Hamberlin

Hamberlin v. Target Corporation

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaAugust 15, 20192:18-cv-01035California1,086 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 TISHA HAMBERLIN, No. 2:18-cv-01035-TLN-DB Plaintiff, v. ORDER REQUIRING PHYSICAL

EXAMINATION

TARGET CORPORATION, Defendant. 16 Plaintiff Tisha Hamberlin (“Plaintiff”) brings this personal injury action after a slip and fall on the premises of a Target store in Rocklin, California. Plaintiff alleges the fall resulted in certain physical injuries, including injury to her right knee. Presently before the Court is Defendant Target Corporation’s (“Defendant”) Motion for Order Requiring a Physical Examination pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 35. (ECF No. 22.) For the reasons discussed below, that motion is GRANTED. Under Rule 35(a)(1), a court “may order a party whose mental or physical condition . . . is in controversy to submit to a physical or mental examination by a suitably licensed or certified examiner.” Such an order may be made only on a noticed motion showing good cause therefor. Fed. R. Civ.…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.