SWEETER MANNING, et al. vs COMMUNITY MEMORIAL HEALTHCARE, et al. 05/18/2026 in Department 42 Motion For Appointment Of Neutral Expert Under Evidence Code 730; Motion for Judicial Notice
Motions: Plaintiff Sweeter Mannings Motion for Judicial Notice Plaintiff Sweeter Mannings Motion for Appointment of Neutral Expert Under Evidence Code § 730
Tentative Rulings: The Court DENIES Plaintiff Sweeter Mannings Motion for Judicial Notice. The Court DENIES Plaintiffs Motion for Appointment of Neutral Expert Under Evidence Code § 730. Both motions lack sufficient legal or factual support. Background: Pro per plaintiff Sweeter Manning filed the operative third amended complaint (TAC) against eleven defendants asserting a single cause of action for medical malpractice regarding a surgery on or about October 24, 2023, to remove a lap band. The Court previously granted summary judgment in favor of one of the defendants, Defendant Helmuth T. Billy. Defendant Robert J. Fell MD filed his MSJ on March 17, 2026, and it is set for hearing on June 15, 2026.
Grounds:
Motion for Judicial Notice: Plaintiff seeks judicial notice of Exhibits A-F under Evidence Code §§452, 453, 454. Plaintiff argues that the Defendants answers and positions they have taken in the case have misled the Court about the applicable standard of care.
Motion for Appointment of Neutral Expert: Plaintiff argues that the opinions of Defendants experts are conclusory and deficient, and therefore the Court needs to appoint its own qualified expert.
Discussion: Accommodation request In Plaintiffs declaration supporting the Motion for Appointment and the Reply papers for both Motions, Plaintiff has requested a language-processing accommodation, stating that her barrier is the inability to process contradictory, evasive, or ambiguous language that conflicts with the medical records and the Defendants own admissions. She asks the Court to require clarity and specificity, and truthful, complete, and comprehensible communication. Requests
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?”
2024CUMM031915: SWEETER MANNING, et al. vs COMMUNITY MEMORIAL HEALTHCARE, et al.
for accommodation must be made to the courts ADA coordinator. (See https://ventura.courts.ca.gov/general-information/ada.) Moreover, counsel already owe a duty of candor to the court and the court expects all litigants and counsel to be truthful and to communicate in a way that the court can understand. The Court takes no action in response to Plaintiffs request for accommodation. Motions untethered to specific proceeding These two motions appear to be Plaintiffs attempt to challenge the Courts prior ruling granting summary judgment in favor of Defendant Billy, or perhaps to oppose the summary judgment motion of Defendant Fell currently pending.
But Plaintiff has failed to tether her requests to any matter that is to be decided by the Court. Any response to the upcoming summary judgment should be identified as such so that it can be orderly and appropriately addressed by the Court. Nonetheless, the Court addresses the motions below. Motion for Judicial Notice:
The standalone request for Judicial Notice of a collection of over 500 pages of documents is denied. Each of the exhibits includes at least a portion of material that is not subject to judicial notice under any of the Evidence Code sections cited. The Court is not permitted to take judicial notice of facts and propositions that are subject to reasonable dispute, and judicial notice does not establish the truth of the documents in any event. There is no practical reason, and no sufficient legal basis offered, to grant judicial of any of the exhibits or portions thereof. While the Court could take judicial notice of documents in its own file, Plaintiff has failed to comply with CRC rules, 3.1306(c) and 3.1113, requiring specificity of the documents to be judicially noticed, and there is no purpose in granting judicial notice of these documents in any event.
The motion for judicial notice is denied without prejudice.
Motion for Appointment of Neutral Expert:
Evid. Code, § 730 provides: When it appears to the court, at any time before or during the trial of an action, that expert evidence is or may be required by the court or by any party to the action, the court on its own motion or on motion of any party may appoint one or more experts to investigate, to render a report as may be ordered by the court, and to testify as an expert at the trial of the action relative to the fact or matter as to which the expert evidence is or may be required. The court may fix the compensation for these services, if any, rendered by any person appointed under this section, in addition to any service as a witness, at the amount as seems reasonable to the court.
The Court does not find that a court-appointed expert is required to decide any issue and declines to exercise its discretion under Evidence Code section 730. The Court will address expert evidence presented by Defendant in connection with ruling on the pending summary judgment motion. Plaintiff is able to object to that evidence and raise appropriate concerns, as well as to present her own expert evidence. The Court is not aware of any facts that suggest a court-appointed expert is required or would be helpful to the Court, or that a court-appointed
2024CUMM031915: SWEETER MANNING, et al. vs COMMUNITY MEMORIAL HEALTHCARE, et al.
expert would testify any differently than the defense expert. Plaintiffs difference of opinion and documentation do not persuade the Court otherwise.
Plaintiff may be unable to locate an expert who will testify in her favor. This does not warrant appointment of an expert by the Court. It is Plaintiffs burden, as the party prosecuting this case, to proffer expert opinion supporting her claims. (Bushling v. Fremont Med. Ctr. (2004) 117 Cal. App. 4th 493, 509.)
3