What is a Case Management Statement in Healthcare?

Useful Resources for Case Management Statement in Healthcare

Recent Rulings on Case Management Statement in Healthcare

RAUL ACEVES, ET AL. V. LEGACY PARTNERS, INC., ET AL.

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.”

  • Hearing

    Jan 14, 2021

VICTORY PHYSICAL THERAPY, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION VS MARIACYNTHIA PUNO, ET AL.

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.

  • Hearing

    Jan 12, 2021

TIFFANY HENDERSON AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED VS. SUMMIT BHC SACRAMENTO LLC

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.

  • Hearing

    Jan 05, 2021

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

VICTORY PHYSICAL THERAPY, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION VS MARIACYNTHIA PUNO, ET AL.

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.

  • Hearing

    Dec 16, 2020

NOYEMI KAROYAN, AN INDIVIDUAL VS HYUNDAI OF GLENDALE, LLC A BUSINESS ENTITY EXACT FORM UNKNOWN, ET AL.

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.)

  • Hearing

    Nov 20, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

JASMINE MARIE ACOSTA VS DANN FRANK SARNOSKI ET AL

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.

  • Hearing

    Oct 28, 2020

JEREMIAH LANGER, ET AL. VS OMAR MINWALLA, ET AL.

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.

  • Hearing

    Oct 28, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Medical Malpractice

RONALD AUSTIN VS LOS ANGELES COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT

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.

  • Hearing

    Oct 01, 2020

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

NELSON RENE PINEDA VS FCA US, LLC, ET AL.

(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.

  • Hearing

    Sep 29, 2020

NOLL V. SANTA ROSA CONVALESCENT HOSPITAL

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.

  • Hearing

    Sep 22, 2020

  • Judge

    Jennifer V

  • County

    Sonoma County, CA

ARMEN MANSSOURIAN VS BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC, ET AL.

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.

  • Hearing

    Sep 18, 2020

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

NATALIE LEE VS YILING MA

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.

  • Hearing

    Sep 16, 2020

  • Type

    Collections

  • Sub Type

    Promisory Note

  • Judge Elaine Lu
  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

NATALIE LEE VS YILING MA

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.

  • Hearing

    Aug 27, 2020

  • Type

    Collections

  • Sub Type

    Promisory Note

  • Judge Elaine Lu
  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

AMIR MOSTAFAVI VS ERIC KINGSLEY ET AL

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.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 29, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

PEGGY HILL VS UCLA, ET AL.

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.

  • Hearing

    Jul 21, 2020

MARIA E. GUZMAN , ET AL. VS FCA US, LLC, ET AL.

(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.

  • Hearing

    Jul 17, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

DANIEL GARCIA VS BRUNTON ENTERPRISES INC

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.

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

CIRCUIT ASSEMBLY CORP VS. HANRAHAN

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.

  • Hearing

    Jun 25, 2020

TIFFANY HENDERSON AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED VS. SUMMIT BHC SACRAMENTO LLC

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.

  • Hearing

    Jun 19, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

TIFFANY HENDERSON AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED VS. SUMMIT BHC SACRAMENTO LLC

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.

  • Hearing

    Jun 19, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

COMPASS HEALTH, INC. V. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH

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.]

  • Hearing

    Jun 18, 2020

MESHAK MOORE VS BAMBOO RETREATS LLC

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.

  • Hearing

    Mar 10, 2020

FERNANDEZ VS ADVENTIST HEALTH

Defendants' Case Management Statement is due 15 days before the next hearing date. Notice to be provided by plaintiff.

  • Hearing

    Mar 09, 2020

  • Judge

    Genalin Riley

  • County

    Ventura County, CA

FERNANDEZ VS ADVENTIST HEALTH

Defendants' Case Management Statement is due 15 days before the next hearing date. Notice to be provided by plaintiff.

  • Hearing

    Mar 09, 2020

  • Judge

    Genalin Riley

  • County

    Ventura County, CA

FERNANDEZ VS ADVENTIST HEALTH

Defendants' Case Management Statement is due 15 days before the next hearing date. Notice to be provided by plaintiff.

  • Hearing

    Mar 09, 2020

  • Judge

    Genalin Riley

  • County

    Ventura County, CA

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8     last » 

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Please wait a moment while we load this page.