section 730 appointment of an expert in California

2023(Apollo, supra, 167 Cal.App.4th at p. 1485 .) If those two conditions are present, the trial court must consider what remedies are available to protect Smith’s right to meaningful access to the court, which remedies include the appointment of counsel and the appointment of an expert under Evidence Code section 730.” ( Smith, supra, at p. 477 .)7 [failing to file a reply brief is not an admission].) Thus, case law predating the adoption of the California Rules of Court and stating the failure to file an appellant’s reply brief “concedes that respondent’s position is unassailable” (Johnson v. En

2021Proc., § 128, subd. . . . (a)(5); cf. Hernandez v. Whiting (9th Cir. 1989) 881 F.2d 768, 770-771 ; Poole 8 v. Lambert (11th Cir.1987) 819 F.2d 1025, 1028 ).’ ” (Apollo, supra, 167 Cal.App.4th at p. 1483 , quoting Wantuch, supra, 32 Cal.App.4th at pp. 792-793.) As pertinent to this case, “the discretionary appointment of an expert pursuant to Evidence Code section 730 is among the measures available to trial courts to ensure indigent prisoner litigants are afforded meaningful access to the courts.” (Smith v. Ogbuehi (2019) 38 Cal.App.5th 453, 459 (Smith).) Trial courts must be guided by “ ‘prin

2025(Smith v. Ogbuehi (2019) 38 Cal.App.5th 453, 477 ; In re Marriage of E.U. & J.E. (2012) 212 Cal.App.4th 1377, 1389 ; see also Pink v. Slater (1955) 131 Cal.App.2d 816, 818 [explaining that the predecessor to Evidence Code section 730 also “use[d] the word ‘may,’ and the cases hold that the appointment of an expert is committed to the discretion of the court”].) 8 Among other things, Darrell would be Stratman’s presumed natural father if he was married to or attempted to marry Stratman’s natural mother within certain dates around Stratman’s birth.

2023(In re Marriage of E.U. & J.E. (2012) 38 212 Cal.App.4th 1377, 1389 .) As Plaintiff correctly notes (and as we discussed above), an expert is generally required in a medical malpractice case to establish both the standard of care and causation.

2019Code, § 731 ) and "costs are not ordinarily considered part of the judgment; rather, they are 'normally viewed as an incident of a judgment.' " ( Bean v. Pacific Coast Elevator Corp. (2015) 234 Cal.App.4th 1423 , 1430, 185 Cal.Rptr.3d 63 .) In sum, Dr. Kachorek has, at most, an interest in ancillary questions pertaining to his fees that are not the "subject of the action." (§ 389, subd. (a).) Accordingly, on remand, the trial court is directed to vacate its September 11, 2017 order joining Dr. Kachorek as a party to the case.

2019Code, § 731 ) and "costs are not ordinarily considered part of the judgment; rather, they are 'normally viewed as an incident of a judgment.' " ( Bean v. Pacific Coast Elevator Corp. (2015) 234 Cal.App.4th 1423 , 1430, 185 Cal.Rptr.3d 63 .) In sum, Dr. Kachorek has, at most, an interest in ancillary questions pertaining to his fees that are not the "subject of the action." (§ 389, subd. (a).) Accordingly, on remand, the trial court is directed to vacate its September 11, 2017 order joining Dr. Kachorek as a party to the case.

2019In Laurenti , the trial court appointed an expert pursuant to Evidence Code section 730 in a postjudgment marital dissolution proceeding for the purpose of conducting an evaluation pertaining to where the parties' two children should attend school. ( Laurenti , supra , at p. 397, 64 Cal.Rptr.3d 449 .) The mother filed an application to remove the expert due to the expert's violation of court rules. ( Id. at p. 400, 64 Cal.Rptr.3d 449 .) The trial court granted her application. ( Id. at p. 401, 64 Cal.Rptr.3d 449 .) However, the court ordered the mother to pay "all of [the expert's] *916 fees a

2019In Laurenti , the trial court appointed an expert pursuant to Evidence Code section 730 in a postjudgment marital dissolution proceeding for the purpose of conducting an evaluation pertaining to where the parties' two children should attend school. ( Laurenti , supra , at p. 397, 64 Cal.Rptr.3d 449 .) The mother filed an application to remove the expert due to the expert's violation of court rules. ( Id. at p. 400, 64 Cal.Rptr.3d 449 .) The trial court granted her application. ( Id. at p. 401, 64 Cal.Rptr.3d 449 .) However, the court ordered the mother to pay "all of [the expert's] *916 fees a

2026(See, e.g., People v. Gerson (2022) 80 Cal.App.5th 1067 , 1080-1081 [reports and testimony of court-appointed mental health experts].) For the foregoing reasons, we conclude trial courts do not have the authority under section 1054, subdivision (b)(1) to order a defendant moving for pretrial mental health diversion to submit to an examination by a prosecution-retained mental health expert.10 (See People v. Cochran (2002) 28 Cal.4th 396 , 400-401 [“If there is no ambiguity or uncertainty in the [statutory] language, the Legislature is presumed to have meant what it said, and we need not resort

2024(See Corenevsky v. Superior Court (1984) 36 Cal.3d 307, 321 ; People v. Stuckey (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 898, 904 , 907- 908, 917.) While Evidence Code section 730, by its terms, applies to appointment of experts at trial, we agree with the parties that 17 the same standard of review applies here where the trial court denied the appointment of experts in connection with an evidentiary hearing under section 1172.6.

2023(Apollo, supra, 167 Cal.App.4th at p. 1485 .) If those two conditions are present, the trial court must consider what remedies are available to protect Smith’s right to meaningful access to the court, which remedies include the appointment of counsel and the appointment of an expert under Evidence Code section 730.” ( Smith, supra, at p. 477 .)7 [failing to file a reply brief is not an admission].) Thus, case law predating the adoption of the California Rules of Court and stating the failure to file an appellant’s reply brief “concedes that respondent’s position is unassailable” (Johnson v. En

2023(In re Mark V. (1986) 177 Cal.App.3d 754 , 759.) A juvenile court does not abuse its discretion in denying a parent’s belated request for appointment of an expert pursuant to Evidence Code section 730, made on the day of a hearing that had been pending for several months.

2023One court commissioner who presided over the case expressed the view that Evidence Code section 730 “has nothing to do with child custody,” and that an appointment under Evidence Code section 730 is simply intended to “protect” a child custody evaluator’s ability to get paid. 17 civil actions,” and thus a civil statute is applicable in family court proceedings only “if it does not conflict with statutes and rules adopted under the Family Law Act.” (In re Marriage of Guasch (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 942, 947-948 , italics added [holding general injunction bond requirement of Code Civ. Proc. § 529

2023(Apollo, supra, 167 Cal.App.4th at p. 1485 .) If those two conditions are present, the trial court must consider what remedies are available to protect Smith’s right to meaningful access to the court, which remedies include the appointment of counsel and the appointment of an expert under Evidence Code section 730.” ( Smith, supra, at p. 477 .)7 [failing to file a reply brief is not an admission].) Thus, case law predating the adoption of the California Rules of Court and stating the failure to file an appellant’s reply brief “concedes that respondent’s position is unassailable” (Johnson v. En

2021(People v. Clark (2011) 52 Cal.4th 856, 939 .) “We have made clear that even in cases governed by Verdin, trial courts had the power to order defendants to submit to a psychological examination by a court-appointed expert pursuant to Evidence Code section 730.” (People v. Banks (2014) 59 Cal.4th 1113, 1193 , italics omitted.) Defendant claims the trial court did not have authority under Penal Code section 1054 to order her examination by prosecution experts.

2021Proc., § 128, subd. . . . (a)(5); cf. Hernandez v. Whiting (9th Cir. 1989) 881 F.2d 768, 770-771 ; Poole 8 v. Lambert (11th Cir.1987) 819 F.2d 1025, 1028 ).’ ” (Apollo, supra, 167 Cal.App.4th at p. 1483 , quoting Wantuch, supra, 32 Cal.App.4th at pp. 792-793.) As pertinent to this case, “the discretionary appointment of an expert pursuant to Evidence Code section 730 is among the measures available to trial courts to ensure indigent prisoner litigants are afforded meaningful access to the courts.” (Smith v. Ogbuehi (2019) 38 Cal.App.5th 453, 459 (Smith).) Trial courts must be guided by “ ‘prin

2021Proc., § 128, subd. . . . (a)(5); cf. Hernandez v. Whiting (9th Cir. 1989) 881 F.2d 768, 770-771 ; Poole 8 v. Lambert (11th Cir.1987) 819 F.2d 1025, 1028 ).’ ” (Apollo, supra, 167 Cal.App.4th at p. 1483 , quoting Wantuch, supra, 32 Cal.App.4th at pp. 792-793.) As pertinent to this case, “the discretionary appointment of an expert pursuant to Evidence Code section 730 is among the measures available to trial courts to ensure indigent prisoner litigants are afforded meaningful access to the courts.” (Smith v. Ogbuehi (2019) 38 Cal.App.5th 453, 459 (Smith).) Trial courts must be guided by “ ‘prin

2021Proc., § 128, subd. . . . (a)(5); cf. Hernandez v. Whiting (9th Cir. 1989) 881 F.2d 768, 770-771 ; Poole 8 v. Lambert (11th Cir.1987) 819 F.2d 1025, 1028 ).’ ” (Apollo, supra, 167 Cal.App.4th at p. 1483 , quoting Wantuch, supra, 32 Cal.App.4th at pp. 792-793.) As pertinent to this case, “the discretionary appointment of an expert pursuant to Evidence Code section 730 is among the measures available to trial courts to ensure indigent prisoner litigants are afforded meaningful access to the courts.” (Smith v. Ogbuehi (2019) 38 Cal.App.5th 453, 459 (Smith).) Trial courts must be guided by “ ‘prin

2021(Petrolink I, supra, 21 Cal.App.5th at p. 381 .) The court’s expert was asked to provide his conclusion regarding the fair market value of the property as of August 25, 2011, the date on which Petrolink exercised the purchase option.

2021(Petrolink I, supra, 21 Cal.App.5th at p. 381 .) 6 A bench trial was held, and the court heard testimony from the parties’ appraisers, and well as from an independent appraiser whom the trial court had appointed as a court expert pursuant to Evidence Code section 730.

2021(People v. Clark (2011) 52 Cal.4th 856, 939 .) “We have made clear that even in cases governed by Verdin, trial courts had the power to order defendants to submit to a psychological examination by a court-appointed expert pursuant to Evidence Code section 730.” (People v. Banks (2014) 59 Cal.4th 1113, 1193 , italics omitted.) Defendant claims the trial court did not have authority under Penal Code section 1054 to order her examination by prosecution experts.

2019The same is true of the United States Constitution and the federal statute, even when the lawsuit alleges violations of constitutionally protected rights. ( Jackson v. Dallas Police Dept. (5th Cir. 1986) 811 F.2d 260 , 261 ( Jackson ).) In Yarbrough , the Supreme Court stressed the distinction between the discretion to appoint counsel and the lack of authority to order the payment of public funds to compensate such appointed counsel for indigent prisoners in civil actions.

2014For example, In re Marriage of Rosen (2002) 105 Cal.App.4th 808 and People v. Pacheco (2010) 187 Cal.App.4th 1392 , disapproved of by People v. McCullough (2013) 56 Cal.4th 589, 599 , involved statutes that specifically require the court to make findings of ability to pay before ordering needs- based attorney fees or certain collateral costs against a defendant in a criminal action.

2014(In re Daniel C.H. (1990) 220 Cal.App.3d 814 , 835.) “A judgment or order of a lower court is presumed to be correct on appeal, and all intendments and presumptions are indulged in favor of its correctness. [Citations.]” (In re Marriage of Arceneaux (1990) 51 Cal.3d 1130, 1133 .) “The 4 burden of affirmatively demonstrating error is on the appellant.

2014For example, In re Marriage of Rosen (2002) 105 Cal.App.4th 808 and People v. Pacheco (2010) 187 Cal.App.4th 1392 , disapproved of by People v. McCullough (2013) 56 Cal.4th 589, 599 , involved statutes that specifically require the court to make findings of ability to pay before ordering needs- based attorney fees or certain collateral costs against a defendant in a criminal action.

2014For example, In re Marriage of Rosen (2002) 105 Cal.App.4th 808 and People v. Pacheco (2010) 187 Cal.App.4th 1392 , disapproved of by People v. McCullough (2013) 56 Cal.4th 589, 599 , involved statutes that specifically require the court to make findings of ability to pay before ordering needs- based attorney fees or certain collateral costs against a defendant in a criminal action.