Hunt Enterprises v. Superior Court
Filed 3/20/06 Hunt Enterprises v. Superior Court CA2/3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION THREE
| HUNT ENTERPRISES, INC., et al., Petitioners, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY, Respondent; CARL LINDSTROM et al., Real Parties in Interest. | B187675 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC319279) |
ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS in mandate. Richard Fruin, Judge. Petition granted.
Browne Woods & George, Allan Browne and Michael A. Bowse, for Petitioners, Hunt Enterprises, Inc. and Donald Hunt.
No appearance for Respondent.
Law Offices of James A. Otto and James A. Otto for Real Parties in Interest Carl Lindstrom, Victoria Scott and Patti Zamora.
_________________________
Petitioners Hunt Enterprises, Inc. and Donald Hunt[1] seek a writ of mandate directing the trial court to vacate its order denying a motion for protective order and compelling Donald, an 85-year-old man suffering from senile dementia, to submit to deposition. As required by Lewis v. Superior Court (1999) 19 Cal.4th 1232 and Palma v. U.S. Industrial Fasteners, Inc. (1984) 36 Cal.3d 171, we notified the parties of the probability we would grant the petition due to Donald's medical condition and a writ of mandate would be issued directing the trial court: (1) to vacate its order compelling Donald, as an individual, to provide discovery; and (2) to grant the protective order.
Our decision is based on the determination that Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.420[2] and The Americans with Disabilities Act, made applicable to California through the Unruh Civil Rights Act (Civ. Code, § 51, subd. (f)),[3] establishes protection for a person such as Donald who suffers from dementia (Alzheimer's Disease).
Having reviewed the petition, the documents filed by plaintiff Patti Zamora,[4] and all exhibits properly brought before this court, we conclude the trial court abused its discretion in ordering Donald to submit to questioning.
All procedural requirements for issuance of a peremptory writ of mandate in the first instance are satisfied and the petition is granted.
DISCUSSION
1. Donald's medical condition.
In December 2000, Majid Molaie, a neurologist and psychiatrist, examined Donald. He described Donald as having progressive memory loss, and difficulty finding his way, particularly in nonfamiliar places. In July 2003, Donald got lost on his way to Molaie's office for a medical examination. The physician described Donald as able to remember the month but not the day of the week. Donald was unable to retain a memory of any object for more than three minutes even after several repetitions. He had great difficulty drawing such objects as a clock face showing the time. â€
