Excerpt: ...resented to Dr. Alessi's office on 8/30/16, complaining of glabellar lines, crow's feet, and forehead lines and wrinkles. UF 1. Defendant treated Plaintiff with Botox at that visit and two subsequent visits on 3/14/17 and 4/4/17. UF 3-5. On 5/24/17, Plaintiff underwent IPL photo-rejuvenation using a M22 Lumenis laser to address dark spots on her face. UF 7. On 5/25/17, Plaintiff texted and reported she had developed some blistering overnight in s...

Excerpt: ...20. If the motion is timely made, and the granting of the motion will not result in prejudice to the opposing party, it is error to refuse permission to amend. Morgan v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County (1959) 172 Cal. App. 2d 527, 530. Amendments are permitted in furtherance of justice at any stage of the proceeding to promote the fundamental policy that cases should be tried on their merits. Hirsa v. Superior Court (1981) 118 Cal.App.3d 486...

Excerpt: ...directed to Family Medical Group and Blue Cross/Blue Shield. Reply, 2:1-3. The subpoena to Plaintiff's employer, StaffMark, remains at issue. The court can quash the subpoena to protect the Plaintiff from unreasonable or oppressive demands including unreasonable violations of the right of privacy. Cal. Code Civil Procedure § 1987.1. Plaintiff's counsel establishes that Plaintiff's counsel did attempt to meet and confer by leaving a voice mail me...

Excerpt: ...iff and bifurcation will avoid the waste of time and money caused by the unnecessary trial of damage questions.” Trickey v. Superior Court of Sacramento County(1967) 252 Cal. App. 2d 650, 653. The facts of the case must justify it. Separate phases are warranted to avoid wasting Court time in cases where Plaintiff loses on the liability issue. Foreman & Clark Corp. v. Fallon (1971) 3 Cal. 3d 875, 888, fn. 8. Defendant has not established with an...

Excerpt: ...n 10/12/18. While the settlement appears reasonable, the Court's records do not reflect that a Guardian ad Litem has been appointed for the Claimant. The application submitted on 3/8/19 has been rejected. The Court has reviewed the Petition to Approve Compromise of Pending Action of a Minor, (Elijah Rigney, Age 16) filed on 3/4/19. While the settlement appears reasonable, the Court's records do not reflect that a Guardian ad Litem has been appoin...

Excerpt: ...to ensure deliver to the other party or parties not later than the close of the next business day after the time the opposing papers or reply papers, as applicable are filed.” Cal. Code Civil Procedure § 1005(c). The Petition is GRANTED. Petitioners have proffered evidence of a signed writing of an agreement to settle their claims. Cal. Code Civil Procedure § 664.6 permits entry of judgment pursuant to the terms of the settlement if there is ...

Excerpt: ...ff. Cal. Code Civil Procedure §§ 2025.450, 2025.230; 2025.250(d). Pursuant to Cal Code Civil Procedure § 2025.450, a party can move to compel a deponent's attendance and testimony and production of documents, where the deponent fails to proceed, without having served a valid objection, or fails to produce documents for inspection. Cal. Code Civil Procedure §2025.450 (a). Defendant has not established the merit of its objections to all the dep...

Excerpt: ...y to the Court's order that Plaintiff respond without objections. Motion Ex. A. Plaintiff subsequently served a Further Response on 12/11/18, without any objections. Motion, Ex. C. The verification was sent on 12/11/18. Motion, Ex. D. Plaintiff has not demonstrated that she has fully complied with the request by providing the following documents that Plaintiff agreed to produce in her Further Response. Motion, Ex. C.  Request 11 for earnings t...

Excerpt: ...postponed until the moving party has had an adequate opportunity to prepare, by discovery deposition of the deponent, or other means, for cross- examination.” Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.420. The Court does not consider the Order of the Superior Court for the County of San Francisco issued in Dotegowski, et al v. Abbott Laboratories. Opposition, Ex. A. First, the ruling is not binding upon the Court, and it is inapplicable here as part of the Dote...

Excerpt: ...ED. DEMURRER Second Cause of Action for Battery “The essential elements of a cause of action for battery are: (1) defendant touched plaintiff, or caused plaintiff to be touched, with the intent to harm or offend plaintiff; (2) plaintiff did not consent to the touching; (3) plaintiff was harmed or offended by defendant's conduct; and (4) a reasonable person in plaintiff's position would have been offended by the touching.” (Yun Hee So v. Sook ...

Excerpt: ...ury to plaintiffs Rafael Soza and Claudia Martinez. Plaintiffs allege causes of action for motor vehicle negligence and general negligence. Defendants EAN Holdings, LLC, and Enterprise Rent-A-Car Company of Los Angeles, LLC, demur to the Complaint. Legal Standard A demurrer tests the sufficiency of a complaint as a matter of law and raises only questions of law. (Schmidt v. Foundation Health (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 1702, 1706.) In testing the suffi...

Excerpt: ...a party from unwarranted annoyance, embarrassment, <0086000300150013001500 00030003> The court must make express findings to support sealing the record under Cal. Rules of Court 2.550. “ The court may order that a record be filed under seal only if it expressly finds that: (1) There exists an overriding interest that overcomes the right of public access to the record; (2) The overriding interest supports sealing the record; (3) A substantial pr...

Excerpt: ...in the caption of the proposed pleading as well as the prayer was “an accident.” Reply, 2:2-7. Plaintiff submits a proposed Second Amended Complaint with the Reply that deletes those references. Accordingly, the only issue is whether amendment to state a claim for battery is proper, which Defendants do not dispute. The motion is GRANTED. A party can amend any pleading in furtherance of justice and on any proper terms. Cal. Code Civil Procedur...

Excerpt: ... a non-retained expert. To grant the motion, the court must find that Plaintiff would not in the exercise of reasonable diligence have determined to call that expert or, establish that the failure to call that expert was due to mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect. Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 2034.620(c). Plaintiff has not met the requirements of Section 2034.620(c). Plaintiff did determine to call Dr. Brazina initially since Plainti...

Excerpt: ...ence, and diligence as other members of the profession commonly possess and exercise; (2) a breach of the duty; (3) a proximate causal connection between the negligent conduct and the injury; and (4) resulting loss or damage.” Johnson v. Superior Court (2006) 143 Cal.App.4th 297, 305. The required standard of care owed by a medical professional and whether the conduct was a substantial factor in causing injury are matters peculiarly within the ...

Excerpt: ...he court must make express findings of the following: “(1) There exists an overriding interest that overcomes the right of public access to the record; (2) The overriding interest supports sealing the record; (3) A substantial probability exists that the overriding interest will be prejudiced if the record is not sealed; (4) The proposed sealing is narrowly tailored; and (5) No less restrictive means exist to achieve the overriding interest.”...

Excerpt: ...ology Bay City Surgery Center -- medical records, billing and radiology Sunset Diagnostic Radiology -- medical records, billing and radiology Mark Greenspan, M.D. -- medical records, billing and radiology UCLA Health Systems -- for any and all records Santa Monica UCLA Medical Center -- for billing records UCLA Medical Center -- billing records UCLA Health Systems -- radiology records UCLA Physician's Billing -- billing records Physician's Manage...

Excerpt: ...oyee acting within the scope of employment. Cal. Gov. Code, § 815.2(a). Civil Code §§ 2100 governs the standard of care owed by common carriers of persons. Such carries are bound to use “utmost care and diligence.” Cal. Civ. Code, § 2100 The undisputed facts establish the following: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants, Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (“MTA”) and Tshawn Demethris (“Demethris”), were negligent...

Excerpt: ...notice of court records is permitted]. The undisputed material facts establish the following: Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendant alleging a sole cause of action for premises liability. Plaintiff alleges she slipped and fell on Defendant's premises on 12/29/13. UF 1. Plaintiff objects to the material facts proffered by Defendant which are based on the declaration of Thomas McNutt, counsel for Defendant. Mr. McNutt admits that his discus...

Excerpt: ...jections to Plaintiff's evidence. #1-5. Plaintiff's Deposition testimony. SUSTAINED. #6 and #7. Declaration of Inez Cruz. SUSTAINED. #8 and #9 Declaration of Jose Cruz. SUSTAINED. #10. Defendant's Responses to Plaintiff's Form Interrogatory 12.4. OVERRULED. #11. Plaintiff's government claim for damages. SUSTAINED. #12. Letter from Deputy City Attorney denying Plaintiff's claim for damages. SUSTAINED. Gov. Code § 835 imposes liability against a p...

Excerpt: ...operly subject to judicial notice under Evidence Code § 452. They are not authenticated. They do not contain facts or propositions that are not reasonably subject to dispute or capable of immediate and accurate determination by resort to sources of reasonably indisputable accuracy. Plaintiff's declaration. Objections 1-8. SUSTAINED. Objection 9. SUSTAINED. Declaration of Plaintiff's Counsel Alexander Rosenberg. All objections are OVERRULED The u...

Excerpt: ...rocedure § 473(b). Plaintiff, Brook Glaser, seeks relief from the Court's order of 12/14/18 granting Defendants' Motion for Terminating Sanctions for failure to comply with the Court's order to appear for deposition, resulting in the Court's dismissal of Mr. Glaser's claims alleged against Defendants. Motion, Ex. 5. Plaintiff seeks to vacate that dismissal. The word “dismissals” as stated in the statute is narrowly construed. The purpose of ...

Excerpt: ...rds issued by Defendant on 11/29/18 to Cedars Sinai Medical Center for production of all medical records, x-rays, films, itemized statements and billing records, and all insurance records from 4/1/18 to the present. The fifth subpoena was issued to Cedars Sinai Medical Care Foundation for all itemized statements and billing records from 4/1/18 to the present. Motion, Exhibits A-E. The court can quash the subpoenas to protect the Plaintiff from un...

Excerpt: ...maining objections since they are not material. Pursuant to Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 437c(q), when the court grants or denies a motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication, it need rule only on those objections to evidence that it deems material to its disposition of the motion. Objections to evidence that are not ruled on for purposes of the motion are preserved for appellate review. The undisputed facts establish that Plaintiff alleges t...

Excerpt: ...eth; but instead removed three wisdom teeth and one molar instead of Plaintiff's remaining wisdom tooth. On September 11, 2018, Plaintiff served notice of Plaintiff's intent to sue to Dr. Harb and Western Dental. On October 26, 2018, Plaintiff filed a Complaint against Defendants, asserting a single cause of action for Professional Negligence. Defendants filed the operative Answer on December 27, 2018. On January 7, 2019, Plaintiff filed the inst...