Preview
For Prothonotary Use Only:
Docket No:
The information collected on this form is used solely for court administration purposes. This form does not
supplement or replace the filing and service of pleadings or other papers as required by law or rules of court.
Commencement of Action
Complaint
1 Transfer from Another Jurisdiction
D1 writ of Summons
D1 Petition
D1 Declaration of Taking
Lead Plaintiff's Name:
Judith Napoleon
Lead Defendant’s Name:
Springfield Rehabilitation & Healthcare Center
WYs O
Dollar Amount Requested:
(check one)
EAwithin arbitration limits
{Zloutside arbitration limits
Is this a Class Action Suit
Yes
Is this an
Zi No
Oo m4
Name of Plaintiff/Appe
Thomas A. Lynam, Ill, Esquire
Check here if you have no attorney (are a Self-Represented [Pro Se] Litigant)
Intentional
1 Motor Vehicle
Nuisance
Premises Liability
1 Product Liability (does not include
mass tort)
1 Slander/Libel/ Defamation
DD Other:
LD Asbestos
1 Tobacco
LD Toxic Tort - DES
1 Toxic Tort - Implant
1 Toxic Waste
DD Other:
domnot include Judgments)
Buyer Plaintiff
LF Debt Collection: Credit Card
1 Debt Collection: Other
1 Employment Dispute:
Discrimination
1 Employment Dispute: Other
CIVIL APPEALS
Administrative Agencies
LD Board of Assessment
1 Board of Elections
LD Dept. of Transportation
LG Statutory Appeal: Other
DD Zoning Board
1 Dental
DO Legal
I Medical
(0 Other Professional:
D Other:
1 Other: — —
REAL PROPERTY MISCELLANEOUS
D Ejectment 1 Common Law/Statutory Arbitration
1 Eminent Domain/Condemnation
Ground Rent
1 Landlord/Tenant Dispute
Mortgage Foreclosure: Residential
Mortgage Foreclosure: Commercial
Partition
OD Quiet Title
Other:
Declaratory Judgment
Mandamus
[) Non-Domestic Relations
Restraining Order
Oo Quo Warranto
oOo Replevin
D other:
Updated 1/1/2011IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF DELAWARE COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL ACTION-LAW
JUDITH NAPOLEON, by and through
WILLIAM A. NAPOLEON (POA) NO.
SPRINGFIELD REHABILITATION
& HEALTHCARE CENTER
You have been sued in court. If you wish to defend against the claims set forth in
the following pages, you must take action within twenty (20) days after this complaint
and notice are served, by entering a written appearance personally or by an attorney
and filing in writing with the court your defenses or objections to the claims set forth
against you. You are warned that if you fail to do so the case may proceed without
further notice for any money claimed in the complaint or for any other claim or relief
requested by the plaintiff. You may lose money or property or other rights important to
you.
YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO
NOT HAVE A LAWYER, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW.
THIS OFFICE CAN PROVIDE YOU WITH INFORMATION ABOUT HIRING A LAWYER.
IF YOU CANNOT AFFORD TO HIRE A LAWYER, THIS OFFICE MAY BE ABLE
TO PROVIDE YOU WITH INFORMATION ABOUT AGENCIES THAT MAY OFFER
LEGAL SERVICES TO ELIGBLE PERSONS AT A REDUCED FEE OR NO FEE.
FRONT & LEMON STREETS
MEDIA, PA 19063VILLARI, LENTZ & LYNAM, LLC
By: Thomas A. Lynam, III, Esquire
I.D. No.:
100 N. 20 Street, Suite 302
Philadelphia, PA 19103
1990/215 9920 (fax)
tlynam@vll law.com
THIS IS A MAJOR JURY CASE
ASSESSMENT OF DAMAGES
HEARING REQUIRED
Attorney for Plaintiff
JUDITH NAPOLE __ , by and through, COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
WILLIAM A. NAPOLEON (POA) DELAWARE COUNTY
1300 Kendall Road
Swarthmore, PA 190
Plaintiff,
SPRINGFIELD REHABILITATION
HEALTHCARECENTER
463 W. Sproul Rd
Springfield, PA 19064 JURY TRIAL. DEMANDED
Defendant.
CIVIL ACTION COMPLAINT
Plaintiff, Judith Napoleon, is an adult individual, sui juris, residing at
Lincoln Avenue, A 3, Prospect Park, PA 19076 Suit is hereby brought on her behalf by her
duly appointed Power of Attorney, William A. Napoleon, an adult individual residing at 1300
Kendall Avenue, Swarthmore, PA 19081.
DefendantSpringfield Rehabilitation and Health careCenter against whom
allegations of professional negligence are made, is a long term care nursing facility with its place
of business located at the above captioned address.
At all times material hereto, Defendant held itself out as a skilled nursing facility
offering the best subacute rehabilitative and long term care with a primary goal of returning
patients home as soon as possible.
At all times material hereto, Defendant acted or failed to act, by and through itsagents, ostensible agents, work persons and/or employees, who were then and there acting within
the scope of their authority in the course of their relationship with said Defendant in furtherance
of said Defendant’s business interests.
Defendant is vicariously or otherwise responsible for the negligent acts or
omissions of its agents, ostensible agents, servants, workmen, and/or employees.
On February 1, 2022, Ms. Napoleon was admitted to Taylor Hospital for
diarrhea and nausea.
She was diagnosed with an acute kidney injury.
On February 5, 2022, Ms. Napoleon was discharged from Taylor Hospital to
Defendants’ Springfield Rehabilitation and Healthcare Center for short term, subacute
rehabilitationfor issues with balance and coordination
Upon admission, Defendant was aware of Ms. Napoleon’s deconditioning and
balance issues due to her previous medical history of falls, gout, and anemia.
Minimum Data Sets completed by Defendant on February 19, 2022, documented
that Ms. Napoleon did not have any wounds present upon admission but was at risk of wound
development.
On February 22, 2022, Defend antinitiated a care plan for Ms. Napoleon
requiring a _ person assist with toileting, transfers and bed mobility.
On March 10, 2022, Defendant noted Ms. Napoleon to have right arm swelling.
Specifically, the daily progress note stated:“Patient seen for right arm swelling.
Patient denies recent injury to armand states her arm feels tight.”
On March 11, 202Ms. Napoleon underwent an Xray of her arm which showed
a right humerus fracture.n March 14, 2022, Defendant’s progress note stated: “Imaging significant of
right humerus fracture. Patient has had no falls here and denied injury or trauma to the
right arm.”
Thereafter, on March 15, 2022, Ms. Napoleon had an outpatient orthopedic visit
for her right humerus fracture.
During her outpatientorthopedic visit, Ms. Napoleon reported that she fell off
of the toilet and onto her right arm about six days ago
Inexplicably, Defendant did not document Ms. Napoleons fall, but rather,
specifically stated that she did not sustain any injuries at the facility, as noted above
On March 15, 2022, Ms. Napoleon returned to Defendant’s facility where her
right arm was placed ina sling.
Thereafter, on March 17, 2022,as a result of Ms. Napoleon’s unexplained fall, her
family requested her discharge from the facility, but Defendant encourage Ms. Napoleon to
remain under its care.
n March 22, 2022, Ms. Napoleon’s commode was documented to need “some
adjustments”, implicating that the commode Ms. Napoleon was using for toileting was broken
and/or unsafe for use.
On March 26, 2022, Ms. Napoleon’s family visited their mother where they found
her in agonizing pain due to her recent right arm fracture and newly developed bed sores
On that same date, a nursing assessment indicated Ms. Napoleon to have bed
sores and a stage II pressure injury.
Ms. Napoleon developed theses pressure injuries as a result of Defendant’s
facility providing her with a deflated air mattress to sleep on.Prior to the Ms. Napoleon developing a Stage II pressure ulcer, Defendant’s
facility failed to implement proper wound care preventions despite her risk of wound
development noted upon admission.
For the next month, Ms. Napoleon remained in Defendant’s facility with
complaints of persistent right arm pain and lower back pain.
On April 25, 2022, Ms. Napoleon was eventually discharged from Defendant’s
facility to home.
To date, Ms. Napoleon has persistent pain in her right arm and continues to
undergo physical therapy to improve her right arm mobility.
As a direct and proximate result of the woeful medical care provided by
Defendant, Ms. Napoleon suffered serious and avoidable injuries that have diminished her
quality of life.
COUNT I
MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE
PLAINTIFF V. DEFENDANT SPRINGFIELD REHABILITATION
AND HEALTHCARE CENTER
Plaintiff hereby incorporates the averments set forth in paragraphs | , supra, as
though fully set forth herein.
Ms. Napoleon’s serious injuries were caused by the negligent and careless care
provided by Defendant Springfield Rehabilitation and Healthcare Center.
Defendant is vicariously liable for the negligent acts and omissions of its agents.
The negligence and carelessness of Defendant, its agents, ostensible agents,
servants, work persons,and/or employees consisted of the following:
Failing to implement adequate and appropriate protocols, interventions,and procedures to prevent Plaintiff's fall;
Failing to properly assess Plainiff’’s risk factors for falling;
Failing toprovide 1:1 assistance;
Failing to monitor Plaintiffor otherwise provide adequate
safeguards to prevent falls;
Failing to adequately documentPlaintiff ’s fall;
Failing to document how Plaintiff's fall occurred;
Failing to preventthe development of pressure ulcers;
Negligently allowing Plaintiffto remain on a deflated air mattress,
catalyzing the development of pressure ulcers;
Failing to provide Plaintiff with an air mattress/adequate air mattress to
reduce pressure;
Failing to adequately turn and/or re position Plaintiff on a regular schedule
to avoid excessive pressure on her skin and/or ulcers;
Failing to appropriately treat the development of Plaintiff's pressure
ulcers;
Failing to order/prescribe appropriate medication to prevent/ educe the
risk of ulceration;
Failing to order/prescribe appropriate medication to treat Plaintiff's
pressure ulcer
Failing to provide Plaintiff with a safe commodefor ambulation and
Failing to properly select, retain, train, and supervise Defendant’s agents,ostensible agents, work persons and/or employees.
Additionally, Defendant’s negligent and carelessacts violated Department of
Health and Human Services 28 Pa. Code
As a long term care facility, Defendant is bound by the regulations enumerated in
28 Pa. Code §211.
Defendant’s violations of 28 Pa. Code 211 consist of the following:
Facility failed tosupervise and assist Ms. Napoleon with toileting in
accordance with her care plan in violation of 28 Pa. Code
211.12(d)(1)(5)
Facility failed to ensure Ms. Napoleon’s records were complete and
accurate in violation of 28 Pa. Code 211.5(f).
Facilityfailed to ensure that the assistive devices to prevent accidents such
as falls were safe for residentsuse in violation of 28 Pa.Code
(dU).
Facility failed to thoroughly investigate Ms. Napoleon’s fall to determine
if the proper safety measures and precautions were implemented in
violation of 28 Pa. Code 211.12(d)(1)(5).
Facility failed to implement proper measures to prevent Ms. Napoleon’s
development of pressure injuries in violation of 28 Pa. Code
211.12(d)(1)(5).
As a direct and proximate result of the negligence and carelessness of Defendant,
Ms. Napoleon was caused to suffer, inter alia:right humerus arm fracture, increased risk of
harm; decreased range of motion; decreased strength; tenderness; fatigue; pressure ulcers; skintears; diminishequality of life; disturbances to sleep; inability to ambulate; mental anguish;
anxiety; humiliation; embarrassment; depression; overwhelming and extreme physical pain and
agony; interrupted sleep; inability to fall asleep;and aggravation and/or exacerbation of all
known and unknown pre existing medical condition.
As a direct and proximate result of the negligence and carelessness of Defendant,
Ms. Napoleon has suffered, and in the future may suffer, an inability to perform her usual and
daily duties, responsibilities, hobbies and avocations.
As a direct and proximate result of the negligence and carelessness of Defendant,
Ms. Napoleon has been, and in the future may continue to be, required to expend various and.
diverse sums of money in an effort to cure and/or treat her aforementioned injuries.
As a direct and proximate result of the negligenceand carelessness of Defendant,
Ms. Napoleon has been, and in the future may continue to be, required to undergo extensive
medical care, evaluation, therapy, treatment, costly medications and invasive and painful medical
procedures and surgeries in an effort to cure and/or treat her injuries.
As a direct and proximate result of the negligence and carelessness of Defendant,
Ms. Napoleon has suffered, and in the future will continue to suffer, a loss of leisure time and
life’s pleasures.WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Judith Napoleon demand judgment in her favor and against
Defendant for special and compensatory damages in an amount in excess of Fifty Thousand
Dollars ($50,000.00), together with interest, costs, Rule 238 delay damages and such other just
and equitable relief as this Honorable Court deems proper.
Respectfully submitted,
VILLARI, LENTZ & LYNAM, LLC
BY: /Thomas A. Lynam, IIT
THOMAS A. LYNAM, III, ESQUIRE
Attorney for Plaintiff
Date: June 28, 2022VERIFICATION
I, Thomas A. Lynam, III, hereby verify that I am the Attorney for Plaintiff in this action;
Thave read the foregoing Civil Action Complaint, and the statements made therein are true and
correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. I understand that the statements
made herein are subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S.A. §4904 relating to unsworn falsification
to authorities.
/s/ Thomas A. Lynam, LI
HOMAS A. LYNAM, III, ESQUIRE
Attorney for Plaintiff
Date: June 28, 2022
FILED
06-28-2022 12:24 PM
OFFICE OF JUDICIAL SUPPORT
DELAWARE COUNTY, PA
Related Content
in Delaware County
Ruling
Arturo Galvin et al. vs Rosemary Sellers
Jul 25, 2024 |
STK-CV-UAT-2024-0000148
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
Ruling
MACKENZIE WOO VS. UNIVERSITY OF SAN FRANCISCO ET AL
Jul 26, 2024 |
CGC23605270
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)
Ruling
Lazaro Nunez vs Schnitzer Steel Industries, Inc. et al.
Jul 25, 2024 |
STK-CV-UPI-2021-0003415
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
Ruling
1000 CHANNEL STREET (SF) OWNER, LLC VS. LENDLEASE (US) CONSTRUCTION INC. ET AL
Jul 25, 2024 |
CGC23611093
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)
Ruling
Atwood, Patricia vs. Fullerton, Sheryl
Aug 05, 2024 |
S-CV-0052534
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.
Ruling
CASAS vs WILLIAMS
Jul 26, 2024 |
Frank Anthony Moschetti |
CVCO2401367
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.
Ruling
LAM vs ROHR, INC.
Jul 24, 2024 |
CVRI2305206
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.
Ruling
JOSHUA SAETA VS WEST HILLS HOSPITAL, ET AL.
Jul 31, 2024 |
24STCV04306
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.