California Health & Safety Code, section 1428(b) states:
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a licensee prosecuting a judicial appeal shall file and serve a case management statement pursuant to Rule 212 of the California Rules of Court within six months after the department files its answer in the appeal. Notwithstanding subdivision (d), the court shall dismiss the appeal upon motion of the department if the case management statement is not filed by the licensee within the period specified. The court may affirm, modify, or dismiss the citation, the level of the citation, or the amount of the proposed assessment of the civil penalty.
(Cal. Health & Safe. Code, § 1428, subd. (b).) In York Healthcare & Wellness Centre LP v. State Dept. of Public Health (2019) 33 Cal.App.5th Supp. 20, 24, a published decision of the Appellate Division of the Superior court of California, Los Angeles County, the trial court’s dismissal of an action challenging a citation under the Health & Safety Code due to failure to file a case management statement within six months of the defendant’s answer was affirmed.
Code of Civil Procedure, section 473, subdivision (b), in the case of a violation of Health & Safe. Code, § 1428, is not a means of avoiding dismissal. For example, in San Diego v. Department of Health Services (1991) 1 Cal.App.4th 656, in which the Court of Appeals upheld the trial court’s determination that relief was not available under Code of Civil Procedure, section 473, subdivision (b) where the health care facility failed to timely file an at-issue memorandum. (County of San Diego v. Dept. of Health Services (1991) 1 Cal.App.4th 656, 660-661.) The Court of Appeals found “the legislative history of the 1987 amendment to section 1428, subdivision (c), indicates an intent to expedite judicial review of licensees' challenges to the validity of citations issued by the Department. Construing the statute to permit judicial relief from the six-month time limitation for filing an at issue memorandum would contravene such legislative intent.” (Id. at 663.) The same is true for the six-month time limitation on filing a case management statement. (York Healthcare & Wellness Centre LP v. State Dept. of Public Health (2019) 33 Cal.App.5th Supp. 20, 28-29.)
Significantly, the statute requiring that a case management statement be filed within six months of the filing of Defendant’s answer also states that it is creating this requirement “notwithstanding any other provision of law.” The term “notwithstanding any other provision of law” is a “very comprehensive phrase [that] signals a broad application overriding all other code sections unless it is specifically modified by use of a term applying it only to a particular code section or phrase.” (In re Marriage of Cutler (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 460, 475; Apartment Ass'n of Los Angeles County, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 13, 26.) In other words, even if case management conferences do not occur in limited civil actions (see, e.g., LA County Court Rules, Rule 3.23), Health & Safety Code § 1428(b) still applies. The Court cannot simply discount or ignore the case management statement requirement found in §1428(b), even if other provisions require case management statements in different circumstances. Brandt v. Fox (1979) 90 Cal.app.3d 737, 743 (“Any other construction of subdivision (c) would effectively nullify the provisions of subdivision (a)(2) of section 475 and thereby run afoul of the cardinal rule that a court is prohibited from a construction which will omit a portion of a statute; also, that a court is required to construe a statute so as to effectuate all of its provisions.”)
A review of the legislative history of section 1428(b) supports the same conclusion. Here, the Senate Health Committee Analysis dated June 8, 2005, indicates:
When the statute [section 1428(b)] first codified the Rule 209 requirement, most, if not all, California courts required civil litigants to file . . . at-issue memoranda. However, in 1995, the Judicial Council repealed that portion of Rule 209 for civil cases subject to the Trial Delay Reduction Act (i.e., every type except probate, juvenile and domestic violence cases), and effective July 1, 2002 Judicial Council repealed Rule 209 for all cases. A result, filing at-issue memoranda in citation disputes has become a challenge because the court clerks are resistant to accept the documents for filing because the clerks generally understand that these memoranda are not required. In the past, providers have managed to get the at-issue memoranda accepted for filing only with specific attorney intervention with court clerks, which is extraordinary in relation to the filing of documents and consequently increases the costs of litigation for facilities. In fact, the new case management rules have enhanced the scope of the Case Management Statement (Cal. Rule Court 212) to better serve this purpose. Now, despite the Health and Safety Code requirement that facilitates file at-issue memoranda, the facility must also comply with Rule 212 by filing a Case Management Statement, thereby duplicating the information provided to the court.
Thus, it appears that the impetus for amending section 1428(b) in 2005 was (1) to prevent documents from being rejected because they were called “at issue” memoranda, and (2) to eliminate the need for a health care facility to file both an “at issue” memorandum and a case management statement. Nothing in the legislative history of section 1428(b) suggests that the statute was intended to apply only when there is an actual Case Management Conference pending on calendar. Rather, consistent with a plain reading of the statute, the legislature apparently intended to avoid duplication of information provided to the court and to facilitate Plaintiff’s filing of one case management statement within six months of an answer -- regardless of whether a Case Management Conference has been scheduled. See Wilcox v. Birtwhistle (1999) 21 Cal.4th 973, 977-978 (“When construing a statute, we must "ascertain the intent of the Legislature so as to effectuate the purpose of the law.")
However, in their first joint case management statement filed on March 22, 2019, the parties stated that arbitration was “[n]ot applicable here” and agreed to phase discovery so that the first phase would be “limited to whether evidence exists to support class action requirements regarding Plaintiffs’ claims.”
Jan 14, 2021
Santa Clara County, CA
At the Case Management Conference on August 4, 2020, Plaintiff had not filed its Proof of Service or Case Management Statement. Plaintiff’s counsel told the court that the “case fell through the cracks.” According to counsel, although defendant had been served on March 20, 2020, counsel had just filed his Proof of Service. Two months later, the Court held an OSC re Entry of Default Judgement. Plaintiff had failed to request default, and of course, had not filed its default judgment package.
Jan 12, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
The Court confirmed receipt of the Joint Case Management Statement filed on December 24, 2020 requesting a continuance. The Court granted motion. The Case Management Conference-Complex hearing is therefore continued to March 5, 2021 at 9:00 a.m. in this department. The parties shall file an updated joint statement via email to [email protected] by 14 days prior to the hearing.
Jan 05, 2021
Employment
Other Employment
Sacramento County, CA
At the Case Management Conference on August 4, 2020, Plaintiff had not filed its Proof of Service or Case Management Statement. Plaintiff’s counsel told the court that the “case fell through the cracks.” According to counsel, although defendant had been served on March 20, 2020, counsel had just filed his Proof of Service. Two months later, the Court held an OSC re Entry of Default Judgement. Plaintiff had failed to request default, and of course, had not filed its default judgment package.
Dec 16, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Plaintiff maintains that “after answering the operative complaint, Defendants filed their case management statement” where “Defendants made a number of representations that belied an intent to arbitrate.” (Id. at p. 4:4-6.)
Nov 20, 2020
Employment
Other Employment
Los Angeles County, CA
In opposition, Plaintiff contends Helen’s deposition is relevant to Defendants’ liability, as Defendant’s Case Management Statement provides liability is disputed, and Plaintiff’s claim for damages. Plaintiff asserts that Dann Frank testified at his deposition that he made no statements to the responding police officer after the crash, but that the traffic collision report indicates Dann Frank did make a statement, which he now denies.
Oct 28, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Defendant Omar Minwalla filed a Case Management Statement on September 10, 2020. The CMC Statement provides in item 15 that the motion for leave to amend to allege punitive damages has been fully briefed and is ready to be set for a hearing. (See 09/10/2020 Def.’s CMC Statement at item 15.) The Court held a case management conference on September 25, 2020.
Oct 28, 2020
Personal Injury/ Tort
Medical Malpractice
Los Angeles County, CA
In advance of the June 23, 2020 trial setting conference, Austin submitted a case management statement attaching a confidential settlement offer made by the Department pursuant to Evidence Code section 1152, a fact which the court noted on the record at the TSC. Altura Decl., ¶¶ 6-7, Ex. 2. E.
Oct 01, 2020
Administrative
Writ
Los Angeles County, CA
(See Adolph, supra, 184 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1449, 1451 [moving to compel arbitration six months after the filing of the complaint, during which time defendant filed two demurrers, accepted and contested discovery requests, made attempts to schedule discovery, and failed to assert arbitration in its case management statement, found to prejudice plaintiff by substantially undermining plaintiff's “‘ability to take advantage of the benefits and cost savings provided by arbitration’”].) (Spracher v. Paul M.
Sep 29, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Specifically, Plaintiff refers to Defendant’s December 6, 2019 answer to the complaint; Defendant’s January 6, 2020 service of written discovery; Defendant’s January 13, 2020 service of notice that it posted jury fees; Defendant’s January 13, 2020 case management statement; Defendant’s April 10, 2020 request for expert disclosure; and the fact that Defendant did not file this motion until April 15, 2020.
Sep 22, 2020
Jennifer V
Sonoma County, CA
Plaintiff argues that he filed his complaint on December 17, 2019, BMWNA filed its answer on February 11, 2020, PBMW answered on February 21, 2020 in lieu of filing a petition to compel arbitration, Defendants filed their motions on May 28, 2020, and the Case Management Statement filed in July 2020 did not indicate they were pursuing binding arbitration but instead that they anticipated a 6-8 day jury trial. Plaintiff argues that these actions amount to a showing of waiver.
Sep 18, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
On August 30, 2019, the Court deemed that Defendant had made a general appearance in light of Defendant’s filing of a case management statement on May 28, 2019. The Court ordered Defendant to file a responsive pleading to the complaint within 20 days. On September 17, 2019, Defendant filed a motion to strike. On January 30, 2020, the court granted Defendant’s motion to strike in part as to the claim of punitive damages as to the fourth cause of action.
Sep 16, 2020
Collections
Promisory Note
Los Angeles County, CA
On August 30, 2019, the Court deemed that Defendant had made a general appearance in light of Defendant’s filing of a case management statement on May 28, 2019. The Court ordered Defendant to file a responsive pleading to the complaint within 20 days. On September 17, 2019, Defendant filed a motion to strike. On January 30, 2020, the court granted Defendant’s motion to strike in part as to the claim of punitive damages as to the fourth cause of action.
Aug 27, 2020
Collections
Promisory Note
Los Angeles County, CA
Plaintiff demanded a jury trial in his complaint and on his case management statement. (Mostafavi Decl. ¶¶ 3, 7 & Exs. A, D.) On September 11, 2019, the Court lifted the stay and set a non-jury trial for January 22, 2020. Plaintiff contends that this was “merely an unintentional and inadvertent overlook by the Court,” which the Court should now correct. (Motion at pp. 7-8.)
Jul 29, 2020
Personal Injury/ Tort
Fraud
Los Angeles County, CA
SUBJECT: Dismissal of Defendant UCLA on Court’s Own Motion At the first Case Management Conference held on August 27, 2019, the Court noted that Plaintiff had failed to file both her Proofs of Service on Defendants and her Case Management Statement. The Court continued the Case Management Conference until October 10, 2019. At the October 10 CMC, Plaintiff still had not filed either a Proof of Service on defendants or a CMS.
Jul 21, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
(See Adolph, supra, 184 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1449, 1451 [moving to compel arbitration six months after the filing of the complaint, during which time defendant filed two demurrers, accepted and contested discovery requests, made attempts to schedule discovery, and failed to assert arbitration in its case management statement, found to prejudice plaintiff by substantially undermining plaintiff's “‘ability to take advantage of the benefits and cost savings provided by arbitration’”].) (Spracher v. Paul M.
Jul 17, 2020
Contract
Breach
Los Angeles County, CA
Bigge points out that Plas-Tal stated in its case management statement in section 14 regarding bifurcation (filed February 25, 2020) that it “intend[s] to file a motion for an order bifurcating and request separate trials under Code of Civil Procedure section 1048(b) of the Plaintiff’s personal injury action.” (See Dennis A. Cammarano Decl., ¶12.) CONCLUSION AND ORDER Bigge’s motion for an order directing T-Mobile to respond to the subpoenas is denied.
Jul 10, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
In Opposition, Defendant contends that Plaintiff “waived” trial not only during the 2/6/20 Case Management Conference, but also by statements in the Case Management Statement and by failing to timely deposit jury fees. Defendant also contends Plaintiff counsel’s declaration is “hearsay” on what his clients did not authorize; that Plaintiff does not offer any evidence of Plaintiff—the client—attesting that the waiver of jury was in error; and that this appears to be a simple change of tactical decision.
Jun 25, 2020
Orange County, CA
NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS: CASE MANAGEMENT – COMPLEX The Court confirmed receipt of the Joint Case Management Statement filed on May 6, 2020 requesting a continuance. The Court granted motion. The Case Management Conference-Complex hearing is therefore continued to August 28, 2020 at 10:00 a.m. in this department. NOTICE As of the date of this minute order, all hearings will be conducted remotely through the court's Zoom application and live-streamed on the court's YouTube channel.
Jun 19, 2020
Employment
Other Employment
Sacramento County, CA
NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS: CASE MANAGEMENT – COMPLEX The Court confirmed receipt of the Joint Case Management Statement filed on August 25, 2020 requesting a continuance due to participation in mediation. The Court granted motion. The Case Management Conference-Complex hearing is therefore continued to January 8, 2021at 10:00 a.m. in this department.
Jun 19, 2020
Employment
Other Employment
Sacramento County, CA
In fact, the only reference to dismissal in the statute concerns a licensee’s failure to file a case management statement. The statute provides for dismissal where the licensee fails to file a case management statement within six months after the defendant files an answer. “Under settled canons of statutory construction, in construing a statute we ascertain the Legislature’s intent in order to effectuate the law’s purpose. [Citation.]
Jun 18, 2020
San Luis Obispo County, CA
In that time period defendant filed two demurrers, accepted and contested discovery request[s], engaged in efforts to schedule discovery, omitted to mark or assert arbitration in its case management statement.
Mar 10, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Defendants' Case Management Statement is due 15 days before the next hearing date. Notice to be provided by plaintiff.
Mar 09, 2020
Genalin Riley
Ventura County, CA
Defendants' Case Management Statement is due 15 days before the next hearing date. Notice to be provided by plaintiff.
Mar 09, 2020
Genalin Riley
Ventura County, CA
Defendants' Case Management Statement is due 15 days before the next hearing date. Notice to be provided by plaintiff.
Mar 09, 2020
Genalin Riley
Ventura County, CA
Please wait a moment while we load this page.