COMMUNITY HOSPITAL LONG BEACH VS PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: 19STLC03524    Hearing Date: June 22, 2020    Dept: 25

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

(CCP § 437c)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendant Progressive Casualty Insurance Company’s Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED.

SERVICE: 

[X] Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC 3.1300) OK

[X] Correct Address (CCP 1013, 1013a)  OK

[X] 75/80 Day Lapse (CCP 12c and 1005 (b))  OK

OPPOSITION: None filed as of June 17, 2020 [   ] Late [X] None

REPLY: None filed as of June 17, 2020 [   ] Late [X] None

ANALYSIS:

1. Background

On April 10, 2019, Plaintiff Community Hospital Long Beach (“Plaintiff”) filed an action to enforce hospital lien against Progressive Casualty Insurance Company (“Defendant”). On May 6, 2019, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint.

On June 17, 2019, Defendant filed a Demurrer with Motion to Strike on the basis that (1) Plaintiff lacked standing to bring this action and (2) that the claim was barred by the one-year statute of limitations. On July 29, 2019, the Court sustained Defendant’s demurrer with 20 days’ leave to amend. (7/29/19 Minute Order.)

On August 8, 2019, Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) and on September 4, 2019, Defendant filed an Answer.

On April 3, 2020, Defendant filed the instant Motion for Summary Judgment (the “Motion”). To date, no opposition has been filed.

1. Request for Judicial Notice

Pursuant to Evidence Code section 452, subdivision (d), Defendant requests that the Court take judicial notice of (1) Plaintiff’s August 8, 2019 SAC, (2) Plaintiff’s April 10, 2019 Complaint, and (3) Defendant’s September 4, 2019 Answer. (RJN, p. 2:1-10.) Defendant’s Request is GRANTED. (Evid. Code, § 452, subd. (d).)

In addition, pursuant to Evidence Code sections 452, subdivision (h), Defendant requests that the Court take judicial notice that (1) Plaintiff is a general acute care hospital licensed by the California Department of Public Health under License No. 930000090, (2) that Plaintiff is owned and operated by Long Beach Memorial Medical Center, (3) that Long Beach Memorial Medical Center owns License No. 930000090, and (4) that Long Beach Memorial Medical Center is a California Corporation registered on the Secretary of State website, with corporate identification number C0956092. (RJN, pp. 2-3:11-20.) Defendant’s request is GRANTED. (Evid. Code, § 452, subd. (h).)

1. Legal Standard

A party seeking summary judgment has the burden of producing evidentiary facts sufficient to entitle him/her to judgment as a matter of law. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (c); Vesely v. Sager (1971) 5 Cal.3d 153.) The moving party must make an affirmative showing that he/she is entitled to judgment irrespective of whether or not the opposing party files an opposition. (Villa v. McFerren (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 733.)

When a Defendant or Cross-Defendant seeks summary judgment, he/she must show either (1) that one or more elements of the cause of action cannot be established; or (2) that there is a complete defense to that cause of action. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (p)(2).) When a Plaintiff or Cross-Complainant seeks summary judgment, he/she must produce admissible evidence on each element of each cause of action on which judgment is sought. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (p)(1).) The moving party’s “affidavits must cite evidentiary facts, not legal conclusions or ‘ultimate’ facts” and be strictly construed. (Scalf v. D. B. Log Homes, Inc. (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 1510, 1519; Hayman v. Block (1986) 176 Cal.App.3d 629, 639.)

The opposing party on a motion for summary judgment is under no evidentiary burden to produce rebuttal evidence until the moving party meets his or her initial movant’s burden. (Binder v. Aetna Life Insurance Company (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 832.) Once the initial movant’s burden is met, then the burden shifts to the opposing party to show, with admissible evidence, that there is a triable issue requiring the weighing procedures of trial. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (p).) The opposing party may not simply rely on his/her allegations to show a triable issue but must present evidentiary facts that are substantial in nature and rise beyond mere speculation. (Sangster v. Paetkau (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 151.)  As to any alternative request for summary adjudication of issues, such alternative relief must be clearly set forth in the Notice of Motion and the general burden shifting rules apply but the issues upon which summary adjudication may be sought are limited by statute. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (f)(1).) “A motion for summary adjudication shall be granted only if it completely disposes of a cause of action, an affirmative defense, a claim for damages, or an issue of duty.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (f)(1).)

1. Discussion

Plaintiff’s sole cause of action seeks to enforce a hospital lien pursuant to Civil Code section 3045.1, et seq. (SAC, p. 1:20-21.) Defendant moves the Court for summary judgment on the basis that (1) Plaintiff’s action is time-barred and (2) Plaintiff does not have standing to enforce the lien. (Mot., p. 2:16-28.)

Civil Code section 3045.1 provides that an entity that maintains a hospital that provides emergency medical care enjoys a lien upon the damages an accident victim may recover from a tortfeasor. (Civ. Code, § 3045.1.) For the lien to be effective, the hospital must provide “written notice containing the name and address of the injured person, the date of the accident, the name and location of the hospital, the amount claimed as reasonable and necessary charges, and the name of each person, firm, or corporation known to the hospital and alleged to be liable to the injured person for the injuries” suffered. (Civ. Code, § 3045.3.) The hospital must also deliver a copy of the notice to any insurance carrier known to the hospital which has insured the person, firm, or corporation alleged to be liable to the injured person. (Ibid.) “The person, partnership, association, corporation, or other institution or body maintaining the hospital may, at any time within one year after the date of payment to the injured person, or to his heirs, attorney, or legal representative enforce its lien by filing an action at law against the person, firm, or corporation making the payment and to whom such notice was given as herein provided.” (Civ. Code § 3045.5.) (Emphasis added.)

In support of its Motion, Defendant presents the following undisputed facts:

Plaintiff is an acute care hospital. (UMF No. 1.) On March 17, 2015, Carol Marissael (“Marissael”) was involved in a motor vehicle accident with Travelle Butler (“Butler”) in which she sustained physical injures and received emergency medical care at Plaintiff’s facility. (UMF Nos. 2-3.) At the time of the accident, Defendant insured Butler. (UMF No. 4.) On April 11, 2017, Defendant received written notice of hospital lien from Plaintiff in the amount of $1,509.00 in connection with the care provided to Marissael. (UMF no. 5.) On April 3, 2018[1], Defendant issued and mailed an $8,000.00 settlement check to Marissael, through her counsel, for the injuries sustained in the accident. (UMF Nos. 7, 8.) Defendant did not make a payment to Plaintiff. (Mot., p. 3:10-11, UMF No. 8.) Plaintiff did not file its initial complaint until April 10, 2019. (UMF No. 10.)

The Court finds that Plaintiff’s action is barred by the statute of limitations. The plain language of the statute makes clear that the statute of limitations begins to run when a payment is made to an injured person, here, on April 3, 2018. (Civ. Code § 3045.5) As the initial Complaint was not filed until April 10, 2019, one year and seven days later, it is time-barred. As the Court has found the action is time-barred, it does not consider Defendant’s alternative argument regarding standing.

Defendant’s Motion is GRANTED.

1. Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reasons, Defendant Progressive Casualty Insurance Company’s Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.