We are checking for the latest updates in this case. We will email you when the process is complete.

Raymond Dell V. Town Of Jerusalem, Keuka Park Water &Amp; Sewer District

Case Last Refreshed: 8 months ago

Raymond Dell, filed a(n) General Torts - Torts case represented by Donlon, Michael Anthony, against Keuka Park Water & Sewer District, Town Of Jerusalem, represented by Long, James Austin, in the jurisdiction of Yates County, NY, . Yates County, NY Superior Courts with Jason Cook presiding.

Case Details for Raymond Dell v. Keuka Park Water & Sewer District , et al.

Judge

Jason Cook

Filing Date

March 28, 2017

Category

Torts - Other (Property Damage)

Last Refreshed

November 21, 2023

Practice Area

Torts

Filing Location

Yates County, NY

Matter Type

General Torts

Parties for Raymond Dell v. Keuka Park Water & Sewer District , et al.

Plaintiffs

Raymond Dell

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

Donlon, Michael Anthony

Defendants

Keuka Park Water & Sewer District

Town Of Jerusalem

Attorneys for Defendants

Long, James Austin

Case Documents for Raymond Dell v. Keuka Park Water & Sewer District , et al.

MEMORANDUM OF LAW  (Motion #7)

Date: December 03, 2020

ANSWER

Date: April 27, 2017

MEMORANDUM OF LAW

Date: December 02, 2020

NOTICE OF MOTION

Date: December 02, 2020

NOTICE OF CROSS-MOTION

Date: December 04, 2020

NOTICE OF MOTION  (Motion #6)

Date: December 03, 2020

MEMORANDUM OF LAW  (Motion #6)

Date: December 03, 2020

NOTICE OF MOTION  (Motion #12)

Date: December 03, 2020

NOTICE OF MOTION  (Motion #8)

Date: December 03, 2020

NOTICE OF MOTION  (Motion #7)

Date: December 03, 2020

NOTICE OF CROSS-MOTION

Date: December 14, 2020

MEMORANDUM OF LAW  (Motion #8)

Date: December 03, 2020

MEMORANDUM OF LAW  (Motion #5)

Date: December 03, 2020

NOTICE OF APPEAL

Date: July 09, 2020

NOTICE OF MOTION  (Motion #5)

Date: December 03, 2020

NOTICE OF APPEAL

Date: July 17, 2020

NOTICE OF MOTION  (Motion #9)

Date: December 03, 2020

MEMORANDUM OF LAW  (Motion #9)

Date: December 03, 2020

NOTICE OF MOTION  (Motion #10)

Date: December 03, 2020

NOTICE OF MOTION  (Motion #11)

Date: December 03, 2020

JUDGMENT

Date: June 24, 2022

NOTICE OF ENTRY

Date: June 24, 2022

OTHER COURT FILED DOCUMENT

Date: March 28, 2017

OTHER COURT FILED DOCUMENT

Date: April 23, 2019

OTHER COURT FILED DOCUMENT

Date: August 27, 2019

OTHER COURT FILED DOCUMENT

Date: January 21, 2020

OTHER COURT FILED DOCUMENT

Date: November 19, 2019

OTHER COURT FILED DOCUMENT

Date: March 12, 2020

CONSENT TO EFILING

Date: November 30, 2020

OTHER COURT FILED DOCUMENT

Date: January 25, 2019

OTHER COURT FILED DOCUMENT

Date: March 28, 2017

OTHER COURT FILED DOCUMENT

Date: March 05, 2020

OTHER COURT FILED DOCUMENT

Date: April 11, 2017

OTHER COURT FILED DOCUMENT

Date: August 03, 2018

OTHER COURT FILED DOCUMENT

Date: January 21, 2020

OTHER COURT FILED DOCUMENT

Date: March 05, 2020

AFFIRMATION

Date: November 16, 2020

OTHER COURT FILED DOCUMENT

Date: March 13, 2020

OTHER COURT FILED DOCUMENT

Date: April 27, 2017

OTHER COURT FILED DOCUMENT

Date: November 26, 2018

OTHER COURT FILED DOCUMENT

Date: November 16, 2020

OTHER COURT FILED DOCUMENT

Date: March 13, 2020

OTHER COURT FILED DOCUMENT

Date: November 19, 2020

OTHER COURT FILED DOCUMENT

Date: March 13, 2020

OTHER COURT FILED DOCUMENT

Date: March 13, 2020

OTHER COURT FILED DOCUMENT

Date: March 05, 2020

OTHER COURT FILED DOCUMENT

Date: January 21, 2020

OTHER COURT FILED DOCUMENT

Date: September 24, 2020

EXHIBIT(S)  - C  (Motion #3)

Date: December 02, 2020

EXHIBIT(S)  - B  (Motion #3)

Date: December 02, 2020

EXHIBIT(S)  - D  (Motion #3)

Date: December 02, 2020

EXHIBIT(S)  - A  (Motion #3)

Date: December 02, 2020

EXHIBIT(S)  - F  (Motion #3)

Date: December 02, 2020

EXHIBIT(S)  - C  (Motion #4)

Date: December 02, 2020

EXHIBIT(S)  - B  (Motion #4)

Date: December 02, 2020

EXHIBIT(S)  - B  (Motion #5)

Date: December 03, 2020

EXHIBIT(S)  - C  (Motion #5)

Date: December 03, 2020

EXHIBIT(S)  - F  (Motion #4)

Date: December 02, 2020

EXHIBIT(S)  - F  (Motion #5)

Date: December 03, 2020

EXHIBIT(S)  - E  (Motion #5)

Date: December 03, 2020

EXHIBIT(S)  - I  (Motion #4)

Date: December 02, 2020

EXHIBIT(S)  - D  (Motion #5)

Date: December 03, 2020

EXHIBIT(S)  - A  (Motion #6)

Date: December 03, 2020

EXHIBIT(S)  - B  (Motion #6)

Date: December 03, 2020

EXHIBIT(S)  - H  (Motion #5)

Date: December 03, 2020

EXHIBIT(S)  - J  (Motion #5)

Date: December 03, 2020

EXHIBIT(S)  - D  (Motion #6)

Date: December 03, 2020

EXHIBIT(S)  - A  (Motion #5)

Date: December 03, 2020

EXHIBIT(S)  - G  (Motion #5)

Date: December 03, 2020

EXHIBIT(S)  - C  (Motion #6)

Date: December 03, 2020

EXHIBIT(S)  - E  (Motion #6)

Date: December 03, 2020

EXHIBIT(S)  - I  (Motion #5)

Date: December 03, 2020

EXHIBIT(S)  - H  (Motion #6)

Date: December 03, 2020

EXHIBIT(S)  - K  (Motion #5)

Date: December 03, 2020

EXHIBIT(S)  - F  (Motion #6)

Date: December 03, 2020

EXHIBIT(S)  - G  (Motion #6)

Date: December 03, 2020

EXHIBIT(S)  - I  (Motion #6)

Date: December 03, 2020

EXHIBIT(S)  - A  (Motion #7)

Date: December 03, 2020

EXHIBIT(S)  - d  (Motion #7)

Date: December 03, 2020

EXHIBIT(S)  - C  (Motion #7)

Date: December 03, 2020

EXHIBIT(S)  - H  (Motion #7)

Date: December 03, 2020

EXHIBIT(S)  - B  (Motion #7)

Date: December 03, 2020

EXHIBIT(S)  - J  (Motion #6)

Date: December 03, 2020

EXHIBIT(S)  - A  (Motion #8)

Date: December 03, 2020

EXHIBIT(S)  - G  (Motion #7)

Date: December 03, 2020

EXHIBIT(S)  - E  (Motion #7)

Date: December 03, 2020

EXHIBIT(S)  - F  (Motion #7)

Date: December 03, 2020

EXHIBIT(S)  - B  (Motion #8)

Date: December 03, 2020

EXHIBIT(S)  - C  (Motion #10)

Date: December 03, 2020

EXHIBIT(S)  - D  (Motion #10)

Date: December 03, 2020

EXHIBIT(S)  - B  (Motion #9)

Date: December 03, 2020

EXHIBIT(S)  - F  (Motion #11)

Date: December 03, 2020

EXHIBIT(S)  - D  (Motion #8)

Date: December 03, 2020

EXHIBIT(S)  - C  (Motion #9)

Date: December 03, 2020

EXHIBIT(S)  - A  (Motion #11)

Date: December 03, 2020

EXHIBIT(S)  - C  (Motion #8)

Date: December 03, 2020

EXHIBIT(S)  - c  (Motion #11)

Date: December 03, 2020

EXHIBIT(S)  - D  (Motion #11)

Date: December 03, 2020

EXHIBIT(S)  - E  (Motion #11)

Date: December 03, 2020

EXHIBIT(S)  - a  (Motion #10)

Date: December 03, 2020

EXHIBIT(S)  - B  (Motion #12)

Date: December 03, 2020

EXHIBIT(S)  - G  (Motion #11)

Date: December 03, 2020

EXHIBIT(S)  - B  (Motion #11)

Date: December 03, 2020

EXHIBIT(S)  - A  (Motion #12)

Date: December 03, 2020

EXHIBIT(S)  - B  (Motion #10)

Date: December 03, 2020

EXHIBIT(S)  - C  (Motion #12)

Date: December 03, 2020

EXHIBIT(S)  - 9  (Motion #13)

Date: December 04, 2020

EXHIBIT(S)  - 5  (Motion #13)

Date: December 04, 2020

EXHIBIT(S)  - D  (Motion #12)

Date: December 03, 2020

AFFIDAVIT  (Motion #13)

Date: December 04, 2020

EXHIBIT(S)  - E  (Motion #12)

Date: December 03, 2020

EXHIBIT(S)  - 1  (Motion #13)

Date: December 04, 2020

EXHIBIT(S)  - 7  (Motion #13)

Date: December 04, 2020

EXHIBIT(S)  - 2  (Motion #13)

Date: December 04, 2020

EXHIBIT(S)  - 4  (Motion #13)

Date: December 04, 2020

EXHIBIT(S)  - C  (Motion #14)

Date: December 14, 2020

EXHIBIT(S)  - 3  (Motion #13)

Date: December 04, 2020

EXHIBIT(S)  - F  (Motion #14)

Date: December 14, 2020

EXHIBIT(S)  - C  (Motion #13)

Date: December 15, 2020

EXHIBIT(S)  - B  (Motion #13)

Date: December 15, 2020

EXHIBIT(S)  - A  (Motion #14)

Date: December 14, 2020

EXHIBIT(S)  - A  (Motion #13)

Date: December 15, 2020

EXHIBIT(S)  - E  (Motion #14)

Date: December 14, 2020

AFFIDAVIT  (Motion #3)

Date: December 21, 2020

AFFIDAVIT  (Motion #13)

Date: December 04, 2020

EXHIBIT(S)  - A  (Motion #3)

Date: December 21, 2020

EXHIBIT(S)  - 6  (Motion #13)

Date: December 04, 2020

EXHIBIT(S)  - B  (Motion #14)

Date: December 14, 2020

EXHIBIT(S)  - D  (Motion #14)

Date: December 14, 2020

EXHIBIT(S)  - C  (Motion #3)

Date: December 21, 2020

EXHIBIT(S)  - B  (Motion #3)

Date: December 21, 2020

EXHIBIT(S)  - D  (Motion #3)

Date: December 21, 2020

NOTICE OF APPEAL

Date: February 04, 2021

OTHER COURT FILED DOCUMENT

Date: November 16, 2020

AFFIDAVIT

Date: October 13, 2021

NOTE OF ISSUE:WITH JURY

Date: September 08, 2021

EXHIBIT(S)  - B

Date: February 10, 2022

EXHIBIT(S)  - A

Date: February 10, 2022

ORDER - TRIAL SCHEDULING

Date: January 08, 2021

ORDER - TRIAL SCHEDULING

Date: October 13, 2021

AFFIRMATION  (Motion #15)

Date: March 18, 2022

NOTICE OF MOTION

Date: March 18, 2022

EXHIBIT(S)  - A  (Motion #10)

Date: February 28, 2022

ORDER - MEDIATION

Date: March 17, 2022

EXHIBIT(S)  - C

Date: April 14, 2022

EXHIBIT(S)  - B

Date: April 14, 2022

EXHIBIT(S)  - A

Date: April 14, 2022

TRIAL DOCUMENTS

Date: April 11, 2022

TRIAL DOCUMENTS

Date: April 11, 2022

EXHIBIT(S)  - C

Date: April 14, 2022

DECISION + ORDER ON MOTION

Date: April 11, 2022

EXHIBIT(S)  - B

Date: April 14, 2022

DECISION + ORDER ON MOTION

Date: March 17, 2022

TRIAL DOCUMENTS

Date: April 11, 2022

NOTICE OF ENTRY

Date: April 11, 2022

TRIAL DOCUMENTS

Date: April 14, 2022

EXHIBIT(S)  - D

Date: April 14, 2022

EXHIBIT(S)  - A

Date: April 14, 2022

TRIAL DOCUMENTS

Date: April 11, 2022

TRIAL DOCUMENTS

Date: April 14, 2022

EXHIBIT(S)  - C

Date: April 14, 2022

EXHIBIT(S)  - A

Date: April 14, 2022

EXHIBIT(S)  - H

Date: April 14, 2022

EXHIBIT(S)  - B

Date: April 14, 2022

TRIAL DOCUMENTS

Date: April 18, 2022

EXHIBIT(S)  - A

Date: April 25, 2022

PRE-TRIAL DOCUMENT(S)

Date: April 22, 2022

EXHIBIT(S)  - B

Date: April 22, 2022

TRIAL DOCUMENTS

Date: April 29, 2022

EXHIBIT(S)  - C

Date: April 22, 2022

EXHIBIT(S)  - A

Date: April 22, 2022

EXHIBIT(S)  - F

Date: April 14, 2022

TRIAL DOCUMENTS

Date: April 18, 2022

EXHIBIT(S)  - G

Date: April 14, 2022

EXHIBIT(S)  - E

Date: April 22, 2022

EXHIBIT(S)  - E

Date: April 14, 2022

EXHIBIT(S)  - C

Date: April 29, 2022

EXHIBIT(S)  - F

Date: April 22, 2022

TRIAL DOCUMENTS

Date: April 29, 2022

EXHIBIT(S)  - A

Date: May 11, 2022

EXHIBIT(S)  - B

Date: April 29, 2022

EXHIBIT(S)  - A

Date: April 29, 2022

EXHIBIT(S)  - D

Date: April 22, 2022

TRIAL DOCUMENTS

Date: April 22, 2022

TRIAL DOCUMENTS

Date: May 02, 2022

EXHIBIT(S)  - G

Date: April 22, 2022

TRIAL DOCUMENTS

Date: May 11, 2022

TRIAL DOCUMENTS

Date: May 02, 2022

AFFIRMATION

Date: May 19, 2022

NOTICE OF MOTION

Date: May 19, 2022

TRIAL DOCUMENTS

Date: May 09, 2022

EXHIBIT(S)  - A

Date: June 22, 2022

NOTICE OF ENTRY

Date: June 22, 2022

ORDER ( PROPOSED )

Date: June 17, 2022

ORDER - OTHER

Date: June 22, 2022

EXHIBIT(S)  - E  (Motion #3)

Date: December 02, 2020

EXHIBIT(S)  - D  (Motion #4)

Date: December 02, 2020

EXHIBIT(S)  - E  (Motion #4)

Date: December 02, 2020

EXHIBIT(S)  - A  (Motion #4)

Date: December 02, 2020

Case Events for Raymond Dell v. Keuka Park Water & Sewer District , et al.

Type Description
JUDGMENT
Notice of Entry for signed Judgment dated June 24, 2022
LETTER/CORRESPONDENCE - TO CLERK
Letter to the Clerk regarding the recently filed Judgment
EXHIBIT(S) - A
Costs of Plaintiff
Notice of Entry for Decision signed on June 17, 2022 and entered June 22, 2022
JUDGMENT -TO COUNTY CLERK (PROPOSED)
ORDER - OTHER
ORDER ( PROPOSED )
Proposed Order
LETTER / CORRESPONDENCE TO JUDGE
EXHIBIT(S) - A (Motion #16)
Supplemented Exhibit A - Sworn Affidavit of Mark P. Zaporowski
See all events

Related Content in Yates County

Case

Storie Zweiben Family Trust v. Tax Assessor Of Jerusalem
Jul 20, 2024 | Other Real Property - SCAR | Other Real Property - SCAR | SC2024-5009

Case

Discover Bank v. Sherry L Mezer
Jul 17, 2024 | Other Matters - Consumer Credit (Card) Original Creditor Plaintiff | Other Matters - Consumer Credit (Card) Original Creditor Plaintiff | 2024-5195

Case

Elizabeth Mason v. Tax Assessor Of Jerusalem
Jul 20, 2024 | Other Real Property - SCAR | Other Real Property - SCAR | SC2024-5014

Case

Gregory Patrick v. Tax Assessor Of Jerusalem
Jul 21, 2024 | Other Real Property - SCAR | Other Real Property - SCAR | SC2024-5016

Case

Workers' Compensation Board Of The State Of New York v. Ruth M Sommers Dba Implicit Us
Jul 24, 2024 | Other Matters - Workers Comp App for Judgment | Other Matters - Workers Comp App for Judgment | 2024-5202

Case

Douglas Bugner v. Tax Assessor Of Jerusalem
Jul 20, 2024 | Other Real Property - SCAR | Other Real Property - SCAR | SC2024-5011

Case

Sullivan Family Irrevocable Trust v. Tax Assessor Of Jerusalem
Jul 20, 2024 | Other Real Property - SCAR | Other Real Property - SCAR | SC2024-5015

Case

David M Patrick v. Tax Assessor Of Jerusalem
Jul 20, 2024 | Other Real Property - SCAR | Other Real Property - SCAR | SC2024-5013

Case

American Express National Bank v. Jennifer Long
Jul 18, 2024 | Other Matters - Consumer Credit (Card) Original Creditor Plaintiff | Other Matters - Consumer Credit (Card) Original Creditor Plaintiff | 2024-5197

Ruling

FCS059298 - THOMPSON, FELICIA V. SAUKHLA, M.D., NARINDER (DMS)
Jul 20, 2024 | FCS059298
FCS059298 PORTUGAL’s Motion for Summary Judgment TENTATIVE RULING Defendant RUTH PORTUGAL, R.N. (“PORTUGAL”) moves for summary judgment on Plaintiff FELICIA THOMPSON’s cause of action for wrongful death via medical negligence. Summarized, Plaintiff alleges that PORTUGAL’s failure to observe the standard of care applicable to a nurse caused the death of Plaintiff’s father (“Decedent”) on September 2, 2017. Objections to Evidence. In ruling on a motion for summary adjudication the court need only rule on those evidentiary objections that it deems material to its disposition of the motion. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (q).) PORTUGAL’s Objections #1-10. PORTUGAL’s objections #1-10 are overruled. PORTUGAL’s Objections #11-22. PORTUGAL’s objections to Plaintiff’s declarations from Melvin Smith, Michael Burrus, Cole Bienek, Earl Miller, James Cross, John Lawyer, Herman Davis, Clarence Myers, Shelvert Dyer, Lamar Minor, and Michael Davis, as well as the second supplemental declaration of Dr. Dan Field, on the basis of failure to comply with Code of Civil Procedure section 2015.5 are sustained. Though the declarations are not hearsay they do not meet Code of Civil Procedure section 2015.5 requirements. (Kulshrestha v. First Union Commercial Corp. (2004) 33 Cal.4th 601, 609 [declarations of personal knowledge admissible on summary judgment].) All declarations but Dr. Field’s fail to state the date and place of execution of the declarations. Dr. Field’s second supplemental declaration does not state the place. PORTUGAL’s Objections #23-24. PORTUGAL’s objections to all proffered evidence from Dr. Field, being his two declarations, a rebuttal declaration to defense expert opinions, and deposition excerpts, are sustained. A doctor may speak to the standard of care for a nurse if he possesses relevant qualifications or knowledge. (Lattimore v. Dickey (2015) 239 Cal.App.4th 959, 970 (Lattimore).) However, Dr. Field’s qualifications and knowledge are solely set forth in his second supplemental declaration, which fails to meet Code of Civil Procedure section 2015.5 requirements. Accordingly Plaintiff does not establish with admissible evidence that Dr. Field can speak to the standard of care applicable to PORTUGAL. Similarly, Dr. Fields’ opinions as a medical doctor are also lacking in foundation. Neither the Record Review Report dated 12/11/2020 or the Rebuttal Report dated 1/14/2021 state Dr. Fields’ qualifications. The Second Supplemental Declaration, which does state the doctor’s qualifications, does not cure the problem as the declaration is procedurally defective under CCP 2015.5. The court does not consider PORTUGAL’s remaining objections material to the disposition of the motion. Requests for Judicial Notice. Matters subject to judicial notice may support a motion for summary judgment. (Code Civ. Proc. § 437c, subd. (b)(1).) The court takes judicial notice of all items proffered by PORTUGAL, being documents from Plaintiff’s federal case preceding this one on the same facts, as records of a court of the United States per Evidence Code section 452, subdivision (d). Legal Standard. A defendant may move for summary judgment on the basis that the plaintiff cannot establish an element of his cause of action. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (o)(1).) A summary judgment motion is properly granted where the evidence in support of the moving party would be sufficient to sustain a judgment in his favor and his opponent does not show facts sufficient to present a triable issue of fact. (Parker v. Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 176, 181 (Parker).) The motion is not to be granted where any triable issue of material fact exists. (Ibid.) The affidavits of the moving party are strictly construed, and doubts as to the propriety of summary judgment should be resolved against granting the motion. (Ibid.) Reasonable inferences from the evidence must be drawn in the light most favorable to the opposing party. (Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc. v. Helliker (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 1135, 1155.) Affidavits, declarations, admissions, answers to interrogatories, depositions, and matters judicially noticed may all support a motion for summary judgment, provided they contain admissible evidence. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 437c, subds. (b)(1), (d).) Allegations in a party’s own pleadings may not satisfy deficiencies in evidence. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (p).) Allegations in an opposing party’s pleadings may be considered evidence, however. (Parker, supra, 3 Cal.3d at p. 181.) Additionally, a defendant does not meet its burden of showing a plaintiff cannot establish an element merely by pointing out the absence of evidence; the defendant must show that the plaintiff both does not possess and cannot reasonably obtain evidence. (Zipusch v. LA Workout, Inc. (2007) 155 Cal.App.4th 1281, 1286-1287.) Wrongful Death via Medical Negligence. Wrongful death is a statutory cause of action, the elements of which are simply a tort resulting in death and damages. (Lattimore, supra, 239 Cal.App.4th at p. 968.) In this case Plaintiff alleges the wrongful death of Decedent due to the underlying tort of medical malpractice or negligence. (First Amended Complaint at ¶¶ 38-44.) Medical negligence is a form of negligence, to which general principles of negligence apply. (Massey v. Mercy Medical Center Redding (2009) 180 Cal.App.4th 690, 695.) Thus a medical practitioner is negligent if he fails to use the standard of care that a reasonably careful practitioner would use in similar circumstances, but what the standard of care is for a medical practitioner is a matter peculiarly within the knowledge of experts. (Ibid.) The standard of care for a medical practitioner may therefore only be proven by the testimony of experts unless the conduct required in the circumstances is something within the common knowledge of laymen. (Ibid.) In other words, a plaintiff usually may only prove that a medical practitioner failed to meet the standard of care via expert testimony. (Ibid.) The foregoing rules of analysis apply whether the practitioner is a doctor or a nurse; a nurse’s conduct is not measured by the same standard of care as a doctor’s but likewise must be assessed by expert testimony from one qualified to speak to the appropriate profession’s standard of care. (Lattimore at p. 969.) On moving for summary judgment a medical practitioner will accordingly have the initial burden to present evidence, supported by expert testimony where necessary, that his/her acts met the applicable standard of care, else the motion must be denied. PORTUGAL carries her initial burden as to the standard of care issue. The Declaration of Nancy Booth in Support of PORTUGAL’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Booth) states that PORTUGAL observed the relevant standard of care (Booth at ¶ 17.) Ms. Booth declares she is qualified to speak to the standard of care for a nurse in PORTUGAL’s circumstances because she is a licensed registered nurse with almost fifty years’ experience who has been a certified correctional setting health care professional since 2013 and worked in a correctional health care setting from 2006 to 2021. (Id. at ¶¶ 1, 3.) Ms. Booth reviewed Decedent’s general medical records, the records from September 2, 2017, and numerous documents generated in the course of this litigation. (Id. at ¶ 5.) Ms. Booth explains that in the context of the unusually hot day on September 2, 2017 it was reasonable for PORTUGAL to believe Decedent suffered heat-related problems and perform associated assessments and treatment. (Id. at ¶ 18.) Ms. Booth states that Decedent was able to answer questions and obey commands and so it was reasonable for PORTUGAL to not explore a possible altered mental state. (Id. at ¶ 17.) Ms. Booth states that it was reasonable to believe Decedent’s problems had resolved because he displayed improved vital signs after treatment. (Id. at ¶ 18.) Additional tests such as rectal thermometer and orthostatic blood pressure readings were not necessary to meet the standard of care because Decedent was a conscious adult male whose vital signs were able to be accessed in other ways. (Id. at ¶¶ 20-21.) Ms. Booth connects her opinions to facts and offers competent expert testimony that PORTUGAL met the standard of care. Plaintiff’s admissible evidence suffices to raise triable issues of material fact on the issue of the standard of care. In paragraph 13 of the Ron Lopez declaration he states that PORTUGAL observed that Decedent was dehydrated yet performed no evaluation of urine specific gravity, orthostatic blood pressure, or fluid intake and output. This directly counters Ms. Booth’s assertion that there was no need to examine Decedent’s orthostatic blood pressure and raises a triable issue of material fact on the standard of care given that the defense position hinges on the idea that PORTUGAL responded appropriately to presented dehydration. In paragraph 14 Mr. Lopez states that PORTUGAL observed “10/10” pain from Decedent for two and a half hours but did not perform a PQRST pain assessment or document the effect of the analgesics provided. This too raises an issue as to the standard of care in the circumstances Decedent presented. On the issue of causation, however, PORTUGAL fails to meet her initial burden. In a medical negligence case, causation must be proven with expert testimony. (Bromme v. Pavitt (1992) 5 Cal.App.4th 1487, 1498; Dumas v. Cooney (1991) 235 Cal.App.3d 1593, 1603; Munro v. Regents of University of California (1989) 215 Cal.App.3d 977, 984- 985.) In the context of a motion for summary judgment, it stands to reason that expert testimony is needed to negate causation. PORTUGAL offers no expert evidence to negate causation. She uses only a layperson’s analysis based on the disputed facts surrounding Decedent’s cause of death to conclude that there is no evidence that responding differently to Decedent’s initial presentation would have changed his treatment outcome. Conclusion. PORTUGAL’s motion for summary judgment is denied. Department 7 is inviting you to a scheduled ZoomGov meeting. Join ZoomGov Meeting https://solano-courts-ca- gov.zoomgov.com/j/1611554664?pwd=T3U4QlBGWWNWaGlieXJTcGxIVHRXZz09 Meeting ID: 161 155 4664 Passcode: 818575 One tap mobile +16692545252,,1611554664#,,,,*818575# US (San Jose) +14154494000,,1611554664#,,,,*818575# US (US Spanish Line)

Ruling

RODRIGUEZ, ET AL VS. HEDRICK, ET AL
Jul 19, 2024 | CVPM22-0199069
RODRIGUEZ, ET AL VS. HEDRICK, ET AL Case Number: CVPM22-0199069 This matter is on calendar for review regarding status of bankruptcy. On January 16, 2024, at the Settlement Conference, the Court was informed that Herman Hedrick filed for bankruptcy, which the Court noted stays the civil action. No status report has been filed. An appearance is necessary on today’s calendar to provide the Court with a status of the bankruptcy.

Ruling

Mistletoe Oil Corp vs. McCarley
Jul 19, 2024 | 23CV-0201770
MISTLETOE OIL CORP VS. MCCARLEY Case Number: 23CV-0201770 Tentative Ruling on Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal: An Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal issued on May 29, 2024 to Plaintiff Mistletoe Oil Corp and Counsel Sekhon & O’Bryant for failure to timely serve the complaint and failure to timely prosecute. The Complaint in this matter was filed on March 9, 2023. “The complaint must be served on all named defendants and proofs of service on those defendants must be filed with the court within 60 days after the filing of the complaint.” CRC 3.110(b). It has been over a year since the Complaint was filed and there is no Proof of Service of Summons on file. Counsel was ordered to immediately serve a copy of the Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal on the client and file a proof of service. No proof of service indicating that the client was served with the Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal was filed. Counsel previously indicated that a Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel was forthcoming. No such motion has been filed. There is no evidence before the Court that would cause the Court to find that the delays are attributable to the client rather than counsel. An appearance by counsel is necessary on today’s calendar. Absent sufficient excuse, the Court intends to issue an Order to Show Cause Re: Monetary Sanctions in the amount of $500 to counsel for failure to timely serve the complaint, failure to timely prosecute, and failure to serve the client with the Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal.

Ruling

Padilla, et al. vs. Rawlins, et al.
Jul 21, 2024 | 23CV-0202171
PADILLA, ET AL. VS. RAWLINS, ET AL. Case Number: 23CV-0202171 Tentative Ruling on Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint: This matter is on calendar for hearing on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint. The Motion was filed on June 4, 2024. Defendant Shannon Rawlins first appeared in this action by filing his Answer on June 6, 2024. The Motion was not served on Defendant Rawlins. In the interests of justice, the Court will continue hearing on this Motion and require service of the Motion on Defendant Rawlins. This matter is continued to Monday, August 19, 2024, at 8:30 a.m. in Department 64 for further proceedings on the Motion. Plaintiff is directed to file proof of service of notice of hearing on all Defendants for the future hearing date. No appearance is necessary on today’s calendar.

Ruling

The Construction Zone, LLC vs. Joe Peixoto
Jul 18, 2024 | C23-02140
C23-02140 CASE NAME: THE CONSTRUCTION ZONE, LLC VS. JOE PEIXOTO *HEARING ON MOTION FOR DISCOVERY TO COMPEL DEF TO SERVE FURTHER RESPONSES TO FORM INTEROGS; SET 1 FILED BY: THE CONSTRUCTION ZONE, LLC *TENTATIVE RULING:* By stipulation this motion has been taken off calendar in favor of engaging a discovery referee.

Ruling

Martinez vs. PG&E Corporation, et al.
Jul 19, 2024 | 22CV-0200316
MARTINEZ VS. PG&E CORPORATION, ET AL. Case Number: 22CV-0200316 This matter is on calendar for review regarding status of coordinated proceeding. This matter is currently coordinated as JCCP No. 5165 in the San Francisco County Superior Court. The Court has received status statements from Plaintiff and Defendants, which indicate the dismissal with prejudice of Plaintiff’s action (following summary judgment) is currently under appeal. The parties request continuance pending appeal. Today’s hearing is continued to Monday, January 13, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 64. The parties are ordered to file a status report at least five court days prior to the continued hearing date. No appearance is necessary on today’s calendar. MASON VS. CONTECH ENGINEERED SOLUTIONS LLC, ET

Ruling

Peryna Washington-Dillard vs Robyn Ford
Jul 19, 2024 | 23CV-02171
23CV-02171 Peryna Washington-Dillard v. Robyn Ford Order to Show Cause re: Sanctions Appearance required. Parties who wish to appear remotely must contact the clerk of the court at (209) 725-4111 to seek permission and arrange for a remote appearance. Appear to address Plaintiff’s failure to appear at the June 10, 2024 Case Management Conference and whether Plaintiff should be ordered to pay monetary sanctions of $100.

Ruling

ALFONSO MORA VS JED'S MARKET, INC., ET AL.
Jul 18, 2024 | 23LBCV00172
Case Number: 23LBCV00172 Hearing Date: July 18, 2024 Dept: S27 Defendants propounded RFAs, set one and FROGs, set two on Plaintiff on 4/04/24. Defendants propounded FROGs, set three, SROGs, set two, and RFAs, set three on Plaintiff on 4/10/24. On 5/15/24 and 5/16/24, Defendants filed motions to compel responses to the above interrogatories and to deem the above RFAs admitted, setting them for hearing on various dates. On 6/03/24, the Court rescheduled the hearing on all of the motions to 7/18/24. Defendants gave notice of the ruling the same day. To date, Plaintiff has not served responses to any of the propounded discovery. Defendants therefore seek an order compelling Plaintiff to respond, without objections, to the outstanding discovery, deeming the RFAs admitted, and requiring Plaintiff to pay sanctions. Defendants motions to compel are granted. Plaintiff is ordered to serve verified responses to the above-detailed interrogatories, without objections, within five days. The Court notes that time is of the essence, as the case is scheduled for trial on 8/06/24. CCP §§2030.290(a),(b). Defendants motions to deem RFAs, sets two and three, admitted are also granted. CCP §2033.280(a), (b). Sanctions are mandatory. §§2030.290(c), 2033.280(c). Defendants seek sanctions in the varying amounts in connection with each motion. Counsel bills at the rate of $210/hour. The Court awards one hour of time to prepare each of these form discovery motions. No opposition was filed and therefore no reply was necessary. The Court awards one hour to appear at the hearing on the motions, as the Court strongly encourages remote appearance. The Court therefore awards a total of six hours of attorney time at the requested rate $210/hour, or $1320 in attorneys fees. The Court also awards five filing fees of $60 each, or $300 in costs. Sanctions are sought against and imposed against Plaintiff, in pro per; he is ordered to pay sanctions to Defendants, by and through their attorney of record, in the amount of $1620, within twenty days. Defendants are ordered to give notice. Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at gdcdepts27@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org . If the department does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on the tentative and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion may be placed off calendar . If a party submits on the tentative, the partys email must include the case number and must identify the party submitting on the tentative. If any party does not submit on the tentative, the party should make arrangements to appear remotely at the hearing on this matter.

Document

American Express National Bank v. Jennifer Long
Jul 18, 2024 | Other Matters - Consumer Credit (Card) Original Creditor Plaintiff | Other Matters - Consumer Credit (Card) Original Creditor Plaintiff | 2024-5197

Document

Discover Bank v. Sherry L Mezer
Jul 17, 2024 | Other Matters - Consumer Credit (Card) Original Creditor Plaintiff | Other Matters - Consumer Credit (Card) Original Creditor Plaintiff | 2024-5195

Document

Ny Benton I, Llc v. Amber Bryan ASSESSOR, TOWN OF BENTON, YATES COUNTY, NEW YORK
Jul 18, 2024 | Real Property - Tax Certiorari | Real Property - Tax Certiorari | 2024-5198

Document

Ny Benton I, Llc v. Amber Bryan ASSESSOR, TOWN OF BENTON, YATES COUNTY, NEW YORK
Jul 18, 2024 | Real Property - Tax Certiorari | Real Property - Tax Certiorari | 2024-5198

Document

Douglas Bugner v. Tax Assessor Of Jerusalem
Jul 20, 2024 | Other Real Property - SCAR | Other Real Property - SCAR | SC2024-5011

Document

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Sarah D Mullins
Jul 23, 2024 | Other Matters - Consumer Credit (Card) Original Creditor Plaintiff | Other Matters - Consumer Credit (Card) Original Creditor Plaintiff | 2024-5201

Document

Elizabeth Mason v. Tax Assessor Of Jerusalem
Jul 20, 2024 | Other Real Property - SCAR | Other Real Property - SCAR | SC2024-5014

Document

David Patrick v. Tax Assessor Of Jerusalem
Jul 20, 2024 | Other Real Property - SCAR | Other Real Property - SCAR | SC2024-5012