On October 03, 2018 a
Order
was filed
involving a dispute between
Osornio Angel,
and
Ctl Providence Little Company Of Mary,
for civil
in the District Court of Los Angeles County.
Preview
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
Civil Division
Central District, Spring Street Courthouse, Department 4B
BC722381 July 26, 2019
ANGEL OSORNIO vs. CTL pROVIDENCE LITTLE 1:30 PM
COMPANY OF MARY MEDI
Judge: Honorable Laura A. Seigle CSR: None
Judicial Assistant: K. Lappin ERM: None
Courtroom Assistant: None Deputy Sheriff: None
APPEARANCES:
For Plaintiff(s): No Appearances
For Defendant(s): Elizabeth D. Ammann submits to the tentative
NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS: Hearing on Motion to Dismiss
The Court's tentative ruling is posted online and in Court for parties/counsel to review.
The matter is not called for hearing.
All counsel/parties appearing submit to the tentative ruling of the Court.
The tentative ruling becomes the Order of the Court, which is incorporated herein as follows:
The Motion to Dismiss filed by CTL Providence Little Company of Mary on 04/26/2019 is
Granted.
On January 23, 2019, Plaintiff Angel Osornio (“Plaintiff”) filed her First Amended Complaint
(FAC) against Defendant Providence Little Company of Mary Medical Center Torrance
(erroneously sued as CLT Providence Little Company of Mary Medical Center of Torrance)
(“Defendant”) for medical malpractice arising out of an alleged failure to diagnose.
Defendant demurred to the FAC. On March 19, 2019, the Court sustained the demurrer with
twenty (20) days’ leave to amend. Plaintiff appeared via CourtCall and Defendant served a
Notice of Ruling on March 20, 2019. (Declaration of Elizabeth D. Ammann, ¶ 6.) To date,
Plaintiff has failed to file a Second Amended Complaint. Defendant moves to dismiss the action.
Where a demurrer has been sustained with leave to amend, but no amendment has been made
within the time allowed by the court, the court may dismiss on motion of either party. (Code of
Civ. Proc., § 581, subd. (f)(2); California Ammonia Company v. Macco Corporation (1969) 270
Cal.App.2d 429.) After expiration of the time allowed for amendment, plaintiff must obtain leave
of the court to file an amended pleading. (Code of Civ. Proc., §§ 472, 473; Leader v. Health
Minute Order Page 1 of 2
Document Filed Date
July 26, 2019
Case Filing Date
October 03, 2018
Status
Court-Ordered Dismissal - Other (Other) 09/04/2019
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Preview
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES Civil Division Central District, Spring Street Courthouse, Department 4B BC722381 July 26, 2019 ANGEL OSORNIO vs. CTL pROVIDENCE LITTLE 1:30 PM COMPANY OF MARY MEDI Judge: Honorable Laura A. Seigle CSR: None Judicial Assistant: K. Lappin ERM: None Courtroom Assistant: None Deputy Sheriff: None APPEARANCES: For Plaintiff(s): No Appearances For Defendant(s): Elizabeth D. Ammann submits to the tentative NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS: Hearing on Motion to Dismiss The Court's tentative ruling is posted online and in Court for parties/counsel to review. The matter is not called for hearing. All counsel/parties appearing submit to the tentative ruling of the Court. The tentative ruling becomes the Order of the Court, which is incorporated herein as follows: The Motion to Dismiss filed by CTL Providence Little Company of Mary on 04/26/2019 is Granted. On January 23, 2019, Plaintiff Angel Osornio (“Plaintiff”) filed her First Amended Complaint (FAC) against Defendant Providence Little Company of Mary Medical Center Torrance (erroneously sued as CLT Providence Little Company of Mary Medical Center of Torrance) (“Defendant”) for medical malpractice arising out of an alleged failure to diagnose. Defendant demurred to the FAC. On March 19, 2019, the Court sustained the demurrer with twenty (20) days’ leave to amend. Plaintiff appeared via CourtCall and Defendant served a Notice of Ruling on March 20, 2019. (Declaration of Elizabeth D. Ammann, ¶ 6.) To date, Plaintiff has failed to file a Second Amended Complaint. Defendant moves to dismiss the action. Where a demurrer has been sustained with leave to amend, but no amendment has been made within the time allowed by the court, the court may dismiss on motion of either party. (Code of Civ. Proc., § 581, subd. (f)(2); California Ammonia Company v. Macco Corporation (1969) 270 Cal.App.2d 429.) After expiration of the time allowed for amendment, plaintiff must obtain leave of the court to file an amended pleading. (Code of Civ. Proc., §§ 472, 473; Leader v. Health Minute Order Page 1 of 2