Preview
Electronically FILED by Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles on 06/16/2022 02:38 PM Sherri R. Carter, Executive Officer/Clerk of Court, by B. Shanbrom,Deputy Clerk
1 Raymond L. Blessey, Esq. (State Bar No. 176180)
Tracy D. Hughes, Esq. (State Bar No. 269187)
2 REBACK, MCANDREWS & BLESSEY, LLP
1230 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 450
3 Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
4 T: (310) 297-9900
F: (310) 297-9800
5 rblessey@rmblawyer.com
thughes@rmblawyer.com
6
7 Attorneys for Defendant, ESTATE OF JOEL HERRIOTT THAYER, M.D. (erroneously sued and
served as JOEL HERRIOTT THAYER, M.D.)
8
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
9
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
10
11
BAMBI CORTEZ AND SUMMER ) CASE NO. 20AVCV00282
12 GREGORY, )
) DECLARATION OF RICHARD OFSTEIN, M.D.,
13
Plaintiffs, ) IN SUPPORT OF ESTATE OF JOEL HERRIOTT
14 ) THAYER, M.D.’S MOTION FOR
v. ) UNDERTAKING RE: SUMMAR GREGORY
15 )
RENAISSANCE IMAGING CENTER, ) [Filed concurrently with Notice of Motion and Motion
16
PALMDALE REGIONAL MEDICAL ) for an Undertaking re: Summer Gregory; [Proposed]
17 CENTER, JOEL HERRIOTT THAYER, ) Order]
M.D., HIGH DESERT MEDICAL GROUP, )
18 QUARTZ HILL WALK-IN MEDICAL ) RESERVATION ID: 243654085180
GROUP, INC., ERIC CARNEY DENLEY, ) Date: July 19, 2022
19 M.D., CARLOS A. GUERRERO, FNP, and ) Time: 8:30 a.m.
20 DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, ) Dept: A14
)
21 Defendants. ) Assigned to Hon. Judge Stephen Morgan
) Dept. A14
22 )
23 ) Complaint Filed: 4/20/2020
) Trial Date: 8/19/2022
24 ____________________________________ )
25
26
27
28
1
DECLARATION OF RICHARD OFSTEIN, M.D., IN SUPPORT OF ESTATE OF JOEL HERRIOTT THAYER, M.D.’S MOTION FOR
UNDERTAKING RE: SUMMAR GREGORY
1 DECLARATION OF RICHARD OFSTEIN, M.D.
2 I, RICHARD OFSTEIN, M.D., declare and state as follows:
3
1. I am a physician licensed to practice medicine in the California, Utah, Nevada, and
4 Wyoming. I have personal knowledge of all facts contained within this declaration, and if called as a
5 witness, I could and would competently testify to the following:
6
2. I received my medical degree from Southern Illinois University, Springfield, Illinois. I
7 completed an internship in general surgery at UCLA Hospital and Clinics, Los Angeles, California in
8 June 1981. I completed my Residency in diagnostic radiology at UCLA Hospital and Clinics, Los
9 Angeles, California in June 1984. I participated in a radiology fellowship program at Memorial
10 Medical Center of Long Beach, Long Beach, California, from July 1984-June 1985. I am currently an
11 Adjunct Assistant Professor of Radiology and have hospital privileges at the University of Utah. I am
board certified in diagnostic radiology and have a certificate of added qualifications in neuroradiology.
12
My CV is attached hereto as Exhibit A.
13
3. Based on my background, training, and experience, I am familiar with the standard of
14
care applicable to radiologist treating patients such as decedent Silvia Handley. I am qualified to
15
render an expert opinion in this case concerning the medical care and treatment provided by Joel
16
Thayer, M.D., to decedent. I am making this Declaration in support of Defendant Estate of Joel
17
Herriott Thayer, M.D.’s Motion to require non-resident plaintiff to file an undertaking.
18
4. I reviewed Plaintiffs’ Complaint and decedent’s medical records, including imaging
19
studies from Antelope Valley Hospital, Palmdale Regional Medical Center, Renaissance Imaging, and
20 First Valley Medical Group (formally known as Quartz Hill). I relied on these materials as well as my
21 education, training, and experience in forming my opinions.
22 5. On March 31, 2017, the patient Silvia Handley presented to Quartz Hill Medical Group
23 with complaints of cough and shortness of breath. A chest x-ray was ordered and performed at
24 Antelope Valley Hospital on April 2, 2017. Findings as interpreted by Renaissance Imaging indicate
25 cardiomediastinal silhouette appears normal, there is calcification in the thoracic aorta, pulmonary
26 vasculature appears normal, Lung fields appear clear, no pneumothorax, costophrenic angles are well
defined, there are bilateral breast implants present, and the osseous elements appear intact.
27
28
2
DECLARATION OF RICHARD OFSTEIN, M.D., IN SUPPORT OF ESTATE OF JOEL HERRIOTT THAYER, M.D.’S MOTION FOR
UNDERTAKING RE: SUMMAR GREGORY
1 6. On April 4, 2017, the patient presented to the ED of Palmdale Regional Medical Center,
2 with a history of COPD and hypertension and a present complaint of labored breathing. Notes indicate
3 that she had finished a three-day course of a Z-pack for possible pneumonia. A chest x-ray was
ordered. The x-ray was read by defendant Dr. Thayer who indicated that the cardiac size is within
4
normal limits. The pulmonary vasculature is normal. The lung parenchyma is clear. Nodular density
5
overlying the left the lower lung consistent with nipple shadow. The costophrenic sulci are clear. The
6
visualized skeletal structures are normal. Accordingly, the patient was discharged in stable condition.
7
She was to follow up with the primary care provider for reevaluation and further management within
8 1-2 days.
9
7. On January 13, 2018, the patient presented via ambulance to the ED of Antelope Valley
10
Hospital with complaints of right flank and right elbow pain after a fall four days earlier. Notes
11
indicate that her breathing was unlabored and regular, but rales/crackles were noted to bilateral upper
12 lobes and bilateral lower lobes, with a cough. A chest x-ray showed: a spiculated mass measuring
13 roughly 4.6 cm in diameter in the mid lateral left lower lobe which appears to be new since the prior
14 examination. The lungs otherwise appear clear. Impression: probable 4.6 cm bronchogenic carcinoma
15 in the left lower lobe. Although less likely based on its appearance, this could represent pneumonia.
16 Additional imaging is recommended.
17 8. On July 18, 2018, the patient presented to First Valley Medical Group (formally known
18 as Quartz Hill), for an annual wellness visit. Notes indicate that the patient had a couple of falls due to
19 dizziness, ambulates without assistance, has perceived memory issues, requires some assistance with
20 activities of daily living, and family members help care for the patient. She is not complaining of any
pain now but does have intermittent pain. Examination of lungs shows wheezing, distant sounds. A
21
chest x-ray was ordered due to the patient’s COPD and shortness of breath.
22
23 9. The chest x-ray showed a patchy density measuring approximately 6 x 4 x 7 cm in the
24 left lower lobe not seen on prior. The heart is enlarged. Calcification aortic arch. The lungs are
otherwise clear and there is no pleural effusion or pneumothorax. The bones and soft tissues are
25
unremarkable. The Patient was notified.
26
27
28
3
DECLARATION OF RICHARD OFSTEIN, M.D., IN SUPPORT OF ESTATE OF JOEL HERRIOTT THAYER, M.D.’S MOTION FOR
UNDERTAKING RE: SUMMAR GREGORY
1 10. On November 27, 2018, the patient presented to the ED of Palmdale Regional Medical
2 Center complaining of increased shortness of breath and productive cough of yellowish phlegm. Notes
3 indicate history of COPD/CHF who does not have home oxygen. She was initially evaluated for
shortness of breath which increased with exertion. Patient did respond well to fluids, breathing
4
treatment and solumedrol. Today her chest x-ray showed left sided opacities which recommends CT
5
Thorax which is pending. Diagnosis: Mass of lower lobe of left lung. Plan: admitted.
6
7 11. The patient was admitted to Antelope Valley Hospital on January 1, 2019 and passed on
8 January 20, 2019. The cause of death acute was respiratory failure secondary to lung abscess.
9 12. Based on my review of decedent’s medical records, including imaging studies and
10 reports, as well as my education, training, and experience, it is my opinion that
11 Dr. Thayer’s care and treatment of decedent was at all times within the applicable standard of care.
12 My opinion is based on the following:
13 13. Dr. Thayer’s interpretation of the April 4, 2017, chest x-ray (AP view only), was
14 reasonable and well within the standard of care, in part, because to a reasonable medical probability,
15 decedent did not have a lung mass visible on x-ray at that time.
16 14. Dr. Thayer’s interpretation of the chest film is consistent with that of the radiologist
17 who read the April 2, 2017, imaging who had the added advantage of a lateral film as well as the AP
imaging to examine.
18
19 15. This opinion is based on several factors. First, the subject film depicted a “distorted
right breast” likely due to prior surgery which prevented Dr. Thayer and the other radiologists who
20
read the chest films from comparing the location of the left breast nipple to that on the right.
21
22 16. The x-ray on April 2, 2017, did not reveal the presence of a mass. To a reasonable
medical probability, if a cancerous mass was present at the time of April 4, 2017, chest x-ray, the prior
23
study would have shown it.
24
17. The standard of care did not require Dr. Thayer to recommend further imaging with
25
nipple markers. This type of request is only made when the radiologist has a high index of suspicion
26
that the patient has a concerning mass vs. nipple shadow.
27
///
28
4
DECLARATION OF RICHARD OFSTEIN, M.D., IN SUPPORT OF ESTATE OF JOEL HERRIOTT THAYER, M.D.’S MOTION FOR
UNDERTAKING RE: SUMMAR GREGORY
1 18. Even if Dr. Thayer had recommended further imaging with nipple markers, and a CT
2 scan was done at that time, to a reasonable medical probability the CT scan would not have revealed a
3 lung mass.
4 19. The findings on the subsequent CT scan of the chest done in November 2018, reveals
5 further evidence that the nipple shadow referred by Dr. Thayer was indeed a shadow and not a mass.
6 The 2018 CT scan reveals a lung mass that is 8 cm from the center of the spine, whereas the nipple
shadow on the April 4, 2017, is 12 cm from the center point.
7
8 20. Further, because Dr. Thayer met the applicable standard of care at all times in his care
and treatment of decedent, to a reasonable medical probability nothing Dr. Thayer did or failed to do
9
caused or contributed to decedent’s death.
10
11 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is
true and correct.
12
13 Executed on June _____, 2022, in Las Vegas, Nevada.
14
15 ___________________________
16
Richard Ofstein, M.D.
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5
DECLARATION OF RICHARD OFSTEIN, M.D., IN SUPPORT OF ESTATE OF JOEL HERRIOTT THAYER, M.D.’S MOTION FOR
UNDERTAKING RE: SUMMAR GREGORY
EXHIBIT A
RICHARD ALAN OFSTEIN, M.D.
Curriculum Vitae
MAILING ADDRESS
PO Box 370385
Las Vegas Nevada 89137
Last Revised June 2020
1
RICHARD ALAN OFSTEIN, M.D.
CURRICULUM VITAE (continued)
DATE/PLACE OF BIRTH:
LICENSE:
California Medical License # G 44857 (Active)
Utah Medical License # 10161123-1205 (Active)
Nevada Medical License # 18022
Drug Enforcement Administration # AO 1046259
EDUCATION:
Undergraduate
Southern Illinois University
Carbondale, Illinois
B.S. PHYSIOLOGY
August 1975
Graduate
Southern Illinois University
Carbondale, Illinois
PHYSIOLOGY
June 1976-June 1977
Medical
Southern Illinois University
Springfield, Illinois
MEDICAL DEGREE (M.D.)
June 1980
2
RICHARD ALAN OFSTEIN, M.D.
CURRICULUM VITAE (continued)
POST MEDICAL DEGREE TRAINING:
Internship
UCLA Hospital and Clinics
Los Angeles, California
GENERAL SURGERY
July 1980-June 1981
Residency
UCLA Hospital and Clinics
Los Angeles, California
DIAGNOSTIC RADIOLOGY
July 1981-June 1984
Fellowship
Memorial Medical Center of Long Beach
Long Beach, California
CT/MRI (8 months) & Interventional Radiology (4 months)
July 1984-June 1985
WORK STATUS:
CURRENT WORK STATUS:
Adjunct Assistant Professor of Radiology University Utah
June 2017-Present
PRIOR WORK STATUS:
Jackson Hole Medical Imaging, Inc.
P.O. Box 1450
Wilson, WY 83014
February 2006-June 2016
Memrad Medical Group, Inc.
100 Oceangate, Suite 1000
Long Beach, CA 90802
562-590-7400
July 1985-December 1998
January 2000-January 2006
3
RICHARD ALAN OFSTEIN, M.D.
CURRICULUM VITAE (continued)
PRIOR WORK STATUS:
Assistant Clinical Professor of Radiology 1988-2002
UCLA School of Medicine
Los Angeles, CA
STAFF PRIVILEGES:
Hospital Status
University of Utah Active
Salt Lake City UT
CERTIFICATION:
American Board of Radiology
Certification in Diagnostic Radiology, May 1984
American Board of Radiology
Certificate of Added Qualifications in Neuroradiology, November 2001, November
2012
MEMBERSHIPS:
American College of Radiology
American Society of Neuroradiology
Radiological Society of North America
American Roentgen Ray Society
UNIVERSITY APPOINTMENTS:
Adjunct Assistant Professor of Radiology University Utah
June 2017-Present
Assistant Clinical Professor of Radiology UCLA School of Medicine
1988-2002
PUBLICATIONS:
Magnetic Resonance Update
Founding Publisher, Editor and Author
Dates of Publication: 1989-2005
4
RICHARD ALAN OFSTEIN, M.D.
CURRICULUM VITAE (continued)
PUBLICATIONS:
Consultations in Radiology & Imaging
Founding Publisher, Editor and Author
Dates of Publication: 1990-1998
Women’s Health Review
Founding Publisher, Editor and Author
Dates of Publication: 1995-1996
Morrison, D.S., Ofstein, R. The Use of Magnetic Resonance Imaging in the Diagnosis
of Rotator Cuff Tears. Orthopedics;13(6): 633-7 (1990)
Berger, P.E., Ofstein, R. MRI Demonstration of Radiographically Occult Fractures:
What Have We Been Missing? Radiographics; 9(3): 407-36 (1989)
Low Back Pain in Adults, Magnetic Resonance Update, 1989
Temporomandibular Joint Dysfunction, Magnetic Resonance Update, 1989
Knee MRI-The Menisci, Ligaments, and Tendons, Magnetic Resonance Update, 1989
Gadolinium and MRI: Information for the Referring Physician, Magnetic Resonance
Update, 1989
Unilateral Hearing Loss, Tinnitus, Dysequilibrium: Acoustic Neuromas, Magnetic
Resonance Update, 1989
Shoulder Pain: Rotator Cuff Tears, Magnetic Resonance Update, 1989
Pituitary Adenomas, Magnetic Resonance Update, 1989
Cerebral Metastases, Magnetic Resonance Update, 1989
Hip Pain: Avascular Necrosis of the Femoral Head, Magnetic Resonance Update, 1989
The Cervical Spine: Disc Herniation and Degenerative, Magnetic Resonance Update,
1990
Prostate Cancer: Staging with MRI, Magnetic Resonance Update, 1990
Stress Fractures-Occult Osseous Injuries, Magnetic Resonance Update, 1990
Wrist Pain, Magnetic Resonance Update, 1990
5
RICHARD ALAN OFSTEIN, M.D.
CURRICULUM VITAE (continued)
PUBLICATIONS (Continued):
Aortic Aneurysms, Magnetic Resonance Update, 1990
Endometrial Carcinoma: Staging with MRI, Magnetic Resonance Update, 1990
Neck Masses Including: Parathyroid and Thyroid Glands, Magnetic Resonance Update,
1990
Bone Metastases in Adults, Magnetic Resonance Update, 1990
Head Trauma, Magnetic Resonance Update, 1990
Ankle Injuries, Magnetic Resonance Update, 1990
AIDS: Central Nervous System Involvement, Magnetic Resonance Update, 1990
Adrenal Metastases and Other Masses, Magnetic Resonance Update, 1991
Mediastinal Masses, Magnetic Resonance Update, 1991
Vertebral Compression Fractures: Benign or Malignant?, Magnetic Resonance Update,
1991
Pediatric Abdominal Masses, Magnetic Resonance Update, 1991
The Aging Brain, Magnetic Resonance Update, 1991
Breast Cancer, Consultations in Radiology & Imaging, 1989
Sinusitis: Imaging Evaluation, Consultations in Radiology & Imaging, 1990
TIA and Stroke: Ultrasound Evaluation of Extracranial Carotid Arterial Disease,
Consultations in Radiology & Imaging, 1990
Claudication: Peripheral Angiography and Related Interventional Procedures,
Consultations in Radiology & Imaging, 1990
Cholecystolithiasis and Cholecystitis, Consultations in Radiology & Imaging, 1991
Pregnancy and Related Complications: The Diagnostic Role Of Ultrasound,
Consultations n Radiology & Imaging, 1991
6
RICHARD ALAN OFSTEIN, M.D.
CURRICULUM VITAE (continued)
PUBLICATIONS (Continued):
Interstitial Lung Disease: High-Resolution CT, Consultations in Radiology &
Imaging, 1991
REFERENCES:
Paul Berger, MD
Past President, Memrad Medical Group
Founder, NightHawk Radiology
Scottsdale, Arizona
Alyssa Watanabe, MD
Vice President, Direct Access Imaging, Inc.
2711 N Sepulveda Boulevard, # 284
Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
Barbara Kadell, M.D.
UCLA Medical Center
Professor of Radiology
Vice Chair of Clinical Operations
Los Angeles, CA
Robert Jones, MD
Jackson Hole Medical Imaging
Radiology-St John’s Medical Center
625 E Broadway
Jackson WY 83001
PRESENTATIONS
Natural Background and Medical Radiation: St. John’s Medical Center
What you need to know for your health and Safety 9 November 2010
Coronary CT Angiography St. John’s Medical Center
30 October 2010
Breast Cancer Screening St. John’s Medical Center
30 October 2010
MRI: Bone Pathology Medical Staff Meeting, Los Alamitos
Medical Center
14 December 1998
7
RICHARD ALAN OFSTEIN, M.D.
CURRICULUM VITAE (continued)
PRESENTATIONS (continued)
Medical Imaging from the Perspective of Litigation Trial Attorney Group
Memrad Corporate Office
27 October 1998
CONTINUING MEDICAL EDUCATION
CONFERENCE/ACTIVITY DATES CME CREDITS
ASCR ER MSK Case Review – Completed 5/19/2021 8.0 hours, Category 1
Upper Extremity
ACR CPI Gastrointestinal Tract Completed 5/6/2021 8.0 hours, Category 1
Penn Radiology-Emergency Imaging: Completed 5/2/2020 15.75 hours, Category 1
Acute Diagnoses
RSNA Virtual Meeting 2019/2020 10.5 hours, Category 1
Penn Radiology’s Comprehensive Completed 3/21/19 25.25 hours, Category 1
Neuroradiology: Best Practices
RSNA Virtual Meeting December 2018 9.0 hours, Category 1
ACR RADAR 2 – MSK February 2018 8.0 hours, Category 1
Radiological Society of North America December 2017 10.25 hours, Category 1
Annual Meeting
Chicago, Illinois
CPI Chest Radiology Module 2017 June 18, 2017 8.0 hours, Category 1
(ONLINE) ACR
Duke Radiology- May 30, 2017 18.25 hours, Category 1
Neuro and Musculoskeletal Imaging
Texas Jurispudence Prep February 1, 2017 8.0 hours, Category 1
Radiological Society of North America 27 Nov-2 Dec 2016 17 hours, Category 1
Annual Meeting
Chicago, Illinois
Mammography Case Review July 20, 2015 15 hours, Category 1
8
RICHARD ALAN OFSTEIN, M.D.
CURRICULUM VITAE (continued)
CONTINUING MEDICAL EDUCATION (Continued)
CONFERENCE/ACTIVITY DATES CME CREDITS
Breast Tomosynthesis 2014 July 2, 2014 8.75 hours, Category 1
USF Health
Radiological Society of North America 30 Nov-6 Dec 2013 10.5 hours, Category 1
Annual Meeting
Chicago, Illinois
Radiological Society of North America 25-30 Nov 2012 12.75 hours, Category 1
Annual Meeting
Chicago, Illinois
Johns Hopkins Neuroradiology 12 Jan 2012 25 hours, Category 1
Review
Mayo Clinic Neuroradiology: Nov-Dec 2011 21.5 hours, Category 1
Practice to Innovation
Radiological Society of North America 27 Nov -2 Dec 2011
Annual Meeting Chicago Illinois
Radiological Society of North America 28 Nov -3 Dec 2010 15.0 hours, Category 1
Annual Meeting
Chicago, Illinois
A Comprehensive Tutorial in 28-30 Oct 2010 17.5 hours, Category 1
Musculoskeletal Imaging
Coronary CT Angiography 19-21 February 2010 21.5 hours, Category 1
Reston, VA
Radiological Society of North America 29 Nov-4 Dec 2009 9.5 hours, Category 1
Annual Meeting
Advanced Radiology Life Support 7 April 09 4.5 hours, Category 1
Mayo Clinic
Radiological Society of North America 30 Nov-5 Dec 2008 8.25 hours, Category 1
Annual Meeting
Digital Mammography 9/11/2008 8.8 hours, Category 1
9
RICHARD ALAN OFSTEIN, M.D.
CURRICULUM VITAE (continued)
CONTINUING MEDICAL EDUCATION (Continued)
CONFERENCE/ACTIVITY DATES CME CREDITS
Radiological Society of North America 25-30 Nov 2007 8.5 hours, Category 1
Annual Meeting
Chicago, Illinois
UCSF in Africa 24-29 June 2007 23.75 hours, Category 1
UCSF
Radiological Society of North America 26 Nov-1 Dec 06 7.75 hours, Category 1
Annual Meeting
Chicago, Illinois
Diagnostic Radiology Seminars: Back 29 Oct-3 Nov 06 23.75 hours, Category 1
UCSF
Lahaina, Hawaii
The Team Approach to Breast Imaging 26-28 Oct 2006 23 hours, Category 1
Harvard Medical School, Newport, Rhode Island
Radiological Society of North America 27 Nov- 2 Dec 2005 6.25 hours, Category 1
Annual Meeting
Chicago, Illinois
Visiting Fellowship-Nuclear 4-18 Nov 2005 40 hours, Category 1
Cardiology
Department of Radiology
Massachusetts General Hospital
Mammography: Advanced Diagnostic 9-12 Nov 2005 26 hours, Category 1
With Screening
Laszlo Tabar, MD
Indian Wells, CA
UCSF Breast Imaging Mini-Fellowship 31 Oct-4 Nov 2005 40 hours, Category 1
Breast Imaging and Intervention 21-23 Oct 2005 20 hours, Category 1
From A to Z
James Brenner, MD
Medical Education Resources
10
RICHARD ALAN OFSTEIN, M.D.
CURRICULUM VITAE (continued)
CONTINUING MEDICAL EDUCATION (Continued)
CONFERENCE/ACTIVITY DATES CME CREDITS
Mammography Interpretive Skills 11 Sept 05 9 hours, Category 1
Assessment 3
American College of Radiology
Mammography Interpretive Skills 9 Sept 05 8 hours, Category 1
Assessment 2
American College of Radiology
Advanced Concepts in Body MRI 10-11 Sept 2005 12 hours, Category 1
American College of Radiology
Santa Monica, CA
Summer Seminar in Breast Imaging 16 July 2005 5.75 hours, Category 1
Los Angeles Radiological Society
Los Angeles, CA
Diagnostic Imaging Update 28 March-1 April, 2005 16 hours, Category 1
Stanford University
Cardiac MR Fellowship 9-11 Dec 2004 17.5 hours, Category 1
University California San Francisco
Radiological Society of North America 28-30 Nov 2004 8.75 hours, Category 1
Annual Meeting
Chicago, Illinois
The Johns Hopkins University 1-8 Aug 2004 26.75 hours, Category 1
School of Medicine
Advanced Topics in Multidector
CT Scanning
Musculoskeletal MR Course 20-23 Oct 2003 9 hours, Category 1
University of California San Diego
School of Medicine
11th Annual Current Issues of 25-28 August 2002 25 hours, Category 1
Magnetic Resonance Imaging in
Orthopaedics and Sports Medicine
11
RICHARD ALAN OFSTEIN, M.D.
CURRICULUM VITAE (continued)
CONTINUING MEDICAL EDUCATION (Continued)
CONFERENCE/ACTIVITY DATES CME CREDITS
CT Screening 2002: 31 May-2 June 2002 13 hours, Category 1
National Symposium
International Spine Injection Society 4-5 May 2002 13 hours, Category 1
Phase 1 Lumbar Workshop
CT Screening: The Science, 14-16 Dec 2001 16 hours, Category 1
The Business, The Issues
Certificate of Added Qualifications Nov 2001 100 hours, Category 1
in Neuroradiology, November 2001
American Board of Radiology
Johns Hopkins Neuroradiology Review 11-13 October 2001 17.25 hours, Category 1
Diagnostic Imaging Update 26-30 March 2001 23 hours, Category 1
Stanford University
Radiological Society of North America 25 Nov-1 Dec 2000 12.5 hours, Category 1
The Twenty-first Annual Symposium: 12-14 August 2000 15 hours, Category 1
Breast Imaging
Brown University School of Medicine
MRI 1999 15-19 February 1999 25 hours, Category 1
Harvard Medical School
Radiological Society of North America 29 Nov-4 Dec 98 7.75 hours, Category 1
Diagnostic Imaging Update
Stanford University 16-20 February 1998 20.50 hours, Category 1
Current Issues in Obstetrics 6-10 March 1996 20 hours, Category 1
and Gynecology
Radiological Society of North America 1-6 Dec 1996 9.25 hours, Category 1
Radiological Society of North America 28 Nov-1 Dec 1995 9.5 hours, Category 1
12
RICHARD ALAN OFSTEIN, M.D.
CURRICULUM VITAE (continued)
CONTINUING MEDICAL EDUCATION (Continued)
CONFERENCE/ACTIVITY DATES CME CREDITS
Wilderness Medical Society 8-12 August 1995 31 hours, Category 1
Musculoskeletal MRI, Univ Penn 11-15 March 1995 25 hours, Category 1
American College of Cardiology 16-20 Jan 1995 21.5 hours, Category 1
Controversies in Women’s Health 8-9 Dec 1994 13.5 hours, Category 1
University California San Francisco
Radiological Society of North America 27 Nov-2 Dec 1994 15.75 hours, Category 1
National Conference on Obstetrics & 16-19 Nov 1994 18 hours, Category 1
Gynecology
American Heart Association 13-14 Jan 1994 16 hours, Category 1
ACLS Course
13
1 PROOF OF SERVICE -- §1013a CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE,
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
2
3 I am employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of California; I am over the age of eighteen
years and not a party to the within action; my business address is 1230 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 450,
4 Manhattan Beach, California 90266.
5 On, June 16, 2022 I served the foregoing document described as DECLARATION OF
6 RICHARD OFSTEIN, M.D., IN SUPPORT OF ESTATE OF JOEL HERRIOTT THAYER,
M.D.’S MOTION FOR UNDERTAKING RE: SUMMAR GREGORY on all interested parties in
7 this action by placing the original a true copy thereof in a sealed envelope addressed as follows:
8 SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST
9
By Mail I caused such envelope to be deposited in the mail at Manhattan Beach, California.
10 The envelope was mailed with postage thereon fully prepaid. I am “readily familiar” with the
firm’s practice of collection and processing correspondence for mailing. It is deposited with
11 U.S. postal service on that same day in the ordinary course of business. I am aware that on
12 motion of party served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter
date is more than 1 day after date of deposit for mailing in affidavit.
13
By E-mail The above-described document(s) were sent by e-mail transmission to the E-mail
14 addresses listed on the attached service list.
15
By Express Mail I caused such envelope to be deposited in the mail at Manhattan Beach,
16 California. The envelope was mailed with Express Mail postage thereon fully prepaid.
17 By Overnight Delivery I caused such envelope to be sent via overnight delivery service. The
18 envelope was deposited in or with a facility regularly maintained by the express service carrier
with delivery fees paid or provided for.
19
By Personal Service I delivered such envelope by hand to the offices of the addressee(s).
20
State I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
21
foregoing is true and correct.
22
Federal I declare that I am employed in the office of a member of the bar of this court at whose
23 direction this service was made.
24
Executed on June 16, 2022 at Manhattan Beach, California.
25
26 ______________________________
/s/
ROXANNE OLIVA
27
28
1 6104-0406
1 CORTEZ v. RENAISSANCE IMAGING CENTER, et al.
2 LASC Case No.: 20AVCV00282
3
4 SERVICE LIST
5
Gary M. Schneider, Esq. ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS
6 Nancy Siccama, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF GARY M SCHNEIDER
7 12100 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1100
Los Angeles, CA 90025
8
Tel: 310-820-5544
9 Fax: 310-820-6024
gary@gmsesq.com
10 nancy@gmsesq.com
moui@gmsesq.com
11
12 Rodney G. Tomlinson, Esq. ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS
Adam R. James, Esq. ERIC CARNEY DENLEY, M.D., CARLOS A.
13 SCHMID & VOILES GUERRERO, FNP; and QUARTZ HILL
333 South Hope Street, 8th Floor WALK-IN MEDICAL GROUP, INC.
14
Los Angeles, CA 90071
15 Tel: (213) 473-8700
Fax: (213) 473-8777
16 Rtomlinson@schmidvoiles.com
ajames@schmidvoiles.com
17 Asanchez@schmidvoiles.com
18
Janee M. Tomlinson, Esq. ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS HIGH
19 Christopher P. Wend, Esq. DESERT MEDICAL CORPORATION, A
LA FOLLETTE, JOHNSON, DeHAAS, FESLER MEDICAL GROUP
20 & AMES
21 701 North Brand Blvd., Suite 600
Glendale, CA 91203
22 Tel: 213-426-3600
Fax: 213-426-3650
23 jtomlinson@ljdfa.com
24 cwend@ljdfa.com
zdavis@ljdfa.com
25 yblum@ljdfa.com
ahernandez@ljdfa.com
26
27
28
2 6104-0406
1 Gregory G. Lynch ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS
John D. Schumacher RENAISSANCE IMAGING MEDICAL
2 LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP ASSOCIATES (erroneously sued herein as
3 633 West 5th Street, Suite 4000 "Renaissance Imaging Medical Center)
Los Angeles, California 90071
4 Tel: 213-250-1800
Fax: 213-250-7900
5 Greg.Lynch@lewisbrisbois.com
6 John.Schumacher@lewisbrisbois.com
Sherri.Norwood@lewisbrisbois.com
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3 6104-0406
Journal Technologies Court Portal
Make a Reservation
BAMBI CORTEZ, et al. vs RENAISSANCE IMAGING CENTER, et al.
Case Number: 20AVCV00282 Case Type: Civil Unlimited Category: Medical Malpractice - Physicians & Surgeons
Date Filed: 2020-04-20 Location: Michael Antonovich Antelope Valley Courthouse - Department A14
Reservation
Case Name:
BAMBI CORTEZ, et al. vs RENAISSANCE IMAGING Case Number:
CENTER, et al. 20AVCV00282
Type:
Motion for Order (REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO FILE AN Status:
UNDERTAKING) RESERVED
Location:
Filing Party: Michael Antonovich Antelope Valley Courthouse -
Estate of Joel Herriot Thayer (Defendant) Department A14
Date/Time: Number of Motions:
07/19/2022 8:30 AM 1
Reservation ID: Confirmation Code:
243654085180 CR-OCTRHXGRNCYKEBXQO
Fees
Description Fee Qty Amount
Motion for Order (name extension) 60.00 1 60.00
Credit Card Percentage Fee (2.75%) 1.65 1 1.65
TOTAL $61.65
Payment
Amount: Type:
$61.65 Visa
Account Number: Authorization:
XXXX1052 23338G
Print Receipt + Reserve Another Hearing
Chat
Related Content
in Los Angeles County
Case
S. G., VS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
Jul 23, 2024 |
Claims Involving Mass Tort (General Jurisdiction) |
Claims Involving Mass Tort (General Jurisdiction) |
24STCV18236
Ruling
JOSE LUIS GONZALEZ CASTILLO, ET AL. VS FRANCISCO CADENA, ET AL.
Jul 30, 2024 |
21STCV18162
Case Number:
21STCV18162
Hearing Date:
July 30, 2024
Dept:
56
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT
JOSE LUIS GONZALEZ CASTILLO,
et al.
,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
FRANCISCO CADENA,
et al.
,
Defendants.
CASE NO.: 21SCTV18162
[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE:
PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT
Date: July 30, 2024
Time: 8:30 a.m.
Dept. 56
Jury Trial: January 27, 2025
AND RELATED CROSS-ACTIONS
MOVING PARTY: Plaintiffs
RESPONDING PARTY: Defendants Hyundai Motor Company and Hyundai Motor America (collectively, Hyundai or Defendants)
The Court has considered the moving, opposition and reply papers.
BACKGROUND
This action was filed on May 13, 2021 and arises out of an automobile accident in which a Hyundai automobile (the Vehicle) driven by Defendant Francisco Cadena, struck Plaintiff Jose Castillo and decedent Maria Perez.
The currently operative second amended complaint (the SAC) alleges claims against Defendants for: (1) negligence; (2) product liability; and (3) wrongful death and survival action, arising, among other things, from alleged defects in the Vehicle.
On June 20, 2024, Plaintiffs filed the instant motion (the Motion) for leave to file Third Amended Complaint (the TAC). On July 10, 2024, Hyundai filed its opposition papers to the Motion and on July 15, 2024, Plaintiffs filed their reply.
DISCUSSION
Legal Standard
California
Code of Civil Procedure
(CCP) section 473 permits the trial court in its discretion to allow amendments to pleadings in the furtherance of justice.
(
See
CCP § 473, subd. (a).)
CCP section 576 provides that any judge, at any time before or after commencement of trial, in the furtherance of justice, and upon such terms as may be proper, may allow the amendment of any pleading or pretrial conference order.
(CCP § 576.)
There is a policy of great liberality in permitting amendments to the pleadings at any stage of the proceeding.
(
Berman v. Bromberg
(1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 936, 945.)
An application to amend a pleading is addressed to the trial judges sound discretion.
(
Id
.)
If the motion to amend is timely made and the granting of the motion will not prejudice the opposing party, it is error to refuse permission to amend and where the refusal also results in a party being deprived of the right to assert a meritorious cause of action or a meritorious defense, it is not only error but an abuse of discretion.
(
Morgan v. Superior Court of Cal. In and For Los Angeles County
(1959) 172 Cal.App.2d 527, 530.)
Where no prejudice is shown to the adverse party, the liberal rule of allowance prevails.
(
Higgins v. Del Faro
(1981) 123 Cal.App.3d 558, 564.)
Under California Rules of Court (CRC) rule 3.1324, a motion for leave to amend a pleading must be accompanied by a declaration that sets forth: (1) the effect of the amendment; (2) why the amendment is necessary and proper; (3) when the facts giving rise to the amended allegations were discovered; and (4) the reasons why the request for amendment was not made sooner.
(CRC, r. 3.1324(b).)
Plaintiffs have met these requirements.
In support of the Motion, Plaintiffs counsel declares that Plaintiffs obtained the facts underlying the proposed additional allegations of defects from discovery responses and test results received by Plaintiffs since his retention as co-counsel to Plaintiffs on February 13, 2024.
(Declaration of John F. Medlar, Jr. (Medlar Decl.).
In opposition to the Motion, Hyundai takes the position that Plaintiffs purportedly recently-obtained evidence in support of the amendment was or should have been known to Plaintiffs at least ten months before the Motion was filed and that therefore the Motion was not timely filed.
Hyundais primary argument, however, is that the Motion is only being filed as a delaying tactic to avoid Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment (the MSJ), which is set for hearing on August 21, 2024.
If the Motion is granted, the MSJ, which is directed to the SAC, will become moot and will be taken off-calendar.
The MSJ was filed on February 7, 2024 and set for hearing on April 24, 2024.
On March 25, 2024, Plaintiffs filed an Ex Parte Application to continue the hearing on the MSJ (the Ex Parte), on the ground that they needed to obtain further discovery upon which to oppose the MSJ.
Although Hyundai opposed the continuance, the Court granted the Ex Parte as it is required to do under CCP section 437c(h). which provides:
If it appears from the affidavits submitted in opposition to a motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication, or both, that facts essential to justify opposition may exist but cannot, for reasons stated, be presented, the court shall deny the motion, order a continuance to permit affidavits to be obtained or discovery to be had, or make any other order that may be just.
The application to continue the motion to obtain necessary discovery may also be made by ex parte motion at any time on or before the date the opposition response to the motion is due.
The Court granted the Ex Parte and continued the MSJ hearing to the current date of August 21, 2024.
The Court notes that Plaintiffs did file opposition papers to the MSJ on June 20, 2024 the same date that the Motion was filed.
Plaintiffs assert that they have discovered new facts relating to a condition known as brake pedal drift, which they have determined to be the cause of the accident underlying this lawsuit, and that the pleadings need to be amended to allege these new facts.
Hyundai contends that Plaintiffs either knew or should have known of these additional claimed facts at least ten months before the Motion was filed, and that therefore the Motion should be denied as untimely.
The Court disagrees.
The Court finds that Plaintiffs have provided sufficient credible evidence that amendment of the SAC and filing of the proposed TAC are warranted under the law.
The Court therefore GRANTS the Motion and orders Plaintiffs to file the TAC within five (5) court days of the date of this order.
If the TAC is filed, it will be the operative pleading in the case and the current MSJ will be MOOT.
Moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling.
Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMC_DEPT56@lacourt.org as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.
If the department does not receive an email and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion will be placed off calendar.
Dated this 30th day of April 2024
Hon. Holly J. Fujie
Judge of the Superior Court
Ruling
REBECCA CASTILLO VS BIG ALS LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY
Jul 25, 2024 |
23PSCV03859
Case Number:
23PSCV03859
Hearing Date:
July 25, 2024
Dept:
6
Plaintiff Rebecca Castillos Request for Entry of Default Judgment
Defendant: Big Als LLC
TENTATIVE RULING
Plaintiffs request for entry of default judgment is DENIED without prejudice.
BACKGROUND
This is an ADA/Unruh case. On December 13, 2023, plaintiff Rebecca Castillo (Plaintiff) filed this action against defendant Big Als LLC (Defendant) and Does 1 to 10, alleging one cause of action for violations of the Unruh Civil Rights Act. On February 6, 2024, default was entered against Defendant. On June 26, 2024, Plaintiff filed a request for entry of default judgment.
LEGAL STANDARD
Code of Civil Procedure section 585 permits entry of a default judgment after a party has failed to timely respond or appear. (Code Civ. Proc., § 585.) A party seeking judgment on the default by the court must file a Request for Court Judgment, and: (1) a brief summary of the case; (2) declarations or other admissible evidence in support of the judgment requested; (3) interest computations as necessary; (4) a memorandum of costs and disbursements; (5) declaration of nonmilitary status; (6) a proposed form of judgment; (7) a dismissal of all parties against whom judgment is not sought or an application for separate judgment under Code of Civil Procedure section 579, supported by a showing of grounds for each judgment; (8) exhibits as necessary; and (9) a request for attorneys fees if allowed by statute or by the agreement of the parties. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1800.)
ANALYSIS
Plaintiff seeks default judgment against Defendants in the total amount of $9,074.00, including $8,000.00 in damages, $570.00 in attorney fees, and $504.00 in costs. The Court finds Plaintiffs damage request is excessive.
Plaintiff cites the case of
Johnson v. Guedoir
(E.D. Cal. 2016) 218 F.Supp.3d 1096 (
Johnson
)
as the basis for requesting $4,000.00 in deterrence damages plus $4,000.00 for encountering the barriers, for a total demand of $8,000.00. (Compl., Prayer for Relief, ¶¶ 5-6; Summary of the Case, 2:1-8.)
Johnson
does not support this outcome. The court in
Johnson
found $8,000.00 in statutory damages was warranted based on two incidents wherein the plaintiff was deterred on one date and then personally encountered the barriers on a different date. (
Johnson, supra,
218 F.Supp.3d at p. 1100.)
Here, Plaintiff states that she attempted to access Defendants goods and services on November 8, 2023. (Castillo Decl., ¶ 5, Ex. 1.) Plaintiff then confusingly states that she was deterred from visiting Defendants brick-and-mortar location in Ontario on November 2, 2023 and November 8, 2023. (Castillo Decl., ¶ 14.) It is unclear how Plaintiff was deterred on November 2, 2023 before she visited the website on November 8, 2023. (See Castillo Decl., ¶¶ 5, 14, Ex. 1.) Additionally, Plaintiffs browsing history only shows her having attempted to visit Defendants website on November 8, 2023. (Castillo Decl., Ex. 1.) At most, the Court finds evidence of one violation on November 8, 2023, which adds up to $4,000.00, not $8,000.00.
The Court also finds that, based on the reduced damage calculation, Plaintiffs request for attorney fees must also be reduced. (Local Rule 3.214.) The Court finds the correct amount of attorney fees that Plaintiff can recover here is $330.00.
Additionally, Plaintiff did not complete items 4, 5, or 6 of Judicial Council Form CIV-100. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 585.5, 587; Bus. & Prof. Code, § 6400 et seq.)
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, Plaintiffs request for entry of default judgment is DENIED without prejudice.
Ruling
LODIE POLLARD ET AL VS HAIG M BAZOIAN ET AL
Jul 26, 2024 |
BC718464
Case Number:
BC718464
Hearing Date:
July 26, 2024
Dept:
A LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT
NORTH CENTRAL DISTRICT - BURBANK
DEPARTMENT A
CONTINUANCE
JULY 26, 2024
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Los Angeles Superior Court Case # BC718464
MP:
The City of Los Angeles (Defendant)
RP:
Lodie Pollard, Luna Skyy Pollard, Jayden Devaughn Carter, and Pink Selkin (Plaintiffs)
NOTICE:
The Court is not requesting oral argument on this matter. The Court is guided by California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1308(a)(1) whereby notice of intent to appear is requested. Unless the Court directs argument in the Tentative Ruling, no argument is requested and any party seeking argument should notify all other parties and the court by 4:00 p.m. on the court day before the hearing of the partys intention to appear and argue. The tentative ruling will become the ruling of the court if no argument is received.
Notice may be given either by email at BurDeptA@LACourt.org or by telephone at (818) 260-8412.
ANALYSIS:
On July 19, 2024 the Los Angeles Superior Court suffered a cyber security attack which resulted in the significant impairment of most Court systems. Due to this complication, additional time is required for the Court to review these motions and issue a tentative ruling. The Court, on its own motion, thus continues the motions for summary judgment brought by the City of Los Angeles to August 14, 2024 at 9:00 a.m.
---
RULING
:
In the event the parties submit on this tentative ruling, or a party requests a signed order or the court in its discretion elects to sign a formal order, the following form will be either electronically signed or signed in hard copy and entered into the courts records.
ORDER
The City of Los Angeless Motions for Summary Judgment
came on regularly for hearing on Jukly 26, 2024, with appearances/submissions as noted in the minute order for said hearing, and the court, being fully advised in the premises, did then and there rule as follows:
THE MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ARE CONTINUED TO AUGUST 14, 2024 AT 9:00 AM.
ALL OTHER DATES REMAIN.
DEFENDANT CITY OF LOS ANGELES TO GIVE NOTICE.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATE: July 26, 2024 _______________________________
F.M. TAVELMAN, Judge
Superior Court of California
County of Los Angeles
Ruling
DEBORAH CARSON, ET AL. VS RED LINE COURIER SERVICE, A BUSINESS ENTITY FORM UNKNOWN, ET AL.
Jul 26, 2024 |
21STCV27576
Case Number:
21STCV27576
Hearing Date:
July 26, 2024
Dept:
32
PLEASE NOTE
:
Parties are encouraged to meet and confer concerning this tentative ruling to determine if a resolution may be reached.
If the parties are unable to reach a resolution and a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the Court at
sscdept32@lacourt.org
indicating that partys intention to submit.
The email shall include the case number, date and time of the hearing, counsels contact information (if applicable), and the identity of the party submitting on this tentative ruling.
If the Court does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may place the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.
If all parties do not submit on this tentative ruling, they should arrange to appear in-person or remotely.
Further, after the Court has posted/issued a tentative ruling, the Court has the inherent authority to prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion and adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court
.
TENTATIVE RULING
DEPT
:
32
HEARING DATE
:
July 26, 2024
CASE NUMBER
:
21STCV27576
MOTIONS
:
Petition for Minors Compromise
MOVING PARTY:
Petitioner Deborah Carson
OPPOSING PARTY:
Unopposed
The Court has reviewed the petition filed on July 3, 2024 by Petitioner Deborah Carson (Petitioner) on behalf of Claimant Chase Carson, age 11.
The Court denies the petition without prejudice for the following reason:
The Court previously instructed Petitioner to complete item 10c describing the terms of the settlement. (See Min. Order, 7/1/24.) In this revised petition, item 10c is not complete.
Petitioner has cured all other defects identified in the previous petition.
Accordingly, the Court denies the petition without prejudice.
Petitioner shall give notice and file a proof of service of such.
Ruling
ENGELVER ALEJANDRO RODRIGUEZ CATALAN VS STEVEN MAURICE KANE, ET AL.
Jul 25, 2024 |
23TRCV03725
Case Number:
23TRCV03725
Hearing Date:
July 25, 2024
Dept:
8
Tentative Ruling
HEARING DATE: July 25, 2024
CASE NUMBER: 23TRCV03725
CASE NAME: Engelver Alejandro Rodriguez Catalan v. Steven Maurice Kane, et al.
MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff, Engelver Alejandro Rodriguez Catalan
RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant, Steven Maurice Kane
TRIAL DATE: Not Set.
MOTION: (1) Plaintiffs Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories (2) Plaintiffs Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories (3) Plaintiffs Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production of Documents (4) Plaintiffs Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Admission (5) Request for Sanctions Tentative Rulings: (1) GRANTED if not already mooted (2) MOOTED (3) GRANTED in part and DENIED in part (4) GRANTED if not mooted (5) $2,000 to be awarded to Plaintiff. I. BACKGROUND
A. Factual
On November 9, 2023, Plaintiff, Engelver Alejandro Rodriguez Catalan (Plaintiff) filed a complaint against Defendants, Steven Maurice Kane, Richard I Kane, Darlene Ryan, and DOES 1 through 100. The complaint alleges causes of action for: (1) Motor Vehicle Negligence; and (2) General Negligence. The parties meet and confer process and background of requests, responses, and such were outlined in the Courts June tentative ruling. B. Procedural
On April 17, 2024, Plaintiffs filed these motions to compel further. On May 30, 2024, Defendant Kane filed an opposition briefs. On June 5, 2024, Plaintiff filed a reply briefs. On June 11, 2024, these motions along with the IDC were continued to June 26, 2024. On June 26, 2024, this Court conducted an IDC in light of the Courts posted tentative rulings, and CONTINUED the hearing on the motions to July 25, 2024 if any lingering issues remained after the IDC. II. ANALYSIS
A. Motion to Compel Further The Court provided a discussion of the legal standards to be applied for discovery and sanctions motions in its June 2024 tentative ruling. Plaintiffs Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories Form Interrogatory No. 16.9: Form Interrogatory No. 16.9 asks whether Defendant Kane or anyone acting on Defendant Kanes behalf have any document concerning claims for personal injuries made before or after the incident by a plaintiff in this case, and asks the responder, that if s, for each plaintiff, states: (a) the source of each document; (b) the date each claim arose; (c) the nature of each claim; and (d) the name, address, and telephone number of the person who has each document. Plaintiff seeks further responses to Form Interrogatory No. 16.9 on the grounds that Plaintiff argues he is entitled to know what Defendants contentions are and where he stands on each issue related the case. The Court discussed its agreement with the principal thrust of the motion as to prior claims evidence at the IDC. At oral argument, the parties should be prepared to discuss whether the Courts tentative ruling was followed by a further verified response and whether that further response moots this motion. Plaintiffs Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories Special Interrogatory No. 55: Special Interrogatory No. 55 asks Defendant Kane to identify any automobile collisions he had been involved in during the three (3) years prior to the incident. Although Defendant Kane originally responded with numerous objections, it appears that he is submitting to further responses as no opposition brief was filed, and in his response to Request for an IDC, he noted that he will serve further responses to this interrogatory. At oral argument, the parties should be prepared to discuss whether Defendant has served the offered further verified response and whether that further response moots this motion. Plaintiffs Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production of Documents RFP No. 4: RFP No. 4 asks for Defendant Kane to produce all documents related to all cellular and telephone records, including billing statements of his, on the day of the incident. Defendant Kane objected to this request indicating that such would violate his privacy rights. The Court discussed the request and objection at the IDC. At oral argument, the parties should be prepared to discuss whether the Courts tentative ruling was followed by a further verified response and whether that further response moots this motion. RFP No. 12: RFP No. 12 asks Defendant Kane to produce all documents involving ISO claim searches conducted with regard to Plaintiff. Plaintiff seeks further discovery responses because he argues that if Defendant Kane conducted an ISO search on Plaintiff, he must produce said documents as they are not work product by the attorney. The Court disagrees. At the IDC the Court discussed this RFP as well. At oral argument, the parties should be prepared to discuss whether the Courts tentative ruling was followed by a further verified response and whether that further response moots this motion. RFP No. 13, 17, and 18: RFP No. 13 asks Defendant Kane to produce all documents relating to his sub rosa surveillance on Plaintiff including photos, videos and reports. RFP No. 17 asks Defendant Kane to produce any and all film and/or video footage in his possession, custody, or control (or in the possession, custody, or control of his agents) of Plaintiff at any time. Lastly, RFP NO. 18 asks Defendant Kane to produce any and all audio recordings in his possession, custody, or control (or in the possession, custody, or control of his agents) of Plaintiff at any time. Defendant Kane objected to this information on the grounds that the request was in violation of Evidence Code section 785 and that it sought information protected by the attorney work product doctrine and attorney client privilege. The Court discussed this issue at the IDC and defense counsel was to inquire as to whether any surveillance videos would be approved by defendants principal to be disclosed in the spirit of attempting to resolve the case. At oral argument, the parties should be prepared to discuss whether the principal agreed and whether further argument on this issue is required. RFP No. 16: RFP No. 16 seeks documents from Defendant Kane pertaining to claims made by any other person against him, pertaining to any motor vehicle accidents, prior to the incident. Plaintiff argues that Defendant Kanes prior driving history and claims made against him prior to the incident are relevant to the underlying incident and reasonably calculated to lead to discoverable evidence. At the IDC the COurt discussed the potential for narrowing the time perido for this RFP and the potential relevancy of the same. At oral argument, the parties should be prepared to discuss whether Defendant provided a further verified response and whether that further response moots this motion. Plaintiffs Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Admission RFA No. 6: RFA No. 6 asks Defendant Kane to admit he has conducted an ISO search on Plaintiff. Defendant Kane objected to this arguing it is vague, ambiguous, and violates the applicable code of procedure section 2034.010, et seq. pertaining to the timing of expert witness discovery. The Court disagreed as discussed at the IDC, so at oral argument, the parties should be prepared to discuss whether the Courts tentative ruling was followed by a further verified response and whether that further response moots this motion. RFA No. 7 and 8: RFA No. 7 asks Defendant Kane to admit he has sub rosa photos, videos, and reports on Plaintiff. RFA No. 8 asks Defendant Kne to admit he has conducted sub rose surveillance of Plaintiff. Defendant Kane objected to this arguing it is vague, ambiguous, and violates the applicable code of procedure section 2034.010, et seq. pertaining to the timing of expert witness discovery. Defendant Kane also objected noting that the request is in violation of Evidence Code section 785. The Court disagreed as discussed at the IDC, so at oral argument, the parties should be prepared to discuss whether the Courts tentative ruling was followed by a further verified response and whether that further response moots this motion. B. Sanctions Additionally, Plaintiff has requested monetary sanctions in connection with each of its four motions to compel further responses. For the Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories and Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories, Plaintiff has requested monetary sanctions as imposed on Defendant Kane and/or his counsel of record in the amount of $1,260 as to each motion ($2,520 total for the two.) At the IDC, the Court discussed the reasonableness of the claimed hours as well as the claimed justifications for several of the objections. At oral argument, the parties should be prepared to discuss the Courts tentative ruling that the Court might award $1,000 per motion ($2,000 total for the two motions), to be paid to Plaintiffs counsel on or before August 7, 2024. Plaintiff is ordered to provide notice.
Ruling
MUGIHIKO MORIJIRI, AN INDIVIDUAL, ET AL. VS 24 CMN LLC, A BUSINESS ENTITY, EXACT FORM UNKNOWN, ET AL.
Jul 29, 2024 |
23STCV20959
Case Number:
23STCV20959
Hearing Date:
July 29, 2024
Dept:
53
Superior Court of California
County of Los Angeles Central District
Department 53
mugihiko morijiri
, et al.;
Plaintiffs
,
vs.
24 cmn llc
, et al.;
Defendants
.
Case No.:
23STCV20959
Hearing Date:
July 29, 2024
Time:
10:00 a.m.
[tentative] Order
RE:
defendants motion to strike portions of complaint
MOVING PARTIES:
Defendants 24 CMN, LLC and CYN, LLC
RESPONDING PARTIES:
Plaintiffs
Mugihiko Morijiri, Keiko Morijiri, and Zion Morijiri and Ewan Morijiri, by and through their guardian ad litem, Keiko Morijiri
Motion to Strike Portions of Complaint
The court considered the moving, opposition, and reply papers filed in connection with this motion.
DISCUSSION
Defendants 24 CMN, LLC and CYN, LLC (Defendants) move the court for an order striking the prayer for punitive damages (Compl., Prayer, p. 23:20) and related allegations (Compl., ¶¶ 117, 161, 172
[1]
) in the Complaint filed by plaintiffs Mugihiko Morijiri, Keiko Morijiri, and Zion Morijiri and Ewan Morijiri, by and through their guardian ad litem, Keiko Morijiri (Plaintiffs).
The court grants Defendants motion to strike the prayer for punitive damages and related allegations because Plaintiffs have not alleged facts establishing (1) Defendants are guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice, and (2) advance knowledge and conscious disregard, authorization, ratification, or act of oppression, fraud, or malice on the part of an officer, director, or managing agent of Defendants.
(Code Civ. Proc., § 436; Civ. Code, § 3294, subds. (a), (b).)
The court finds that the allegations that Ariana Javaheri, the property supervisor and managing agent of Defendants, informed Plaintiffs that the dark staining on their wall was not mold but mildew and advised Plaintiffs that they would have to pay for the mold test if the results were negative (Compl., ¶¶ 21-23) do not show that Defendants (1) engaged in conduct intended to cause injury to Plaintiffs or despicable conduct carried on with a willful and conscious disregard of the rights or safety of Plaintiffs, or (2) engaged in despicable conduct subjecting Plaintiffs to cruel and unjust hardship in conscious disregard of their rights.
(Civ. Code, § 3294, subds. (c)(1) [defining malice], (c)(2) [defining oppression].)
Moreover, while the court acknowledges that Plaintiffs have also alleged that plaintiff Ewan Morijiri was diagnosed with leukemia, is immunocompromised, and was advised not to reside in a premises with mold because it would be injurious and possibly fatal (Compl., ¶ 23), Plaintiffs did not allege facts establishing that Defendants knew of this risk, such that Ariana Javaheris conduct may be considered malicious or oppressive.
ORDER
The court grants defendants CMN, LLC and CYN, LLCs motion to strike the prayer for punitive damages and paragraphs 117, 161, and 172 of plaintiffs Mugihiko Morijiri, Keiko Morijiri, and Zion Morijiri and Ewan Morijiri, by and through their guardian ad litem, Keiko Morijiris Complaint in this action.
The court grants plaintiffs Mugihiko Morijiri, Keiko Morijiri, and Zion Morijiri and Ewan Morijiri, by and through their guardian ad litem, Keiko Morijiri 20 days leave to file a First Amended Complaint that cures the defects set forth in this ruling.
The court orders defendants CMN, LLC and CYN, LLC to give notice of this ruling.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED:
July 29, 2024
_____________________________
Robert B. Broadbelt III
Judge of the Superior Court
[1]
The court notes that the notice of motion erroneously states this allegation is in paragraph 171.
(Notice of Mot., p. 2, ¶ 3.)
Ruling
DANA URICK, ET AL. VS ELKINS KALT WEINTRAUB REUBEN GARTSIDE, LLP, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP, ET AL.
Jul 31, 2024 |
20STCV17462
Case Number:
20STCV17462
Hearing Date:
July 31, 2024
Dept:
20
Tentative Ruling
Judge Kevin C. Brazile
Department 20
Hearing Date:
July 31, 2024
Case Name:
Urick, et al. v. Elkins Kalt Weintraub Reuben Gartside LLP, et al.
Case No.:
20STCV17462
Matter:
Motion to Compel Deposition
Moving Party:
Defendant Elkins Kalt Weintraub Reuben Gartside LLP
Responding Party:
Unopposed
Notice:
OK
Ruling:
The Motion is granted.
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.
Defendant Elkins Kalt Weintraub Reuben Gartside LLP seeks to compel the deposition of Plaintiff Trentyn M. Urick-Stasa.
Because there is no opposition, the Motion to Compel is granted. The deposition is to take place within 30 days. The Court awards reduced sanctions in the amount of $1,000.
Moving parties 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.
Ruling
MARCUS SIREGAR VS MICHAEL ARDERN, ET AL.
Case Number:
21STCV04494
Hearing Date:
July 29, 2024
Dept:
29
Motion to Compel the Deposition of Plaintiff filed by Defendant Avis Rent A Car System, LLC on behalf of Michael Arden.
Tentative
The motion is denied without prejudice.
Background
On February 4, 2021, Marcus Siregar (Plaintiff) filed a complaint against Michael Ardern and Avis Rent A Car System, LLC for negligence cause of action arising out of an automobile accident occurring on February 16, 2019.
On August 22, 2023, Avis Rent A Car System, LLC on behalf of Michael Arden (Defendant) filed an answer.
On June 18, 2024, Defendant filed this motion to compel the deposition of Plaintiff.
Defendant also seeks sanctions.
No opposition has been filed.
Legal Standard
Any party may obtain discovery & by taking in California the oral deposition of any person, including any party to the action.
(Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.010.)
Code of Civil Procedure sections 2025.210 through 2025.280 provide the requirements for (among other things) what must be included in a deposition notice, when and where depositions may be taken, and how and when the notice must be served.
The service of a deposition notice & is effective to require any deponent who is a party to the action or an officer, director, managing agent, or employee of a party to attend and to testify, as well as to produce any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing for inspection and copying.
(
Id.
, § 2025.280, subd. (a).)
Section 2025.410, subdivision (a), requires any party to serve a written objection at least three days before the deposition if the party contends that a deposition notice does not comply with the provisions of sections 2025.210 through 2025.280.
Section 2025.450, subdivision (a), provides:
If, after service of a deposition notice, a party to the action or an officer, director, managing agent, or employee of a party,
or a person designated by an organization that is a party under Section 2025.230,
without having served a valid objection under Section 2025.410, fails to appear for examination, or to proceed with it, or to produce for¿inspection any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing described in the deposition notice, the party giving the notice may move for an order
compelling the deponents attendance and testimony, and the production for inspection of any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing described in the deposition notice.
Any such motion to compel must show good cause for the production of documents and, when a deponent has failed to appear, the motion must be accompanied by a declaration stating that the petitioner has contacted the deponent to inquire about the nonappearance.
(
Id.
, subd. (b).)
When a motion to compel is granted, the court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) in favor of the party who noticed the deposition and against the deponent or the party with whom the deponent is affiliated, unless the court finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust. (
Id.
, § 2025.450, subd. (g)(1).)
Discussion
Defendant served Plaintiff with a notice of deposition scheduled for May 8, 2024. (Rubin Decl., ¶ 6 & Exh. B.) The parties exchanged some correspondence prior to the deposition date, but the bottom line is that Plaintiff did not serve any objection and did not appear.
(Id., ¶¶ 7-10 & Exhs. C-F.)
Defendant now moves for an order compelling Plaintiff to attend a deposition.
Defendant is certainly entitled to take Plaintiffs deposition under the Civil Discovery act, but to obtain a court order compelling the deposition, Defendant must comply with all statutory requirements.
Here, Defendant has not done so.
Specifically, Defendant presents no evidence that, following the nonappearance, it reached out to Plaintiff
to inquire about the nonappearance.
(Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.450, subd. (b).)
Accordingly, the motion is denied without prejudice.
Conclusion
The Court DENIES Defendants motion to compel the deposition of Plaintiff Marcus Siregar without prejudice.
Moving party to give notice.
Document
ANDY GARCIA VS NORMA ALICIA ESCOBEDO
Feb 21, 2020 |
Audra M. Mori
|
Motor Vehicle - Personal Injury/Property Damage/Wrongful Death (General Jurisdiction) |
Motor Vehicle - Personal Injury/Property Damage/Wrongful Death (General Jurisdiction) |
20STCV07167
Document
VALARIE ZAYAS VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES, ET AL.
Feb 03, 2023 |
Kerry R. Bensinger
|
Premise Liability (e.g., dangerous conditions of property, slip/trip and fall, dog attack, etc.) (General Jurisdiction) |
Premise Liability (e.g., dangerous conditions of property, slip/trip and fall, dog attack, etc.) (General Jurisdiction) |
23STCV02454