Excerpt: ...onsortium. In a medical malpractice action, proof of the standard of care requires expert testimony. Landeros v. Flood (1976) 17 Cal.3d 399, 410. The element of causation must be proven within a reasonable medical probability based upon competent expert testimony. Jones v. Ortho Pharm. Corp. (1985) 163 Cal. App. 3d 396, 402. As Defendant's case authority states, a “less than 50‐50 possibility that defendants' omission caused the harm does...

Excerpt: ...ce, manner, conditions, scope and nature of the examination, and the identity and specialty of the person who will perform the examination. The parties are required to meet and confer. Cal. Code Civ. Proc. §2032.310(b). If the motion is granted, the order must describe those diagnostic tests and procedures. Code Civ. Proc., § 2032.320. Defendant has not complied with Cal Code Civil Procedure § 2032.310(b) in that the motion does not specify th...

Excerpt: ...dant Min S. Sauk, M.D. Plaintiff alleges Defendant's treatment was below the standard of care, and led to him developing an infection. Defendant filed the instant motion for summary judgment on November 21, 2017. No opposition has been received as of February 6, 2018 (due January 24, 2018). Analysis Defendant seeks summary judgment on the grounds Plaintiff cannot prove that he breached the standard of care in treating Plaintiff. The elements of m...

Excerpt: ... cause of action is stated. Ludgate v. Lockheed (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 592, 602. Grounds for the motion must appear on the face of the pleading or from matters subject to judicial notice. Cal Code Civ Proc § 438. Claims against a public entity must be based on statute. Gov Code § 815. The first cause of action for negligence does not allege a statutory basis. The complaint has to identify the statute. Searcy v. Hemet Unified School Dist. (1986) ...

Excerpt: ... and confer regarding the relocation of the deposition, nor any attempt to accommodate Plaintiff's request which is not unreasonable. Motion, Ex. K Discovery sanctions are not to be imposed for punishment, but instead are used to encourage fair disclosure of discovery to prevent unfairness resulting from the lack of information. Midwife v. Bernal (1988) 203 Cal. App. 3d 57, 64. Sanctions are warranted where there is a willful failure to comply wi...

Excerpt: ... expert testimony. Landeros v. Flood (1976) 17 Cal.3d 399, 410. The issue of causation must also be proven within a reasonable medical probability based upon competent expert <0096008700950096008b008f00910090009b01e40003000d00910090008700950003009801e40003001200940096008a009100030013008a00830094008f01e40003000600910094009201e40003020b0373037b037a0377020c0003037303780375000300 060083008e01e4000300040092009201e40003037500860003>396, 402. The partie...

Excerpt: ...ation for Determination of Good Faith Settlement on 1/3/18, which was rejected by the court by minute order dated 1/9/18. Defendant Javier Vega then filed this Motion on 3/16/18 to contest the already‐rejected application. Defendant Wan then filed another Application for Determination of Good Faith Settlement and an Amended Application for Determination of Good Faith Settlement on 2/15/18. Both are equally defective as they do not include a Not...

Excerpt: ...t Plaintiff is required to amend the complaint to substitute the decedent's personal representative within one year from the Defendant's death. That statute actually states that if a person against whom an action may be brought dies before the expiration of the statute of limitations, an action may be commenced within one year after the date of death. The statute of limitations that would have been applicable does not apply. Cal Code Civil Proced...

Excerpt: ...ounsel). What the spa director told him is hearsay. DISCUSSION The parties do not dispute that a claim for negligence requires a showing of the existence of a duty, breach of duty, proximate cause, and damages. Ladd v. County of San Mateo (1996) 12 Cal.4th 913, 917. Defendants' motion attempts to negate the elements of breach and proximate cause. Motion, 7:23‐24, 8:17‐18. While Defendants assumed the existence of a duty in their moving papers...

Excerpt: ...�‐ a satisfactory reason for not presenting the facts previously. Garcia v. Hejmadi (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 674, 690. “Without presuming to know which of the many published cases might have influenced the amendment, we may comfortably assume the substitute language, ‘new or different facts, circumstances, or law,' was designed to approve, generally, the case law relaxation of what constitutes new or different facts justifying reconsideration....

Excerpt: ...soucie (1972) 28 Cal. App. 3d 714, 721.) A motion to strike lies either (1) to strike any irrelevant, false or improper matter inserted in any pleading; or (2) to strike any pleading or part thereof not drawn or filed in conformity with the laws of this state, a court rule or order of court. (CCP § 436.) First Causes of Action: OVERRULE Duplicative Alessi contends that Plaintiff's first cause of action for general negligence is duplicative of th...

Excerpt: ...dge. OVERRULE. The plans are submitted by the Custodian of Records, Kaz Kayoda. OVERRULE remaining objections as they are proper opinions. Declaration of Steven Martinez (This Declaration was not filed by State of California. It is part of City of Los Angeles' Motion). The Court disregards Defendant's objections the evidence was not material to the Court's analysis. Pursuant to Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 437c(q), when the court grants or denies a mo...

Excerpt: ...mento County(1967) 252 Cal. App. 2d 650, 653. The facts of the particular case must justify it. Foreman & Clark Corp. v. Fallon (1971) 3 Cal. 3d 875, 888, fn. 8. Defendants argue that valuable court time will be spared if the Defendants are found not liable. Motion 3:8‐10. This is true of all personal injury cases. Defendant cites Trickey to support bifurcation. While that case underscores the purpose of bifurcating (to avoid waste of time and ...

Excerpt: ...r had concluded. However, that appears to have been a mistake as Plaintiff now states that the case has not received settlement funds. Motion 2:17‐18. The court sets the following date: OSC re Dismissal: July 18, 2018 @ 8:30 a.m. The request to enter judgment pursuant to the “Settlement Release” is DENIED as the Release of Claims provided is not signed by Defendant the City of Los Angeles. Motion, Ex. 2. Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 664.6 permit...

Excerpt: .... Gov. Code, § 68634(a). Motions to strike the complaint are governed by Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 435. There are limited grounds for such a motion, none of which involve the court's jurisdiction. Code Civ. Proc., § 436. As Defendants have not cited any applicable statutory or other mechanism for striking the complaint to challenge the court's jurisdiction, it is DENIED on that ground. Additionally, while Defendants claim to “specially appear�...

Excerpt: ...ry was issued on 11/7/16, and stated that discovery was to remain open until 30 days before the next trial continuance. On 5/17/17, the court's minute order reflects that the parties stipulated to continue trial to 11/6/17. Therefore, discovery was cutoff 30 days prior to that date. Defendant issued her subpoena on 12/21/17. The subsequent orders to continue trial did not expressly continue discovery. Continuance of trial does not reopen discover...

Excerpt: ...subpoena for deposition. Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 2025.280.(b). Also as Dr. Phillips' case authority demonstrates, “[w]hile the Legislature has provided many different modes of serving summons, only one mode, personal delivery, is available for serving a subpoena. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1987, subd. (a); In re Abrams (1980) 108 Cal.App.3d 685, 690, 166 Cal.Rptr. 749.). Target Nat. Bank v. Rocha (2013) 216 Cal.App.4th Supp. 1, 7–8 The subpoena was...

Excerpt: ...ns to the Declaration of John Pollitt (Plaintiff's counsel). #1 and #2. Paragraph 1 and Ex. 1. SUSTAIN. Lacks personal knowledge of records prepared by Plaintiff's doctor, Hyman Gross, M.D. There is no doctor declaration or custodian of records to authenticate the records. #3 and #4. Paragraph 2 and Ex. 2. SUSTAIN. Lacks personal knowledge of records prepared by Plaintiff's doctor, Grace Chen, M.D. There is no doctor or custodian of records decla...

Excerpt: ...ed by deposition testimony of Defendant Patel, who did not testify as to what the investigating police officer determined. Rather, Perida's counsel, Mr. Davis, proffered what the police officer determined and asked if Patel had any reason to dispute it, to which Patel said no. The court also disregards the police report submitted as evidence and attached to the reply brief. It is error to consider additional evidence submitted with the reply as s...

Excerpt: ...ed the $15,000 settlement as being fair, reasonable, and in the best interest of the minor. See Petition, ¶ 22. Neither the guardian nor the Claimant was represented by counsel at the time. On 9/12/17, the court continued the hearing and required Ms. Oglesby to retain counsel, as she could not represent the Claimant. The court subsequently continued the hearing on <0090000300850091009700 9000950087008e01e4> On 12/12/17, Steven C. Gambardella fil...

Excerpt: ... wherein John Jahrmarkt substituted out in favor of Plaintiff, in pro per. Opposition Ex. E. Mr. Pina was also served with the Opposition at the 296 Ninth Ave Address in New York, as well as the 9334 Wilshire Blvd address, which is a new address reflected on the first page of Plaintiff's motion. Plaintiff is directed to file and serve a Change of Address form to correctly state his current address. Plaintiff concedes he received Defendant's oppos...

Excerpt: ... cases are consolidated for all purpose including trial. As the lead case is BC623932, the existing trial date of 6/12/18 governs both cases. The parties essentially request that the trial date be vacated and that the court adopt the later trial date in the National Union case resulting in a trial continuance of two months to 8/24/16. If the parties seek a continuance of trial, the parties are ordered to follow the procedures set forth in the Sev...

Excerpt: ..., filed on 10/17/17, is GRANTED. Defendant has established she is entitled to judgment in her favor based on the undisputed facts asserted. Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 437c(p)(2). As Plaintiff did not file an opposition, all facts are undisputed. Plaintiff alleges that on 4/5/14, while he was working at a building owned by Defendant, he used a ladder that was in a defective condition, and he fell as a result. UF 1. Plaintiff filed a complaint allegin...

Excerpt: ...urgundy to receive it the next business day. It is not clear how Plaintiff can procedurally defend a Cross‐Complaint he did not file. Even if he cannot, Burgundy has not demonstrated how that procedural defect or the late‐ delivered opposition has caused any prejudice. The court has discretion to consider late papers in favor of the strong policy favoring disposition of the case on the merits. Kapitanski v. Von's (1983) 146 Cal.App.3d 29, 32....

Excerpt: ... complaint alleges the following: 1) on November 17, 2016, at approximately 6:30 p.m., Plaintiff attended a talent show performance on LAUSD's premises. (Complaint ¶ 6); 2) After the performance, Plaintiff walked down a set of steps in order to leave to premises. (Id.) 3) The area was dark and Plaintiff used a handrail to guide herself down the set of steps, however, unbeknownst to her, the hand rail did not terminate on the ground level, but ra...