Alvarez V. Bussells

2024-148 Galvin Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories 7/26/2024 Defendant brings a Motion to Compel Plaintiff Arturo Galvin's Responses to Defendant's Form Interrogatories, Set One and for Monetary Sanctions. Having read the moving papers and noting no opposition has been filed, the court issues the following tentative ruling: No opposition on file. On March 15, 2024, Defendant propounded Form Interrogatories, Set One on Plaintiff Arturo Galvin. Responses to said discovery was due April 19, 2024. No responses were provided. On April 26, 2024, Defense Counsel sent a meet and confer letter to plaintiff's counsel regarding the overdue responses. The same meet and confer letter was resent on May 7, 2024. Plaintiff did not respond to the meet and confer attempts. As of the filing of the motion plaintiff has not provided code compliant responses. The Motion to Compel is granted. Plaintiff must respond to the authorized method of discovery. The request for sanctions is granted because plaintiff must respond to authorized methods of discovery, in addition, plaintiff must respond to meet and confer efforts. The failure to do so is a misuse of the Discovery Act. The court finds the requested hourly rate of $187.56 is very reasonable. The court awards 3.32 hours as reasonable time to engage in meet and confer and bring motion. The court also awards filing fee of $60.00. Therefore, the court awards discovery sanctions against plaintiff and plaintiff's counsel in the amount of $619.71. The court will sign the order presented with moving papers. WATERS 7/25/2026 Directions for Contesting or Arguing the Tentative Ruling: Tentative rulings for Law and Motion will be posted electronically by 1:30 p.m. the day before the hearing. Any party wishing to contest or argue the tentative ruling must email the court at civilcourtclerks@sjcourts.org. that they intend to appear remotely no later than 4:00 PM on the day before the scheduled hearing. The Department, Case number, Case Name, and party’s name must be in the header of the email. The email must include the Department, Case number, Case Name, Motion, party’s name and email, date and time of the hearing, issues they plan to argue, and that they have informed the opposing party. The party must also notify affected counsel, or unrepresented parties, that they intend to appear, no later than 4:00 PM on the day before the scheduled hearing. Unless the Court and opposing counsel have been notified, the tentative ruling shall become the ruling of the Court without oral argument. To conduct a remote appearance, if applicable, follow the instructions below. There is a dedicated conference bridge lines for Dept. 11B. Call into dedicated conference bridge line at the time set for the hearing. To attend the remote hearing in Dept. 11B: Call into (209) 992-5590, then follow the prompts and use the Bridge # 6941 and Pin # 5564. The courtroom clerk will make announcements and the Judge will call the calendar. Please mute your phones when you are not speaking, and remember to unmute your phone when you are speaking. At this time, we are not able to provide information over the phone. To communicate with the Courtroom Clerk of Dept. 11B, please email questions to civilcourtclerks@sjcourts.org, indicating in the title of the email the Department, Case number, Case Name, and party’s name. A Courtroom Clerk will return your email. To ensure the Court has your most recent contact information, if you have not already done so, please register your email address and mobile number on the Court’s website under Online Services, Attorney Registration. (You do not have to be an attorney to register.) We thank you for your cooperation, assistance, patience and flexibility

Matter on the Discovery Calendar for Friday, Jul-26-2024, Line 5, DEFENDANT UNIVERSITY OF SAN FRANCISCO'S Motion For Leave To Take Subsequent Deposition Of Plaintiff Mackenzie Woo (Code Civ. Proc. 2025.610(B)). Pro Tem Judge Aaron Minnis, a member of the California State Bar who meets all the requirements set forth in CRC 2.812 to serve as a temporary judge, has been assigned to hear this motion. Prior to the hearing all parties to the motion will be asked to sign a stipulation agreeing that the motion may be heard by the Pro Tem Judge. If all parties to the motion sign the stipulation, the hearing will proceed before the Judge Pro Tem who will decide the motion with the same authority as a Superior Court Judge. If a party appears by telephone, the stipulation may be signed via fax or consent to sign given by email. If not all parties to the motion sign the stipulation, the Pro Tem Judge will hold a hearing on the motion and, based on the papers submitted by the parties and the hearing, issue a report in the nature of a recommendation to the Dept. 302 Judge, who will then decide the motion. If a party does not appear at the hearing, the party will be deemed to have stipulated that the motion will be decided by the Pro Tem Judge with the same authority as a Superior Court Judge. The Pro Tem Judge has issued the following tentative ruling: Granted. Within 10 days Plaintiff shall appear for deposition at a mutually convenient date and time to testify regarding the previously redacted information in the SFGH records. For the 9:00 a.m. Discovery calendar, all attorneys and parties are required to appear remotely. Hearings will be conducted by videoconference using Zoom. To appear at the hearing, go to the court's website at sfsuperiorcourt.org under "Online Services," navigate to "Tentative Rulings," and click on the appropriate link (DISCOVERY, DEPARTMENT 302 DAILY AT 9:00 A.M.), or dial the corresponding number and use the meeting ID, and password for Discovery Department 302. Any party who contests a tentative ruling must send an email to aaron@minnisandsmallets.com with a copy to all other parties by 4pm stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests. The subject line of the email shall include the line number, case name and case number. If the tentative ruling is not contested, the parties are deemed to have stipulated to the Pro Tem hearing the motion and the Pro Tem will sign an order confirming the tentative ruling. The prevailing party is required to prepare a proposed order repeating verbatim the substantive portion of the tentative ruling and must e-mail it to the Judge Pro Tem. The court no longer provides a court reporter in the Discovery Department. Parties may retain their own reporter, who may appear remotely. A retained reporter must be a California certified court reporter (CSR), for only a CSR's transcript may be used in California courts. If a CSR is being retained, include in your email all of the following: their name, CSR and telephone numbers, and their individual work email address. =(302/JPT)

2021-3415 Nunez Motion to Compel Second Medical Exam 7/26/2024 Defendant brings a Motion to Compel a Second Medical Examination of Plaintiff. Having read the moving papers, the opposition papers, and the reply papers, the court issues the following tentative ruling: Appearances required. The parties to attend the hearing remotely via the Dept. 11B Bridge Line. To attend the hearing remotely dial (209) 992-5590 and follow the prompts entering Bridge No. 6941 and Passcode 5564. This personal injury action arises from an incident that occurred on April 20, 2019. In September 2023, defendant noticed and plaintiff submitted to a physical examination by Dr. Stephen Forner, a neurologist. Defense selected a neurologist to conduct a physical examination to evaluate plaintiff's alleged injury of a traumatic brain injury. After the examination by Dr. Forner, defense learned that plaintiff also alleged that the injuries impacted his vision. In June 2024, defense counsel contacted plaintiff's counsel to see if plaintiff would submit to a physical examination by an ophthalmologist, Dr. August Reader. Plaintiff's counsel initially agreed to produce plaintiff for this physical examination which would take place on July 26, 2024. A timely and proper notice of Physical Examination was served. As a courtesy defense agreed to pay plaintiff milage to travel to the examination. Later, plaintiff's counsel decided to not produce plaintiff to the Dr. Reader physical exam absent court order. According to the opposition, "[the attorney at the law firm that] agreed to the second DME . . . was under the impression that this was the first request." However, the opposition only offers hearsay that lacks foundation to establish this fact. In addition, after the Dr. Forner evaluation and at present it appears that plaintiff suffered a stroke although this information was not provided to defendant in responses to Supplemental Discovery served by plaintiff. A motion for a physical examination shall be granted upon a showing of good cause. (CCP 2032.320(a).) "Good cause" exists when the moving party establishes "specific facts justifying discovery and that the inquiry be relevant to the subject matter of the action or reasonably calculated to led to the discovery of admissible evidence." (Vinson v. Superior Court (1987) 43 Cal.3d 833, 840.) When "the truth of [a plaintiff's] claim is relevant to plaintiff's cause of action and justifying facts have been shown with specificity, good cause as to these assertions has been demonstrated. (Id. at 840-841.) This good cause requirement "serves as a barrier to excessive and unwarranted intrusions," however it "does not limit the number of examinations, but cumulative discovery is prohibited." (Sporich v. Superior Court (2000) 77 Cal.App.4th 422, 428.) Dr. Reader's physical evaluation is not "cumulative". Dr. Reader's examination will address the alleged vision issues. These alleged injuries were not evaluated by Dr. Forner. In fact, Dr. Forner, specifically stated in his report he defers to an ophthalmologist. Certainly, Dr. Reader's examination is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, i.e. plaintiff's alleged injuries. In fact, plaintiff's counsel initially agreed that the physical examination was reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, hence the initial agreement to produce plaintiff for the Dr. Reader examination. Further, the prejudice to plaintiff is minimal. The physical examination by Dr. Reader will be limited to evaluating plaintiff's claimed vision injuries and therefore the evaluation will not be prolonged. Plaintiff may record the examination. Further, plaintiff is being compensated at the federal rate for travel. The court GRANTS defendant's Motion to Compel Physical Examination of Plaintiff Lazaro Nunez. Appearances required for any argument and if none to determine the date time and location for Dr. Reader's evaluation. WATERS 7/25/2024 Directions for Contesting or Arguing the Tentative Ruling: Tentative rulings for Law and Motion will be posted electronically by 1:30 p.m. the day before the hearing. Any party wishing to contest or argue the tentative ruling must email the court at civilcourtclerks@sjcourts.org. that they intend to appear remotely no later than 4:00 PM on the day before the scheduled hearing. The Department, Case number, Case Name, and party’s name must be in the header of the email. The email must include the Department, Case number, Case Name, Motion, party’s name and email, date and time of the hearing, issues they plan to argue, and that they have informed the opposing party. The party must also notify affected counsel, or unrepresented parties, that they intend to appear, no later than 4:00 PM on the day before the scheduled hearing. Unless the Court and opposing counsel have been notified, the tentative ruling shall become the ruling of the Court without oral argument. To conduct a remote appearance, if applicable, follow the instructions below. There is a dedicated conference bridge lines for Dept. 11B. Call into dedicated conference bridge line at the time set for the hearing. To attend the remote hearing in Dept. 11B: Call into (209) 992-5590, then follow the prompts and use the Bridge # 6941 and Pin # 5564. The courtroom clerk will make announcements and the Judge will call the calendar. Please mute your phones when you are not speaking, and remember to unmute your phone when you are speaking. At this time, we are not able to provide information over the phone. To communicate with the Courtroom Clerk of Dept. 11B, please email questions to civilcourtclerks@sjcourts.org, indicating in the title of the email the Department, Case number, Case Name, and party’s name. A Courtroom Clerk will return your email. To ensure the Court has your most recent contact information, if you have not already done so, please register your email address and mobile number on the Court’s website under Online Services, Attorney Registration. (You do not have to be an attorney to register.) We thank you for your cooperation, assistance, patience and flexibility

Matter on the Law & Motion calendar for Thursday, July 25, 2024, Line 12. 1 - DEFENDANT APOGEE WAUSAU GROUP, INC.'s MOTION TO ADMIT COUNSEL PRO HAC VICE. Devon Holstadt's unopposed pro hac vice application is granted. For the 9:30 a.m. Law & Motion calendar, all attorneys and parties may appear in Department 302 remotely. Remote hearings will be conducted by videoconference using Zoom. To appear remotely at the hearing, go to the court's website at sfsuperiorcourt.org under "Online Services," navigate to "Tentative Rulings," and click on the appropriate link, or dial the corresponding phone number. Any party who contests a tentative ruling must send an email to contestdept302tr@sftc.org with a copy to all other parties by 4pm stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests. The subject line of the email shall include the line number, case name and case number. The text of the email shall include the name and contact information, including email address, of the attorney or party who will appear at the hearing. Counsel for the prevailing party is required to prepare a proposed order which repeats verbatim the substantive portion of the tentative ruling and must email it to contestdept302tr@sftc.org prior to the hearing even if the tentative ruling is not contested. The court no longer provides a court reporter in the Law & Motion Department. Parties may retain their own reporter, who may appear in the courtroom or remotely. A retained reporter must be a California certified court reporter (CSR), for only a CSR's transcript may be used in California courts. If a CSR is being retained, include in your email all of the following: their name, CSR and telephone numbers, and their individual work email address. =(302/RBU)

S-CV-0052534 Atwood, Patricia vs. Fullerton, Sheryl Trial Date & Length: 01/12/26 5 day Jury Trial (Please contact Master Calendar (916) 408-6061 on the business day prior to the scheduled trial date to find courtroom availability.) Civil Trial Conference: 01/02/26 (heard at 8:30 am in Dept. 3) Mandatory Settlement Conference: 12/19/25 (heard at 8:30am; report to Jury Services) NO APPEARANCE REQUIRED UNLESS REQUESTED BY PARTY BY 3PM ON THE THURSDAY PRIOR TO HEARING DATE. REQUESTS FOR APPEARANCE MUST BE FAXED TO THE CIVIL DEPARTMENT, ATTN: CMC CLERK AT (916) 408-6275, AND TO ALL OPPOSING ATTORNEYS AND PARTIES WITHOUT ATTORNEYS BY 3:00 PM THE THURSDAY PRIOR TO THE CASE MANAGEMENT DATE. SEE LOCAL RULE 20.1.7.

DEMURRER ON 1ST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR OTHER NON-PERSONAL INJURY/ CVCO2401367 CASAS VS WILLIAMS PROPERTY DAMAGE/WRONGFUL DEATH TORT OF MYLA CASAS BY ANDRE WILLIAMS Tentative Ruling: No tentative ruling will be issued.

DEMURRER TO SECOND CVRI2305206 LAM VS ROHR, INC. AMENDED COMPLAINT Tentative Ruling: Overrule as to causes of action one through five. Sustain as to the sixth cause of action without leave to amend. Sustain as to the seventh cause of action with 20 days’ leave to amend.

Case Number: 24STCV04306 Hearing Date: July 31, 2024 Dept: 20 Tentative Ruling Judge Kevin C. Brazile Department 20 Hearing Date: July 31, 2024 Case Name: Saeta v. West Hills Hospital, et al. Case No.: 24STCV04306 Matter: Motion to Strike Moving Party: Defendant West Hills Hospital and Medical Center Responding Party: Plaintiff Joshua Saeta Notice: OK Ruling: The Motion to Strike is denied. An Answer is to be filed within twenty days. Moving party to give notice. If counsel do not submit on the tentative, they are strongly encouraged to appear by LACourtConnect rather than in person due to the COVID-19 pandemic. On April 10, 2024, Plaintiff Joshua Saeta filed the operative First Amended Complaint (FAC) against Defendants West Hills Hospital and Medical Center and HCA Healthcare, Inc. for (1) dependent adult neglect, (2) dependent adult neglect (enhanced remedies), (3) violation of the Health Care Decisions Law, (4) medical battery, (5) fraudulent concealment, and (6) negligence. Defendant West Hills Hospital and Medical Center now seeks to strike references in the FAC to (a) the nursing union and its actions, (b) reporting duties with respect to family and the Department of Public Health, (c) events at other HCA hospitals, (d) instances of understaffing after Plaintiff was injured, (e) the sentiments of nurses at other HCA hospitals, (f) fraudulent coding, (g) Plaintiff becoming a symbol of problematic staffing that inspired nurses, (h) a patient dump, (i) Defendant playing russian roulette with Plaintiffs life, and (j) other lawsuits against Defendants for the same problems. Motions to strike are used to challenge defects in the pleadings not subject to demurrer. Any party may move to strike the whole or any part of a pleading within the time allotted to respond to the pleading. (Code Civ. Proc. § 435(b)(1).) The grounds for a motion to strike shall appear on the face of the challenged pleading or from any matter of which the Court is required to take judicial notice. ( Id. § 437(a).) The Court may strike out any irrelevant, false, or improper matter inserted in any pleading, and strike out all or any part of any pleading not drawn or filed in conformity with the laws of this state, a court rule, or an order of the court. ( Id. § 436.) An irrelevant matter includes any demand for judgment requesting relief not supported by the allegations of the complaint or cross-complaint. ( Id. § 431.10(b)(3), (c); see also Smith v. Superior Court (1992) 10 Cal.App.4th 1033, 1036-1042.) The Motion to Strike is denied as an improper line-item veto. (See PH II, Inc. v. Superior Court (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1680, 1683.) The Court cannot say that the subject references are irrelevant or improper. Moving party to give notice. If counsel do not submit on the tentative, they are strongly encouraged to appear by LACourtConnect rather than in person due to the COVID-19 pandemic.