Preview
McCormick, Barstow, Sheppard, E-FILED Wayte & Carruth LLP Jerry D. Casheros, #203897 5/21/2019 1:19 PM Jjerry.casheros(@mccormickbarstow.com Superior Court of California Alex N. Newsum, #312344 ounty of Fresno alex.newsum@mccormickbarstow.com By: M. Douangkham, Deputy 7647 North Fresno Street Fresno, California 93720 Telephone: (559) 433-1300 Facsimile: (559) 433-2300 Attorneys for PETER NASSAR, M.D. and ST. AGNES MEDICAL PROVIDERS SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 10 COUNTY OF FRESNO 11 12 GIGI JOHNSON, Case No. 18CECG00556 13 Plaintiff, DEFENDANTS’ SEPARATE STATEMENT OF EVIDENCE IN 14 Vv, SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 15 PETER NASSAR, M.D.; ST. AGNES [PART 3 OF 5 - EXHIBIT 5 Part 2 of 2] MEDICAL PROVIDERS, a business entity Judge: Hon, Rosemary McGuire 16 form unknown and DOES 1-25, inclusive, Date: August 22, 2019 Time: 3:30 p.m. 17 Defendants. Dept.: 403 18 19 Defendants Peter Nassar, M.D. and Saint Agnes Medical Providers (“Defendants”), 20 hereby submits the following Statement of Evidence in support of its Motion for Summary Judgment. — 21 Exhibit No. Description of Evidene 22 1 Plaintiff's Complaint for Damages. 2: Declaration of Bahareh Nejad, M.D. and CV attached as Exhibit “A” thereto. 23 3 Defendants’ Answer to Plaintiffs’ Complaint. 24 Medical records for Gigi Johnson from Saint Agnes Medical Providers. 25 Medical records for Gigi Johnson from Saint Agnes Medical Center. 26 Medical records for Gigi Johnson from Adventist Oakhurst East. Defendants’ Special Interrogatories, Set One, to Plaintiff, Gigi Johnson. 27 Special Plaintiff, Gigi Johnson’s Verified Responses to Defendants’ Interrogatories, Set One. 28McCormick, BARSTOW, WAYTE & DEFENDANTS’ SEPARATE STATEMENT OF EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY FRESNO, CA 83720 JUDGMENT9 | Declaration of Jerry D. Casheros. 10 Deposition transcript of Gigi Johnson taken February 7, 2019. 11 Deposition transcript of Peter Nassar, M.D., taken on February 8, 2019. 12 Declaration from Saint Agnes Medical Center Custodian of Records. 13 Declaration from Saint Agnes Medical Providers Custodian of Records. 14 Declaration from Adventist Oakhurst East Custodian of Records. Dated: May 17, 2019 McCORMICK, BARSTOW, SHEPPARD, WAYTE & CARRUTH LLP 9 By:_ 10 erry D. Cte: Alex N. Newsum 11 Attorneys for PETER NASSAR, M.D. and ST. AGNES MEDICAL PROVIDERS 12 085295-000239 6010796.1 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 McCORMICK, BARSTOW, ‘SHEPPARD, WAYTE & 2 CARRUTH LLP DEFENDANTS’ SEPARATE STATEMENT OF EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY7647 NORTH FRESNO STREET JUDGMENT FRESNO, CA93720TABLE OF EXHIBITS Exhibit Description of Evidenc PAGE bana oO. a Plaintiff's Complaint for Damages. Declaration of Bahareh Nejad, M.D. and CV attached as Exhibit “A” 10 thereto. Defendants’ Answer to Plaintiffs’ Complaint. 28 Medical records for Gigi Johnson from Saint Agnes Medical Providers. 33 Medical records for Gigi Johnson from Saint Agnes Medical Center. 124 Medical records for Gigi Johnson from Adventist Oakhurst East. 687 863 10 Defendants’ Special Interrogatories, Set One, to Plaintiff, Gigi Johnson. Plaintiff, Gigi Johnson’s Verified Responses to Defendants’ Special ll 870 Interrogatories, Set One. 12 886 Declaration of Jerry D, Casheros. 891 13 a10 Deposition transcript of Gigi Johnson taken February 7, 2019. ll Deposition transcript of Peter Nassar, M.D., taken on February 8, 2019. 994 14 1108 — 2) Declaration— from Saint i Agnes Medical Center Custodian of Records. 15 of Records. 1111 13 Declaration from Saint Agnes Medical Providers Custodian 1114 16 14 Declaration from Adventist Oakhurst East Custodian of Records. 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 McCoRMICK, BARSTOW, 3 ‘SHEPPARD, WAYTE & CARRUTH LLP DEFENDANTS’ SEPARATE STATEMENT OF EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY1647 WORTH FRESNO STREET JUDGMENT FRESNO, CA 93720EXHIBIT 5ST. AGNES MEDICAL CENTER FRESNO Patient Name: JOHNSON, GIGIFresno, CA 93720- MRN: (FR)-000724913 Date of Birth: = Admit Date: 31/2017 Discharge Date: 3813/2017A Member of Trinity Health Account Number; 029390627-7064Livonia, Michigan Patient Type: Ambulatory Surgery Attending: Nassar MD,Peter TC Care Plan[ IPOC Result: Progressing (Charted at 3/2/2017 08:06 PST by Marquez RNEva 3 by Hung RN, Result: Progressing (Charted at 3/2/2017 07:53z . PST any E Result: Progressing (Charted at 3/2/2017 07:53 PST by Hung RN,. Jeany E) Outcome: Education Currently Received Expectation: Yes Phase: Risk of Infection; Status: Discontinued ‘History: Initiated at 3/2/2017 10:52 EST electronically signed by Hung RN,Jeany E ‘Discontinued at 3/3/2017 09:59 PST electronically signed by SYSTEM,SYSTEM Outcome: Absence of Signs & Symptoms of Infection ‘Expectation: Achieved or Progressing Result; Progressing (Charted at 3/3/2017 08:09 PST by Marquez RN,Eva L) Result: Progressing (Charted at 3/3/2017 05:28 PST by Santos RN, Gracia F) Result: Progressing (Charted at 3/2/2017 08:06 PST by Marquez RN, Eva L) Res Progressing (Charted at 3/2/2017 07:53 PST by Hung RN,Jeany E) utcol Vital Signs (Retrieval) Expectation: Within reference range Outcome: HG! ICT-WBG (Retrieval) teers Expectation: Within reference oe. range Outcome: MRSA, VRE History (Retrieval) Expectation: Within reference range Phase: Pain; Status: Discontinued History: Initiated at 3/2/2017 10:52 EST electronically signed by Hung RN,Jeany E Discontinued at 3/3/2017 09:59 PST electronically signed by SYSTEM,SYSTEM Outcome: Control of Pain \Expectation: Achieved or Progressing Result: Progressing (Charted at 3/3/2017 08:10 PST by Marquez RN, Eva L) Result: Progressing (Charted at 3/3/2017 05:28 PST by Santos RN,Gracla F) Result: Progressing (Charted at 3/2/2017. 06 PST by Marquez RN,Eva L) Result: Progressing (Charted at 3/2/2017 07: 3 PST by Hung RN,Jeany E) Outcome: Patient Pain Goal Expectation: Greater Than or Equal 0. Outcome: Pain Score Expectation: Equal 0 | Result: 5 (Charted at 3/3/2017 09:56 PST by Marquez RN, Eva L) Result: 0 (Charted at 3/3/2017 04:23 PST by Santos RN,Gracia F) Result; § (Charted at 3/3/2017 03:23 PST by Santos RN, Gracia F) Result: 2 (Charted at 3/2/20171 5 PST by Marquez RN,Eva L) Result: § (Charted at 3/2/2017 18:25 PST by Valerio RN,Rizza D) Outcome: Is Pain Level Acceptable? ‘Expectation: Yes Result: No (Charted at 3/3/2017 09:56 PST by Marquez RN,Eva L) Result: Sleeping (Charled at 3/3/2017 04:23 PST by Sa RN, Gracia F) Result; No (Charted at 3/3/2017 03:23 PST by Santos, racia F) Result: Yes (Charted at 3/2/2017 19:26 PST by Marquez RN,Eva L) Result: No (Charted at 3/2/2017 18:25 PST by Valerio RN,Rizza D) Outcome: : Pain Associated Beh-Vocal Expectation: : Cooing, guiet sounds, regular speech Outcome: : Pain Associated Beh-Facial Expr Expectation elaxed face, smiling Outcome ; Pain Associated Beh-Non-Verb Expectation: rious, cooperative, moderate activity level Outcome: Response/Tolerance to Activity/ADL's ‘Expectation ; Tolerated well Printed Date/Time: 6/14/2018 12:37 EDT Report Request JO: 168995964 0000585 426‘ST. AGNES MEDICAL CENTER FRESNO Patient Name: JOHNSON, GIGIFresno, CA 93720- MRN: (FR)-000724913 Date of Birth: = Admit Date: 312017 Discharge Date: 9/3/2017A Member of Trinity Health Account Number: 029390627-7054Livonia, Michigan Patient Type: Ambulatory Surgery Attending: Nassar MD,PeterT Care Plan IPOC ~ Outeo! Knowledge/Application of Pain MGMT Info ‘Expectation: Achieved or Progressing Resul ogressing (Charted at 3/3/2017 08:10 PST by Marquez RN,Eva L) Result: Progressing (Charted at 3/3/2017 05:29 PST by Santos RN,Gracia F) Resul Progressing (Charted at 3/2/2017 08:06 PST by Marquez RN,Eva L) Result: Progressing (Charted at 3/2/2017 07:53 PST by Hung RN,Jeany E) Outcome: Education Topics-Pain Expectation: Analgesic regimen or Benefit of pain control or Common side effects of pain medication or Fears of opioid ‘use or Importance of reporting pain or Nonpharmacologic rventions or Pain assessment i Outcome: Education Outcome-Pain Exp tation: Verbalized understanding or Demonstrated skills independently or Demonstrated skills w/min assist or ‘Demo ited skills w/mod assist‘Plan: IPOC Impaired Skin IntegrityPhase: Impaired Skin Integrity-Actual Incision; Status: Discontinued ‘History: Initiated at 3/2/2017 10:53 EST electronically signed by Hung RN,Jeany E Discontinued at 3/3/2017 09:59 PST electronically signed by SYSTEM,SYSTEM Outcom Tissue Integrity \Expectation: Achieved or Progressing Result: Progressing (Charted at 3/3/2017 0! 8:09 PST by Marquez RN, Eva ub Resul rogressing (Charted at 3/3/2017, 28 PST by Santos RN,| Gracia F) Result: Progressing (Charted at 3/2/2017 0 PST by.Marquez RN, Eva L) Result: Progressing (Charted at 3/2/2017 07:53 PST by Hung RN, Jeany E) Outcome: Incision Edge: Expectation; Approximated or No S & S of infection or Well defined or Pink Outcome: Incision Length: ‘Expectation: Less Than 0 cm Outcome: Incision Exudate Amount: Expectation: None or Scant (Z OKC, Dawon— sea, (pavient/Jarent/conservator/guardian) if signed by other than thepatient, indicate relationship: 3 Witness: ae ae L. et Interpreter: a a ——s 0000600 441Patient Nar : JOHNSON, GIGI MRN: (FR)-000724913Date of Birth: 12:0 EST FIN: 029380627-7054 * Auth (Verified) * “ay Salnt Agnes Medical Center Fras ‘JOHNSON, GiGt , aes MAA 000724013 AUTHORIZATION FOR AND FIN# 020380627-7054 wn CONSENT FOR ADMINISTRATION F STH! 108500-704 (7/08) SAC MY SIGNATURE ON THIS FORM INDICATES | HAVE READ AND UNDERSTAND THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION AND AUTHORIZE AND CONSENT TO THE ADMINISTRATION OF ANESTHESIA. Anesthesia, although generally safe, Is not without potential risks or serious complications. Depending on your type of surgery and medical condition, anesthesiologist may recommend general anesthesia, regional anesthesia (a nerve block), or sedation wilh local anesthesia provided by your surgeon, Each different type of anesthesia has its own risks, benofits, and unexpected results, The purpose of this form is to provide you vith Information in addition to a discussion with your anesthesiologist to allow you to give informad consent for anesthesia. General Anesthesia ‘This Is the most common type of anesthesia and involves the use of specific medicines and Inhaled gasses that put you deeply asleep for the entire surgery. The expected result is @ temporary total unconsolous state, This tech nique requires the placement of either a breathing tube (endotrach: eal tube) or a device called an LMA (laryngeal mask alway), ora simple face mask, Both ai you have gone {0 sleep. Anaesthetic risks Include, but are not limited to, the breathing tube and the LMA are usually inserted iter the following; mouth or throat pain; damage to the lips, longue, teeth or olhar mouth structures; corneal (aye) abrasion; blindness, vocal cord Injury; peripheral nerve injuries; damatge to blood vessels or Infiltration (intemal leakage) of your IV; di reactions; awareness under anesthesia; collapsed lung; breatl thing problems; arrhythmia (heart rhythm change) or heart attack; stroke; braln damage; nausea with or without vorniting, aspiration of ‘stomach contents; and . Roglonal Anesthesia This type of anesthesia Is commonly used either as the sole anesthetic or in conjunction with a general anesthetic to help with has pain after surgery. The expecte \d result is a temporary Joss of feeling and/or movement of a specific limb or area. Each block Its own unique risks, but risks in common Include, but are not limited to: bleeding, bruising or local pain at the site of injection; Infection; Injury to the nerve ar nerves being blocked; toxicity or reaction related to the at ibsorption of the local anesthetic used; unplanned Injection into a blood vessel causing sudden arrhythmia {heart thythm change), seizures, or death; and fallure of the block te work, In addition, spinal and epidi lural anesthesia may also cause changes in blood pressure, headache, backache, hematoma formation (internal collection of bl ood), and excessive block requiring the placement of a breathing tube and possible cardiac resuscitation. Sedation with Local Anosthosla This technique is commonly called "MA\ \C” anesthesia (monitored anesthelic care). It is commonly used in simple cases where direct local anesthesia "numbs" the surg! cal site while your anesthesiologist administers sedation to make you comforlable. The expected results include reduced anxiety and pain during the procedure. Although rare, complications include drug reactions, local anesthetic toxicity, depressed breathing, and conversion to general anasthesia. This information is meant to notify youof the potential risks, alternatives, and expected results of the different typesof anesthesia, By signing this form, you acknowledge that you have read and understand these points and agrae to the administration af anesthesia. {2 lV Odio D3Shwey— alifin t Date Time ‘Signdtdro: PAtion/Spouse/Parent/Conservator/Guardlan (IndicateRelationship) —— Se Namoeilnterpreter Number Pile £2549 ® Signature: Witness Date Time If unable to sign, indicate reason: 40042 0000601 442Patient Name: JOHNSON, GIG! MRN; (FR)-000724013Date of Birth: SN 12:00 EST FIN: 029390627-7054 * Auth (Verified) * — Agnes Nh Si SOHNSON, GIGI Fresno,Celtfomis AUTHORIZATION FOR AND CONSENT MRA 000724913 TO SURGERY OR SPECIAL DIAGNOSTIC FIN # O28390627-7054 @ Plas EDU! ENTS 108500-703 (8/13) Pago 1of3 ina <2 Procedure Date: Bit 1. Your doctor(s) have recommended the following me or procedure: lepavosce Ses Oz, OSE( Upon your authorization and consent, this operation or procedure, together with any different or further procedures which, in the opinion of the doctor(s) performing the procedure, may be indicated due to any emergency, will be performed on you. The operalions or procedures will be performed by the doctor named below (or in the event the doctor is unable to perform or complete the procedure, a qualified substitute doctor), together with associates and assistants, including anesthesiologists, pathologists, and radiologists from the medical staff of Saint Agnes Medical Center to whom the doctor(s) performing the procedure may assign designated responsibilities. The hospital maintains personnel and facilities to assist your doctors in their performance of various surgical operations and other special diagnostics or therapeutic procedures. However, the persons in attendance for the purpose of performing specialized medical services such as anesthesia, radiology, or pathology are not employees or agents of the hospital or of doctor(s) performing the procedure. They are independent medical practitioners. Name of the practitioner who Is performing the procedure or administering the medical treatment: Rl Ndars All operations and procedures carry the risk of unsuccessful results, complications, injury, or even death, or cure. from both known and unforeseen causes, and no warranty or guarantee is made as to result You have the tight to be informed of: . The nature of the operation or procedure, including other care, treatment or medications; . Potential benefits, risks or side effects of the operation or procedure, including potential problems that might occur during recuperation; The likelihood of achieving treatment goals; ves, Reasonable altematives and the relevant risks, benefits and side effects related to such altemati including the possible results of not recelving care or treatment, and related to Any independent medical research or significant economic interests your doctor may have the performance of the proposed operation or procedure. Except in cases of emergency, operations or procedures are not performed until you have had the opportunity to receive this informal tion and have given your consent. You have the right to give or refuse consent to any proposed operation or procedure at any time prior to its performance. 10040 a 0000602 443MRN; (FR)-000724813Patient Name: JOHNSON, GIGI FIN: 029380627-7054Date of Birth: SIN 12:00 EST * Auth (Verified) * SaintAg Me ‘JOHNSON, GIGI EC Prone tion Mie OOU72A913 8 mma F AUTHORIZATION FOR AND CONSENT BOT FIN# O29380627-7054 i ‘TO SURGERY OR SPECIAL BMANOSTIC PETERT PROCEDURE/TREAT 108500-704 (8/13) ith @ Page 2 of 3 5, Pathology: By your initials below, you authorize the pathologistto use his or her discretion in disposition or use of any member, organ or tissue removed fram your person during the operation or procedure set forth above, subject to the following conditions (if any): ital eeceeee meeeneeeee Name; JOHNSON, GIGI Address: 33590 COMSTOCK TRL COARSEGOLD CA 93614-9771 Age: 55 Years Phone: 4352296771 DOB: 09:00 MRN: (FR) -000724913 Sex: Female FIN: 293906276315 Race: White Ethnicity: Not Hispan/Lat Admitted From: Clinic or Phys Ofc Medical Service: Obstetric Nurse Unit/Bed: (FR) 2PAR 0216-06 Admit Date: 11/23/2016 06:56 PCP: Physician, No PCP PHYSICIANS INVOLVED WITH CARI ct eeu ew Sew ess Stee = see ease te eran wenwos Attending Physicians: Nassar MD, Peter T - Gynecology, Obstetrics Admitting Physician: None found Primary Care Physician: Physician, No PCP, Family Practice, Internal Medicine,,,,,,Pediatrics, = Consults: None found Problems Active PMB (postmenopausal bleeding) Thickened endometrium Heartburn Allergies amoxicillin (rash) Procedures Printed Date/Time: 6/14/2018 12:40 EDT Report Request ID; 168895965 0000611 452ST. AGNES MEDICAL CENTER FRESNO Patient Name: JOHNSON, GIGIFresno, CA 03720- MRN: {FR)-000724813, Date of Birth: a2 Admit Date: 14/23/2016 Discharge Date: 11/23/2016A Member of Trinity Health Account Number: 029990627-6315Livonta, Michigan Patient Type: Ambulatory Surgery Atlending: ‘Nassar MD,PeterT Discharge Summary Sling procedure of bladder neck Appendectomy TL - Tubal ligation TonsillectomySMOKING STATUS: Current everyday smoker 11/23/16MEASUREMENTS:Last Charted:Weight: Admission 90.40 kg /199 Ibs 5 oz ( 11/23/16 08:07:00 )VITAL SIGNS:Last Charted:Pulse Rate: 72 BPM (11/23 10:40)Blood Pressure: 102/63 mmHg (11/23 10:40)Pain Score: 3(11/23 10:30)MENTAL STATUS:Level of Conciousness: Drowsy (11/23 09:15)Orientation: Oriented x 4 (11/23 09:15) MEDICATIONS ORDERED / RECOMMENDED TO BE CONTINUED for: JOHNSON, GIGI Acetaminophen-OxyCODONE (Percocet-5/325 325 mg-5 mg oral tablet) 1 Tab(s) By Mouth every 4 hours as needed for pain. Refills: 0. omeprazole 40 Milligram By Mouth once a day.RECONCILING PROVIDER(S) 41/23/16 10:26:44 PST Electronically Signed by Nassar MD, Peter T Acetaminophen-OxyCODONE (Percocet-5/325 325 mg-5 mg oral tablet) omeprazole \ tient Medication Histo! ‘active at the time of summary): Do not administer these medications until re-evaluated by a provider at the next level of care. Lidocaine 1% Vial 20 mL MDV (Xylocalne GEq) (lidocaine) 5 mg = 0.5 mL, Subcut, Inject, preop, x 30 Day(s) COMMENTS & SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS: for IV start Acetaminophen 325 mg Tab (Tylenol GEq) (Tylenol*) 650 mg = 2 Tab, PO, Tab, Once, PRN, Pain - Mild Printed Date/Time: 6/14/2016 12:40 EDT Report Request ID; 168995965 0000612 453ST. AGNES MEDICAL CENTER FRESNO Patient Name: JOHNSON, GIGIFresno, CA 93720- MRN: (FR)-000724913 Date of Birth: i Admit Date: 11/23/2016 Discharge Date: 19/23/2016A Member of Trinlly Health ‘Account Number: 029390827-6315Livonla, Michigan Patient Type: Ambulatory Surgery Attending: Nassar MD,Peter T Discharge Summary COMMENTS & SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS: in PACU ONLY. When able to take PO meds. *** Maximum 4 Gm Acetaminophen/Day for Adults “**OxyCODONE/Acetaminophen 5 mg/325 mg Tab (Percocet GEq) (Percocet 5 mg/325 mg") 4 Tab, PO, Tab, Q4h, x 2 Time(s)/Dose(s), PRN Pain - Moderate COMMENTS & SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS: in PACU ONLY. When taking PO meds and no longer receiving IV meds, *** Maximum 4 Gm Acetaminophen/Day for Adults ***FentaNYL 50 meg/mL Inj 2 mL (Sublimaze GEq) (Sublimaze*) 25 meg = 0.5 mL, IV Push, Inject, Q5min, PRN, Paln - Moderate, x 10 Time(s)/Dase(s) COMMENTS & SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS: in PACU ONLY. ‘st choice for moderate pain while NPO. if max cumulative Fentanyl dose of 250 meg Is reached, may use HYDROmorphone (Dilaudid) as a 2nd choice 5 min after last Fentanyl dose given.FentaNYL 50 meg/mL Inj 2 mL (Sublimaze GEq) (Sublimaze") 50 meg = 1 mL, IV Push, Inject, QSmin, PRN, Pain - Severe, x 5 Time(s)/Dose(s) Last Dose: 11/23/16 10:38:00 COMMENTS & SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS: in PACU ONLY. ‘st choice for severe pain, If max cumulative Fentanyl dose of 250 meg is reached, may use 1YDROmorphone (Dilaudid) as a 2nd choice 5 min after last Fentanyl dose given. EPHEDrine 50 mg/mL Vial 1 mL (EPHEDrine Inj‘) 10 mg = 0.2 mL, IV Push, Inject, QSmin, PRN, See Comments, x 2 Time(s)/Dose(s) COMMENTS & SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS: in PACU ONLY for hypotension, SBP less than 85. Hold for HR greater than 100. HydrALAZINE 20 mg/mL Vial 1 mL (Apresoline GEq) (Apresoline Inj’) & mg = 0.25 mL, IV Push, Inject, Once, PRN, See Comments COMMENTS & SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS: in PACU ONLY. 2nd choice for hypertension, SBP greater than 180 and/or DBP greater than 100, if Labetalol ineffective after maximum cumulative dose has been given. Labetalol 5 mg/mL Vial 20 mL (Trandate GEq) (Labetalol (Tr randate/Normodyne)*) 5 mg =1 mL, IV Push, Inject, Q5min, PRN, See Comments, x 6 Printed Date/Time: 6/14/2018 12:40 EDT Report Request ID: 168995965 0000613 454ST. AGNES MEDICAL CENTER FRESNO Patient Name: JOHNSON, GIG!Fresno, CA 83720- MRN: (FR)-000724013 Date of Birth: = Admit Date: 111232018 Discharge Date: 11/23/2018A Member of Trinity Health Account Number: 029300627-6315Livonia, Michigan Patient Type: Ambulalory Surgery Aitending: Nassar MD,Peter TL Discharge Summary Time(s)/Dose(s) COMMENTS & SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS: in PACU ONLY, ‘st choice for hypertension. PRN SBP Greater than 180 and/or DBP Greater than 100, Hold for HR less than 60.DiphenhydrAMINE 50 mg/mL Vial 1 mL (Benadryl GEq) (Benadryl Inj*) 25 mg = 0.5 mL, IV Push, Inject, Once, PRN, See Comments COMMENTS & SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS: in PACU ONLY, PRN for itching/pruritts. Administer at 25 mg/min IVNaloxone 0.4 mg/mL Vial 1 mL (Narcan GEq) (Narcan*) 0.04 mg = 0.1 mL, IV Push, Inject, Qimin, PRN, See Comments, x 10 Time(s)/Dose(s) COMMENTS & SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS: PRN for RR less than 8, periods of apnea, failure to arouse, or a RASS score equal to or fess than -2. May repeat at 1 min intervals up to a total of 10 doses or 0.4 mg. In PACU ONLY. Meperidine 25 mg/mL Syringe 1 mL (Demerol GEq) (Demerol Inj*) 42.5 mg = 0.5 mL, IV Push, Inject, Q5min, PRN, See Comments, x 4 Time(s)/Dose(s) COMMENTS & SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS: in PACU ONLY for shivering in PACU Ondansetron 2 mg/mL Inj 2 mL (Zofran GEq) {Ondansetron Inj) 4mg=2 mL, lV Push, Inject, Q6h, PRN, Nausea/Vomiting Last Dose; 11/23/16 10:36:00 COMMENTS & SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS: ‘st choice for nausea/vomiting. Administer over 2 min. ODT) Ondansetron ODT 4 mg Sol Tab (Zofran ODT GEq) (Ondansetron 4 mg = 1 Tab, PO, Tab Sol, Once, PRN, Nausea/Vo riting COMMENTS & SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS: Give Ondansetron (Zofran) PO if patient has nausea/vomiting after IV has been discontinued, Promethazine (Promethazine IVPB) 12,5 mg = 0.5 mL, IVPB, QSh, PRN, Nausea/Vomiting COMMENTS & SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS: 2nd choice for nausea/vomiting. Administer if Ondansetron (Zofran) ineffective after 5 min. Administer over 15 min. Printed Date/Time: 6/14/2018 12:40 EDT Report Request ID: 168995965 0000614 455ST. AGNES MEDICAL CENTER FRESNO Patient Name: JOHNSON, GIGIFresno, CA 83720- MRN: (FR)-000724913 Date of Birth: mz Admit Date; 11/23/2016 Discharge Date: 14/23/2016A Member of Trinity Health Account Number: 029380627-6315.Livonla, Michigan Patient Type: Ambulatory Surgery Attending: Nassar MD,PeterT[ Discharge SummaryAcetaminophen 325 mg Tab (Tylenol GEq) (Tylenol*) 650 mg = 2 Tab, PO, Tab, Q4h, PRN, Pain-Mild/Fever greater than 100. 4 (38C) COMMENTS & SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS: Maximum daily dose acetaminophen 4 gramsFentaNYL 50 meg/mL Inj 2 mL (Sublimaze GEq) (Sublimaze*) 50 meg = 1 mL, IV Push, Inject, Q2h, PRN, See Comments COMMENTS & SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS: May repeat every 5 minutes as needed for moderate pain. Maximum cumulative dose 100 mog.Ondansetron 2 mg/mL Inj 2 mL (Zofran GEq) (Zofran Inj*) 4 mg = 2 mL, lV Push, Inject, Q6h, PRN, See Comments COMMENTS & SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS: PRN nausea/vomiting. If ineffective, alternate with either Prochlorperazine OR Promethazine and other antiemetics as ordered, Metoclopramide 5 mg/mL Vial 2 mL (Reglan GEq) (Reglan Inj*) 10 mg = 2 mL, IV Push, Inject, Qh, PRN, Nausea/Vomiting Lactated Ringers 1,000 mL 1,000 mL, 20 mt/hr, IV, x 12 hr, 1,000 mL, Infusion, 89.971 kg Last Dose: 11/23/16 08:45:00 COMMENTS & SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS: preop Dextrose 5% in Lactated Ringers 1000 mL 1,000 ml, 128 mL/hr, IV,, 1,000 mL, Infusion, 90.4 kg INACTIVE MEDICATIONS GIVEN IN THE LAST 36 HOURS: Medications Discontinued or Completed in the last 36 hours: Dexamethasone Sodium Phosphate 4 mg/mL Vial 1 mL (Decadron GEq) 4mg=1 mL, IV, Inject, Once Last Dose: 11/23/16 10:16:00 COMMENTS & SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS: 4mg/1mL Dose/Total Volume (Anesthesia) Ondansetron 2 mg/mL Inj 2 mL (Zofran GEq) 4mg=2mL, IV, Inject, Once Last Dose: 11/23/16 10:16:00 Printed Date/Time: 6/14/2018 12:40 EDT Report Request ID: 168995985 0000615 456ST. AGNES MEDICAL CENTER FRESNO Patient Name: JOHNSON, GIGIFresno, CA 93720- MRN: (FR)-000724913 Date of Birth: a Admit Date: 11/23/2016 Discharge Date: 11/23/2016A Member of Trinity Health Account Number: 029390827-6315Livonia, Michigan Patient Type: Ambulatory Surgery Attending: Nassar MD Peter T eas Discharge Summary _] COMMENTS & SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS: 4mg/2mL Dose/Total Volume (Anesthesia)Lidocaine 2% Vial § mL PF (Xylocaine GEq) 40 mg =2 mL, IV, Inject, Once Last Dose: 11/23/16 09:50:00 COMMENTS & SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS: 40mg/2mL Dose/Total Volume (Anesthesia)Propofol 10 mg/mL Vial 20 mL (Diprivan GEq) 200 mg = 20 mL, IV, Inject, Once Last Dose: 11/23/16 09:50:00 COMMENTS & SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS: 200mg/20mL Dose/Total Volume (Anesthesia)Midazolam 1 mg/mL Vial 2 mL (Versed GEq) 2mg = 2 mL, IV, Inject, Once Last Dose: 11/23/16 09:46:00 COMMENTS & SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS: 2mg/2mL Dose/Total Volume (Anesthesia)FentaNYL 50 meg/mL Inj 2 mL (Sublimaze GEq) 100 meg = 2 mL, lV, Inject, Once Last Dose: 11/23/16 09:46:00 COMMENTS & SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS: 100meg/2mL Dose/Total Volume (Anesthesia)Dexamethasone Sodium Phosphate 4 mg/mL Vial 1 mL (Decadron GEq) 4mg=1 mL, IV, Inject, Once Last Dose: 11/23/16 09:46:00 COMMENTS & SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS: 4mg/1mL Dose/Total Volume (Anesthesia)Metoclopramide § mg/mL Vial 2 mL (Reglan GEq) 10 mg = 2 mL, IV, Inject, Once Last Dose: 11/23/16 09:46:00 COMMENTS & SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS; 10mg/2mL Dose/Total Volume (Anesthesia)Glycopyrrolate 0.2 mg/mL Vial 1 mL (Rebinul GEq) 0.2 mg = 1 mL, IV, Inject, Once Last Dose: 11/23/16 09:46:00 COMMENTS & SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS: 0.2mg/1mL Dose/Total Volume (Anesthesia) Lactated Ringers 1000 mL IV, 700 mL, Infusion, Once Last Dose: 11/23/16 10:32:00 Printed Date/Time: 6/14/2018 12:40 EDT Report Request ID: 166995965 0000616 457ST, AGNES MEDICAL CENTER FRESNO Patient Name: JOHNSON, GIGIFresno, CA 93720- MRN: {FR)-000724913 Date of Birth: — Admit Date: 11/23/2016 Discharge Date: 14/2312016 A Member of Trinity Health Account Number: 028300627-6315 Livonia, Michigan Patlent Type: Ambulatory Surgery Altending: Nassar MD,Peter T| Discharge Summary FOLLOW-UP APPOINTMENTS: Provider: Specialty: Address: Date: Peter T Nassar MD Obstetrics; Gynecology 6121 North Thesta Six Weeks
Related Contentin Fresno County
Case
Laura Hodges vs Kate Silverstein
Jul 16, 2024 |Skiles, Jon M |22 Unlimited - Auto |24CECG03003
Case
Jose Barba vs Lori Ferguson
Jul 16, 2024 |Skiles, Jon M |22 Unlimited - Auto |24CECG03009
Case
Ashley Sanchez vs Noah Kent
Jul 16, 2024 |Hamilton, Jr., Jeffrey Y. |22 Unlimited - Auto |24CECG03031
Case
Dalilah Hernandez vs. Forever 21 Retail, Inc.
Jul 16, 2024 |Tharpe, D |35 Unlimited - Other Non-PI/PD/WD Tort |24CECG02980
Case
Jennifer Adams vs Robert Adams
Jul 15, 2024 |Elder Abuse |24CEFL03536
Case
Rudy Guerra vs. Eva Byrd
Jul 17, 2024 |Skiles, Jon M |23 Unlimited - Other PI/PD/WD |24CECG03030
Case
Ferry Tanuwijaya vs Steve Taninecz
Jul 12, 2024 |Hamilton, Jr., Jeffrey Y. |22 Unlimited - Auto |24CECG02982
Case
Bao Her vs Clarissa Leal
Jul 10, 2024 |Skiles, Jon M |22 Unlimited - Auto |24CECG02939
Ruling
Jaime Mulligan vs. Omar Salam, MD
Jul 18, 2024 |22CECG00199
Re: Mulligan v. Salam, M.D., et al. Superior Court Case No. 22CECG00199Hearing Date: July 18, 2024 (Dept. 503)Motion: Petition to Compromise Claim of MinorTentative Ruling: To deny without prejudice. In the event that oral argument is requested minor isexcused from appearing.Explanation: The Petitioner and Guardian ad Litem proposes to deposit $285,000 of the minor’snet settlement into an annuity, set to begin paying out on the minor’s 18th birthday, andshe also proposes the remaining $1,003,757.29 to be transferred into a special needs trustpursuant to Probate Code section 3604. The court generally approves of thisarrangement, since this will ensure that receipt of this money will not disqualify the minorfrom receiving the public benefits he may now need due to his disabilities. However,Petitioner must show that she has first filed, with the Probate Department, a Petition underProbate Code sections 3600-3613 to establish and fund the special needs trust. TheProbate Court is better suited to confirm that the Trust complies with California Rules ofCourt, Rule 7.903, to ensure that the notice required by Probate Code section 3611,subdivision (c) is given, and to provide for the ongoing court supervision of the trust. Once the probate petition has been granted, petitioner can then petition thiscourt for approval of the compromise of the minor’s claim. When doing so, the courtwould also like assurance that petitioner has been given sufficient advice on how toproceed in the event the minor continues to need to qualify for public assistance oncehe turns 18, since in that event the anticipated lump sum annuity payments may causehim to be disqualified from such needs-based assistance. Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312(a), and Code of Civil Proceduresection 1019.5, subdivision (a), no further written order is necessary. The minute orderadopting this tentative ruling will serve as the order of the court and service by the clerkwill constitute notice of the order.Tentative RulingIssued By: jyh on 7/16/24 . (Judge’s initials) (Date)
Ruling
Jul 18, 2024 |22CECG02854
Re: David Nanez, III v. California Kidds Pediatric Dentistry Superior Court Case No. 22CECG02854Hearing Date: July 18, 2024 (Dept. 502)Motion: Petition to Approve Compromise of Disputed Claim of MinorTentative Ruling: To continue the hearing on this petition to Thursday, August 8, 2024, at 3:30 p.m. inDepartment 502. Petitioner must file a supplemental declaration explaining why it is inthe best interests of the minor for the funds to be placed into a blocked account asopposed to an annuity. The declaration must be filed by Thursday, July 25, 2024 at 5:00p.m.Explanation: A petition for court approval of a compromise of a minor's disputed claim “mustcontain a full disclosure of all information that has any bearing upon the reasonablenessof the compromise, covenant, settlement, or disposition.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 7.950,emphasis added.) Petitioner must explain why placing the funds into a blocked account instead ofan annuity, as originally proposed, is the most reasonable option in the best interests ofthe minor. Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312(a), and Code of Civil Proceduresection 1019.5, subdivision (a), no further written order is necessary. The minute orderadopting this tentative ruling will serve as the order of the court and service by the clerkwill constitute notice of the order.Tentative RulingIssued By: KCK on 07/17/24 . (Judge’s initials) (Date)
Ruling
Marque Davis vs. Jason Edward Denney, MD
Jul 18, 2024 |23CECG00961
Re: Marque Davis v. Jason Edward Denney, MD Superior Court Case No. 23CECG00961Hearing Date: July 18, 2024 (Dept. 502)Motion: For Summary Judgment or Summary Adjudication by Defendant Saint Agnes Medical CenterTentative Ruling: To grant the defendant's motion for summary judgment. Defendant Saint AgnesMedical Center is directed to submit to this court, within five days of service of the minuteorder, a proposed judgment consistent with the court's summary judgment order.Explanation: Plaintiffs, Marque Davis and Candyce Davis, sued several medical providers,including defendant Saint Agnes Medical Center (SAMC), after Mr. Davis underwentaggressive chemotherapy based on an alleged misdiagnosis. Plaintiffs state causes ofaction for medical malpractice and loss of consortium. SAMC's motion for summaryjudgment is unopposed. On a motion for summary judgment, a defendant as the moving party bears theinitial burden of proof to show that a plaintiff cannot establish one or more elements ofthe challenged cause of action or to show that there is a complete defense. (Code Civ.Proc., § 437c, subd. (p)(2).) Only after the moving party has carried this burden of proofdoes the burden of proof shift to the other party to show that a triable issue of one ormore material facts exists—and this must be shown by specific facts and not mereallegations. (Ibid.) In a medical malpractice case, expert testimony is required unless the challengedconduct is within the common knowledge of laymen. (Flowers v. Torrance MemorialHospital Medical Center (1994) 8 Cal.4th 992, 1001.) California courts have incorporated the expert evidence requirement into their standard for summary judgment in medical malpractice cases. When a defendant moves for summary judgment and supports his motion with expert declarations that his conduct fell within the community standard of care, he is entitled to summary judgment unless the plaintiff comes forward with conflicting expert evidence. [Citations.](Munro v. Regents of University of California (1989) 215 Cal.App.3d 977, 984-985, internalquotation marks omitted.) To support its motion, SAMC submits the expert testimony of Kristie White, M.D. Inher declaration, Dr. White states she reviewed and considered plaintiffs' complaint, themedical records for Mr. Davis from SAMC for the hospital admissions in question, the May2020 pathology specimens for Mr. Davis, and his medical records from Stanford.Dr. White opines that SAMC's non-physician staff complied with the standard of care inall respects in the care and treatment of Mr. Davis. SAMC also presents the declaration of John Evanko, M.D., the Chief MedicalOfficer for SAMC, to establish that all of the treating physicians for Mr. Davis wereindependent contractors and were not acting as agents or employees of SAMC.Therefore, plaintiffs cannot hold SAMC liable on a theory of respondeat superior. SAMC's evidence is sufficient to negate plaintiffs' claims against it. Based on thisshowing, SAMC has shown that plaintiffs cannot establish an essential element of theclaim for medical negligence—breach of duty. The burden then shifts to plaintiffs toshow the existence of a triable issue of material fact. On July 9, 2024, plaintiffs filed anotice of non-opposition, expressly stating they do not oppose the motion for summaryjudgment filed by SAMC in this matter. Therefore, the court grants SAMC's motion. Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312(a), and Code of Civil Proceduresection 1019.5, subdivision (a), no further written order is necessary. The minute orderadopting this tentative ruling will serve as the order of the court and service by the clerkwill constitute notice of the order.Tentative RulingIssued By: KCK on 07/17/24 . (Judge’s initials) (Date)
Ruling
Michael Corral vs. Webull Financial / CLASS
Jul 16, 2024 |24CECG01122
Re: Corral v. Webull Financial Superior Court Case No. 24CECG01122Hearing Date: July 16, 2024 (Dept. 503)Motion: (1) Negligence of Law (2) Motion for Subpoena Dues Tecum for Notary Log Book (3) Motion for Subpoena Dues Tecum for Personal Appearance and Production of DocumentsTentative Ruling: To deny plaintiff Michael Corral’s motion for “negligence of law.” To deny the twomotions for issuance of a subpoena dues tecum. (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 1985, subd. (c),2020.210, subd. (a).) Oral argument on this matter is continued to August 8, 2024, at 3:30 in Dept. 503 so that the plaintiff may be present for oral argument via Zoom.Explanation:Negligence of Law Plaintiff has filed a document stating that he is a layman and moving the court for“any and all negligence of law.” It is unclear what relief is sought by this statement. Thecase citations provided by plaintiff do not provide any clear indication of what reliefplaintiff is seeking. The notice of motion is not accompanied by a memorandumcontaining a statement of facts, concise statement of law, evidence relied upon, and adiscussion of the law supporting the motion. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1113.) To the extent the motion can be interpreted as a request for the appointment ofcounsel, plaintiff is reminded that prisoners do not have the right to appointed counselto prosecute their civil cases. (Payne v. Superior Court (1976) 17 Cal.3d 908, 926.) As the court is unable to ascertain the relief sought or the basis for providing relief,the motion for “negligence of law” must be denied.Motions for Subpoena Duces Tecum Plaintiff has filed two motions that appear to seek the issuance of a subpoenaduces tecum to non-parties in this action. The first seeks documents in the possession ofPleasant Valley State Prison and the second seeks documents and the appearance ofSarah Lyn Canal. A motion is not necessary for the issuance of a subpoena. The clerk of the courtshall issue a subpoena or a subpoena duces tecum signed and sealed but otherwiseblank to a party requesting it, who shall fill it in before service. (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 1985,subd. (c) and 2020.210, subd. (a).) A subpoena duces tecum must be submitted to the clerk of the court on themandatory Judicial Council forms. The form numbers are “SUBP-” in the top right corner.The case information at the top of the document should be completed by the requestingparty and the form submitted to the clerk’s office to be signed and sealed and returnedto the requesting party. The court is not responsible for serving subpoenas on behalf of aparty. The provisions of the Discovery Act with regard to the issuance of subpoenas tonon-parties for purposes of obtaining discovery are found at Code of Civil Proceduresection 2020.210 et seq. Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312(a), and Code of Civil Proceduresection 1019.5, subdivision (a), no further written order is necessary. The minute orderadopting this tentative ruling will serve as the order of the court and service by the clerkwill constitute notice of the order.Tentative RulingIssued By: jyh on 7/15/24 . (Judge’s initials) (Date)
Ruling
Christopher Jimenez vs. Farshad Karimpour M.D.
Jul 17, 2024 |22CECG03412
Re: Jimenez v. Karimpour Case No. 22CECG03412Hearing Date: July 17, 2024 (Dept. 503)Motion: Defendant/Petitioner Christina Jimenez’s Motion to Realign Herself as a Plaintiff in the ActionTentative Ruling: To grant nominal defendant Christina Jimenez’s motion to realign herself as aplaintiff in the action.Explanation: Nominal defendant Christina Jimenez is entitled to the relief she seeks, since she isproperly a plaintiff in the action due to being a surviving child of the decedent; she wasonly named as a defendant because she was not willing to join the case when it was firstfiled. “If the consent of any one who should have been joined as plaintiff cannot beobtained, he may be made a defendant, the reason thereof being stated in thecomplaint…” (Code Civ. Proc., § 382.) “[H]eirs who file a wrongful death action ‘havea mandatory duty to join all known omitted heirs in the “single action” for wrongful death.If an heir refuses to participate in the suit as a plaintiff, he or she may be named as a[nominal] defendant so that all heirs are before the court in the same action. An heirnamed as a defendant in a wrongful [death] action is, in reality, a plaintiff.’” (Hall v.Superior Court (2003) 108 Cal.App.4th 706, 715, footnotes and citations omitted.) Here, Christina Jimenez apparently did not originally want to be named as aplaintiff in the action even though she would have been a proper plaintiff in the actionas a surviving child of the decedent. Thus, she was named as a nominal defendantinstead. Now, she wishes to be designated as a plaintiff to reflect her actual status in theaction. Such relief is proper, as Ms. Jimenez is properly a plaintiff. Therefore, the courtintends to grant the motion to re-designate defendant as a plaintiff in the action. Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312(a), and Code of Civil Proceduresection 1019.5, subdivision (a), no further written order is necessary. The minute orderadopting this tentative ruling will serve as the order of the court and service by the clerkwill constitute notice of the order.Tentative RulingIssued By: jyh on 7/15/24 . (Judge’s initials) (Date)
Ruling
Mandeep Singh vs. Harjit Singh
Jul 18, 2024 |22CECG01712
Re: Singh v. Singh Superior Court Case No. 22CECG01712Hearing Date: July 18, 2024 (Dept. 503)Motion: Motion to be Relieved as CounselTentative Ruling: The court intends to deny plaintiff counsel’s motion to be relieved as counsel,without prejudice.Explanation: Counsel’s declaration indicates the current address for his client was confirmedby mailing communications to his last known address and to the client’s email that hasbeen used to communicate with him throughout the representation. (Declaration, Item3b.(1)(d).) The declaration indicates none of these communications have been returned.The declaration does not confirm any additional efforts to locate the current address forthe client. Counsel has not adequately confirmed the client’s current address. “As used inthis rule, ‘current’ means that the address was confirmed within 30 days before the filingof the motion to be relieved. Merely demonstrating that the notice was sent to the client'slast known address and was not returned or no electronic delivery failure message wasreceived is not, by itself, sufficient to demonstrate that the address is current.” (Cal. Rulesof Court, rule 3.1362, subd. (d).) Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312(a), and Code of Civil Proceduresection 1019.5, subdivision (a), no further written order is necessary. The minute orderadopting this tentative ruling will serve as the order of the court and service by the clerkwill constitute notice of the order.Tentative RulingIssued By: jyh on 7/16/24 . (Judge’s initials) (Date)
Ruling
J.C. vs. Fresno Unified School District
Jul 18, 2024 |23CECG03952
Re: J.C. v. Fresno Unified School District et al. Superior Court Case No. 23CECG03952Hearing Date: July 18, 2024 (Dept. 503)Motion: by Plaintiff J.C. for Trial PreferenceTentative Ruling: To grant.Explanation: Plaintiff J.C. (“Plaintiff”) seeks preferential setting of trial under Code of CivilProcedure section 36, subdivision (b). Code of Civil Procedure section 36, subdivision (b)provides, in pertinent part: A civil action to recover damages for wrongful death or personal injury shall be entitled to preference upon the motion of any party to the action who is under 14 years of age unless the court finds that the party does not have a substantial interest in the case as a whole.Here, Plaintiff submits evidence demonstrating that Plaintiff is under 14 years of age.(Trujillo Decl., ¶ 3.) Plaintiff further submits that, as the only plaintiff party, Plaintiff has asubstantial interest in the case as a whole. (Id., ¶ 4.) Accordingly, preference ismandatory. (Code Civ. Proc. § 36, subd. (b).) Defendant Fresno Unified School District (“Defendant”) opposes. In opposition,Defendant relies on series of cases interpreting the intersection between Code of CivilProcedure section 36 and other statutes, such as the 5-year limit to bring the case to trial,or cases that have been coordinated. Defendant however concedes that no otherstatutes are in conflict that would require the harmonizing considerations put forth inDefendant’s cited authority. Rather, “subdivision (b) is mandatory; accordingly… the trialcourt does not have discretion to deny trial preference to a party under 14 who has asubstantial interest in the litigation.” (Landry v. Berryessa Union School Dist. (1995) 39Cal.App.4th 691, 696.) Defendant submits that to grant trial preference would be a denial of due process.Defendant relies on Western Steamship Lines, Inc. v. San Pedro Peninsula Hospital, whichis inapposite. (Western Steamship Lines, Inc. v. San Pedro Peninsula Hospital (1994) 8Cal.4th 100.) There, the issue was whether a judgment was binding to an indemnitorwhere the indemnitor had no opportunity to defend the action. (Id. at p. 118.) Theauthority did not consider the constitutionality of the present statute of Code of CivilProcedure section 36. Defendant further relies on Peters v. Superior Court; however, theopinion expressly does not address the issues of due process. (Peters v. Superior Court(1989) 212 Cal.App.3d 218, 227.) Additionally, the court there specifically found that theLegislature intended Code of Civil Procedure section 36, subdivision (b) to be mandatory.(Id. at pp. 223-224.) Finally, Defendant argues that Plaintiff fails to demonstrate good cause asrequired by California Rules of Court, rule 3.1335(b). Good cause is sufficientlydemonstrated by and through Code of Civil Procedure section 36. Based on the above, the motion for trial preference is granted. Accordingly, trialshall be set not more than 120 days from the date of this order. (Code Civ. Proc. § 36,subd. (f).) Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312(a), and Code of Civil Proceduresection 1019.5, subdivision (a), no further written order is necessary. The minute orderadopting this tentative ruling will serve as the order of the court and service by the clerkwill constitute notice of the order.Tentative RulingIssued By: jyh on 7/16/24 . (Judge’s initials) (Date)
Ruling
John Gonzales vs. Ashley Global Retail, LLC
Jul 17, 2024 |23CECG03985
Re: John Gonzales v. Ashley Global Retail, LLC Superior Court Case No. 23CECG03985Hearing Date: July 17, 2024 (Dept. 502)Motion: by Plaintiff John Gonzales for Orders Compelling Defendant Stoneledge Furniture, LLC to Provide Initial Verified Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One; Special Interrogatories, Set One; Demand for Production of Documents, Set One; Deeming Matters in Requests for Admissions Admitted, Set One; and Imposing Monetary Sanctions.Oral Argument, if timely requested, will be heard on Thursday, July 18, 2024 at 3:30 PM in Department 502.Tentative Ruling: To continue these motions to Wednesday, July 31, 2024, at 3:30 p.m. in Department502. Plaintiff must file copies of the propounded discovery, proofs of service for thepropounded discovery, and the unverified responses. Such documentation must be filedby Friday, July 19, 2024 at 5:00 p.m.Explanation:Unverified Responses Responses to initial discovery requests must be signed under oath by the party towhom the discovery was directed. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.250 subd. (a), 2031.250subd. (a), 2033.240 subd. (a).) Unsworn responses are tantamount to no responses at all.(Appleton v. Superior Court (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 632, 636.) Where there are bothresponses and objections, both the party and the attorney must sign the response. If theresponses consist entirely of objections, only the attorney’s signature is required. (CodeCiv. Proc., §§ 2030.250 subd. (a), (c); 2031.250 subd. (a), (c); 2033.240 subd. (a), (c).) Here, defendant has not served plaintiff with verifications for the discoveryresponses. However, plaintiff has not claimed or demonstrated in his motions that theresponses provided are not solely objections, which would render verificationsunnecessary. It is not possible at this time to determine where a verification may berequired and where it is not, since the responses to the propounded discovery were notattached to the motions.Lack of Proof of Properly Served Responses A propounding party may move for an order compelling response to itspropounded interrogatories and/or demand. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, 2031.300.)A propounding party may move for an order that the genuineness of any documentsand the truth of any matters specified in the requests for admissions be deemedadmitted. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280.) Timely and verified responses are due from theparty on which discovery is propounded within 30 days after service. (Code Civ. Proc. §§2030.260, 2031.260.) Failing to respond to discovery within the 30-day time limit waivesobjections to the discovery, including claims of privilege and work product protection.(Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290 subd. (a), 2031.300 subd. (a), 2033.280 subd. (a).) A motion to compel initial responses must show that the discovery was properlyserved on the opposing party, that the time to respond has expired, and that no responseof any kind has been served. (Leach v. Superior Court (1980) 111 Cal.App.3d 902, 905-06, see Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. PacificHealthcare Consultants (2007) 148Cal.App.4th 390, 404.) If the responses are ones that require verification (i.e. answers withor without objections), the lack thereof is tantamount to no responses at all. (Appleton v.Superior Court, supra, 206 Cal.App.3d 636.) Here, plaintiff argues that the unverified responses received on May 3, 2024 areequivalent to no responses received. Even should this prove to be correct andverifications are required, plaintiff has not demonstrated that the propounded discoveryrequests were properly served. Plaintiff has not attached the propounded discovery andno proof of service that shows the method and date of service of the discovery requests.Defendant has not filed opposition or otherwise appeared in a manner that wouldeffectively waive insufficient notice. (See Alliance Bank v. Murray (1984) 161 Cal.App.3d1, 7.) The court cannot yet rule on the merits of plaintiff’s motion because counsel’sdeclaration does not attach the propounded discovery (or defendant’s responsesthereto) nor the proof of service of the discovery requests. Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312(a), and Code of Civil Proceduresection 1019.5, subdivision (a), no further written order is necessary. The minute orderadopting this tentative ruling will serve as the order of the court and service by the clerkwill constitute notice of the order.Tentative RulingIssued By: KCK on 07/15/24 . (Judge’s initials) (Date)
Ruling
Patricia F. vs. Westcare California, Inc.
Jul 18, 2024 |24CECG00632
Re: Patricia F. v. Westcare California, Inc. Superior Court Case No. 24CECG00632Hearing Date: July 18, 2024 (Dept. 503)Motion: Defendants Westcare California, Inc. and Westcare Foundation, Inc.’s Demurrer to the ComplaintTentative Ruling: To overrule. Demurring defendants shall file their responsive pleadings within ten(10) days from the date of this order.Explanation: A demurrer challenges defects apparent from the face of the complaint andmatters subject to judicial notice. (Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 30 Cal.3d 311, 318.) A generaldemurrer is sustained where the pleading is insufficient to state a cause of action or isincomplete. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subd. (e); Estate of Moss (2012) 204 Cal.App.4th521, 535.) In considering a demurrer, the court assumes the truth of the facts properlyplead. (Hoyem v. Manhattan Beach City Sch. DIst. (1978) 22 Cal.3d 508, 517; Serrano v.Priest (1971) 5 Cal.3d 584, 591.) Demurring defendants contend plaintiff’s first cause of action for negligence isinsufficiently plead because demurring defendants owed plaintiff no duty under theauspices of Beauchene v. Synanon Foundation, Inc.(1979) 88 Cal.App.3d 342, 348(Beauchene). Beauchene involved a convicted person’s “eloping” from a privaterehabilitation institution and subsequent “‘crime spree.’” (Id. at p. 345.) In particular, theFirst District considered a negligence claim brought by a victim shot in the arm by thedefendant 13 days after he left the program. (Ibid.) Beauchene and its progeny have consistently held that private rehabilitationinstitutions do not owe a duty to the general public for the injurious acts of escapedresidents because to do so would “detrimental[ly] effect prisoner release andrehabilitation programs.” (Beauchene, supra, 88 Cal.App.3d at p. 348; accord, Rice v.Center Point, Inc. (2007) 154 Cal.App.4th 949, 956; Cardenas v. Eggleston Youth Center(1987) 193 Cal.App.3d 331, 335-336.) In essence, the same policy underlying absoluteimmunity for public entities in relation to escaped prisoners, escaped persons, or personsresisting arrest (Gov. Code, § 845.8), also applies to private institutions. (Beauchene,supra, 88 Cal.App.3d at p. 348.) However, unlike the acts by an escapee in Beauchene, plaintiff here alleges injuryby an adjoining resident who shared a bathroom with plaintiff. (Complaint, ¶ 15.) Theabsence of door locks or other security devices between the adjoining rooms allowedthe alleged perpetrator undetected access to plaintiff and an opportunity to committhe alleged assault. (Id. at ¶¶ 22 - 24.) Demurring defendants rely on Beauchene and itsprogeny, yet, offer no authority applying that reasoning to assaults by co-residents.Plaintiff, on the other hand, notes the settled principle that, in relation to harm committedby co-prisoners, “there is a special relationship between jailer and prisoner which imposesa duty of care on the jailer on the prisoner.” (Giraldo v. Department of Corrections &Rehabilitation (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 231, 252-253.) Considering plaintiff’s allegation that she was harmed by a co-resident, not anescapee, demurring defendants’ contention that a duty does not exist does not appearsupported by their asserted authorities. Furthermore, plaintiff’s allegations (which mustbe accepted as true) tend to show unrestricted and undetected access betweenadjoining residents such that the alleged assault could reasonably be found to beforeseeable. (Tarasoff v. Regents of University of California (1976) 17 Cal.3d 425, 434-435[“The most important of [the] considerations in establishing duty is forseeability.”].) Therefore, the demurrer is overruled. Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312(a), and Code of Civil Proceduresection 1019.5, subdivision (a), no further written order is necessary. The minute orderadopting this tentative ruling will serve as the order of the court and service by the clerkwill constitute notice of the order.Tentative RulingIssued By: __ jyh on 7/10/24 . (Judge’s initials) (Date)
Document
Rachel Garcia vs Socheat Vann
Jul 16, 2024 |Hamilton, Jr., Jeffrey Y. |22 Unlimited - Auto |24CECG03019
Document
Jane Roe vs. Truth Tabernacle, United Pentecostal Church of Fresno, California
Nov 07, 2022 |Mangano, Robert |23 Unlimited - Other PI/PD/WD |22CECG03550
Document
Rosemary Lor vs. Kristina McIntyre
Jul 10, 2024 |Hamilton, Jr., Jeffrey Y. |23 Unlimited - Other PI/PD/WD |24CECG02922
Document
Steven Vanotti vs Eric Johnson
Jul 11, 2024 |Skiles, Jon M |22 Unlimited - Auto |24CECG02954
Document
Jilin He vs. Putnam Leasing Company I, LLC
Jul 17, 2024 |35 Unlimited - Other Non-PI/PD/WD Tort |24CECG03040
Document
Rachel Garcia vs Socheat Vann
Jul 16, 2024 |Hamilton, Jr., Jeffrey Y. |22 Unlimited - Auto |24CECG03019
Document
Cesar Reyes-Arrona vs. Jose Lopez
Jul 16, 2024 |Culver Kapetan, Kristi |23 Unlimited - Other PI/PD/WD |24CECG03025
Document
Anthony Gonzalez, SR vs. Reynaldo Galvan
Jul 16, 2024 |23 Unlimited - Other PI/PD/WD |24CECG02977
