This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 07/08/2019 at 19:43:33 (UTC).

IAN W BROOKS VS THE REHABILITATION CENTRE OF BEVERLY HILLS

Case Summary

On 03/11/2015 IAN W BROOKS filed a Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury lawsuit against THE REHABILITATION CENTRE OF BEVERLY HILLS. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are MITCHELL L. BECKLOFF, RICHARD A. STONE, TERESA A. BEAUDET, LAWRENCE CHO and CRAIG D. KARLAN. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****5125

  • Filing Date:

    03/11/2015

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

MITCHELL L. BECKLOFF

RICHARD A. STONE

TERESA A. BEAUDET

LAWRENCE CHO

CRAIG D. KARLAN

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs, Petitioners, Respondents and Appellants

BROOKS IAN W.

CEDARS SINAI MEDICAL CENTER

DOES 1 TO 10

KEA JOHN M.D.

REHABILITATION CENTRE OF BEVERLY HILLS

WOLIN LARS

CEDARS-SINAI MEDICAL CARE FOUNDATION

Defendants and Respondents

CEDARS SINAI MEDICAL CENTER

DOES 1 TO 10

KEA JOHN M.D.

REHABILITATION CENTRE OF BEVERLY HILLS

WOLIN LARS

THE REHABILITATION CENTRE OF BEVERLY HILL

INPATIENT SPECIALTY PROGRAM

KEA M.D. JON

THE REHABILITATION CENTRE OF B.H. INC.

INPATIENT SPECIALTY PRACTICE INC.

CEDARS-SINAI MEDICAL CENTER

CEDARS-SINAI MEDICAL CARE FOUNDATION INC

SHAH PREDIMAN K.

CEDARS SINAI MEDICAL GROUP

CEDARS-SINAI MEDICAL CARE FOUNDATION

Other

BONNE BRIDGES MUELLER O'KEEFE & NICHOLS

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

MAGINN DENISE PLATT

BALISOK RUSSELL S.

BALISOK & ASSOCIATES INC.

LAW OFFICE OF DENISE A. PLATT APC

PLATT DENISE ANNE

Defendant and Respondent Attorneys

PECK CHRISTOPHER

LA FOLLETTE JOHNSON DE HAAS FESLER ET AL

LA FOLLETTE JOHNSON DE HAAS FESLER

WEBB JOHN J.

LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP

WALKER KATHLEEN M

LA FOLLETTE JOHNSON DE HAASFESLER ET AL

SEDGWICK LLP

SEDWICK DETERT MORAN & ARNOLD

WEBER JOHN JOSEPH

HULBERT GREGORY MORAN

AMES DENNIS K.

HOLM MARGARET MANTON

BONNE BRIDGES MUELLER O'KEEFE & NICHOLS

HULBERT & HULBERT

 

Court Documents

Legacy Document

6/19/2015: Legacy Document

Legacy Document

7/5/2016: Legacy Document

Legacy Document

7/20/2016: Legacy Document

Legacy Document

8/9/2017: Legacy Document

Memorandum

8/9/2017: Memorandum

Case Management Statement

10/17/2017: Case Management Statement

Minute Order

4/24/2018: Minute Order

Legacy Document

9/20/2018: Legacy Document

Notice of Lodging

9/21/2018: Notice of Lodging

Separate Statement

9/21/2018: Separate Statement

Other -

9/28/2018: Other -

Notice of Continuance

10/5/2018: Notice of Continuance

Memorandum of Points & Authorities

11/19/2018: Memorandum of Points & Authorities

Minute Order

12/4/2018: Minute Order

Minute Order

2/20/2019: Minute Order

Appellate Order Reinstating Appeal

3/12/2019: Appellate Order Reinstating Appeal

Memorandum of Points & Authorities

5/21/2019: Memorandum of Points & Authorities

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OP PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINTS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPOR THEREOF; ORDER

5/27/2015: NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OP PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINTS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPOR THEREOF; ORDER

328 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 07/01/2019
  • Notice (of Taking Plaingiff's Motion for Protective Order That the Parties Need Not Respond to Defendants' Demands for Exchange of Expert Witness Information Off Calendar); Filed by Ian W. Brooks (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/26/2019
  • Notice of Change of Address or Other Contact Information; Filed by Inpatient Specialty Practice, Inc. (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/14/2019
  • Appeal Record Delivered (For Appeals filed on 02/04/19 & 02/08/19); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/07/2019
  • at 4:17 PM in Department M; Court Order

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/07/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Court Order)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/07/2019
  • Certificate of Mailing for (Minute Order (Court Order) of 06/07/2019); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/06/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department M; Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment - Held - Taken under Submission

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/06/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/06/2019
  • Stipulation and Order to use Certified Shorthand Reporter; Filed by Ian W. Brooks (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/04/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department M; Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment (or in the alternative, motion for adjudication of issues) - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
765 More Docket Entries
  • 04/14/2015
  • Proof-Service/Summons

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/11/2015
  • Other - (Civil Deposit); Filed by Ian W. Brooks (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/11/2015
  • CIVIL DEPOSIT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/11/2015
  • Complaint Filed

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/11/2015
  • Civil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by Ian W. Brooks (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/11/2015
  • Complaint; Filed by Ian W. Brooks (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/11/2015
  • Summons (on Complaint)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/11/2015
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/11/2015
  • COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1. FRAUD; ETC

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/24/2014
  • Motion to Strike; Filed by Rehabilitation Centre of Beverly Hills, (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC575125    Hearing Date: July 15, 2020    Dept: M

CASE NAME: Ian Brooks v. The Rehabilitation Centre of Beverly Hills, et al.

CASE NO.: BC575125

MOTION: Defendants’ Motions to dismiss pursuant to CCP § 583.310

BACKGROUND

This is a wrongful death action involving the care and treatment of patient/decedent Tedda Wolin. Plaintiff Ian Brooks, son of Ms. Wolin, filed his complaint on March 11, 2015, alleging numerous causes of action against several Defendants. On December 6 and 11, 2018, the Court granted Defendants Cedars-Sinai Medical Care Foundation and Cedars-Sinai Medical Center’s motions for summary judgment. At the end of the June 4, 2019 hearing, the Court set a final status conference for June 29, 2020, and a trial date for July 6, 2020 based on Counsel’s request for a later trial date.

MOTIONS

Three separate defendants have filed separate motions to dismiss this case for failure to prosecute. Plaintiff filed a joint opposition to the three motions.

Defendant the Rehabilitation Centre of Beverly Hill, Inc. (“The Centre”) argues that this action is subject to mandatory dismissal under Code of Civil Procedure section 583.360. The Centre argues that none of the time periods that would pause the five-year limit apply, specifically that the action was never stayed. The Centre also argues that nothing made it impossible, impracticable, or futile to bring the action to trial.

Defendants identified as Doe 1 and Doe 3: Cedars-Sinai Medical Group and Inpatient Specialty Practices, Inc. argue that while judgments were granted in favor of Cedars Sinai Medical Center and Cedars Sinai Medical Care Foundation, which Plaintiff appealed, Plaintiff never requested a stay in the action as against the remaining defendants. Furthermore, Plaintiff continued to conduct discovery. Defendants Cedars-Sinai Medical Group and Inpatient Specialty Practices, Inc. also argue that it was not impossible, impracticable or futile to bring this case to trial and that illness of counsel in Tamburina v. Combined Insurance Co. of America (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 323, 335, was not found to be valid reason.

Defendant Dr. Jon Kea, M.D. also argues that there has been no impossibility, impracticability, or futility. Defendant Kea argues that Plaintiff cannot show causation as to Plaintiff’s counsel’s illness and the failure to prosecute this action within five years. Defendant Kea also argues that Defendants never received notice of Plaintiff’s counsel’s illness before March 11, 2020. Finally, Defendant Kea argues that the parties did not stipulate during the hearing to extend the 5-year period.

LEGAL STANDARD

Code of Civil Procedure section 583.310 states, “[a]n action shall be brought to trial within five years after the action is commenced against the defendant.” Section 583.360 provides that “[a]n action shall be dismissed by the court on its own motion or on motion of the defendant, after notice to the parties, if the action is not brought to trial within the time prescribed in this article.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 583.360(a).)

“In computing the time within which an action must be brought to trial pursuant to this article, there shall be excluded the time during which any of the following conditions existed: (a) The jurisdiction of the court to try the action was suspended [;] (b) Prosecution or trial of the action was stayed or enjoined[;] [or] (c) Bringing the action to trial, for any other reason, was impossible, impracticable, or futile. (Code Civ. Proc., § 583.340.)

Per section 583.330, “[t]he parties may extend the time within which an action must be brought­ to trial pursuant to this article by the following means: (a) By written stipulation. The stipulation need not be filed but, if it is not filed, the stipulation shall be brought to the attention of the court if relevant to a motion for dismissal. [or] (b) [b]y oral agreement made in open court, if entered in the minutes of the court or a transcript is made.”

“The plaintiff bears the burden of proving the circumstances justifying application of section 583.340, subdivision (c)’s exception for impossibility, impracticability or futility. [Citation omitted.]” (Martinez v. Landry's Restaurants, Inc. (2018) 26 Cal.App.5th 783, 794.)

ANALYSIS

Plaintiff opposes the motion to dismiss, arguing that it was impracticable or futile to bring this action to trial. Plaintiff advances three reason as to why it could not bring this action to trial. Plaintiff specifically argues that if Plaintiff attempted to bring this case to trial pending the summary judgment appeal, Plaintiff risked setting up collateral estoppel. Plaintiff also argues that counsels’ health also made it impracticable or impossible to bring this action within the statutory five years. As the third reason, Plaintiff argues that the Presiding Judge’s orders relating to the court closures also precluded bringing this action to trial.

Under the statute, the Court determines that the deadline to bring this case to trial was March 11, 2020.

  1. Whether Plaintiff could have gone forward with trial while the appeal is pending

Plaintiff argues that the theory of his case is based on “the vicarious liability of each defendant for the acts of the others in pursuit of their joint venture.” (See Opp. 6:4-7.) Plaintiff presents no additional reasons as to why this theory would preclude bringing this action to trial within five years.

“[T]he trial court, in determining whether it was impracticable or futile to bring an action to trial, should consider the circumstances of the particular case, including the potential impact on that case of appellate proceedings in another action without regard to whether the two actions shared common parties.” (Dowling v. Farmers Ins. Exchange (2012) 208 Cal.App.4th 685, 697.)

In reply, the Centre argues that Plaintiff has failed to meet his burden of establishing impracticability based on vicarious liability. The Centre argues that Plaintiff could have fully recovered in an action against any one of the alleged joint venturers (assuming Plaintiff could prove the existence of the joint venture). The Center further argues that the presence of Defendants Cedars-Sinai Health Care Foundation or Cedars-Sinai Medical Center was not needed for Plaintiff to proceed forward with the trial of this action within the five years.

“A joint venture ... is an undertaking by two or more persons jointly to carry out a single business enterprise for profit.” (Nelson v. Abraham (1947) 29 Cal.2d 745, 177 P.2d 931.) “There are three basic elements of a joint venture: the members must have joint control over the venture (even though they may delegate it), they must share the profits of the undertaking, and the members must each have an ownership interest in the enterprise.” (Orosco v. Sun-Diamond Corp. (1997) 51 Cal.App.4th 1659, 1666, 60 Cal.Rptr.2d 179.) Where a joint venture is established, the parties to the venture are vicariously liable for the torts of the other in furtherance of the venture. (Dixon v. City of Livermore (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 32, 42, 25 Cal.Rptr.3d 50.)

(Cochrum v. Costa Victoria Healthcare, LLC (2018) 25 Cal.App.5th 1034, 1053[emphasis added].) Plaintiff cited Holland v. Dave Altman’s R.V. Center, (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 477, in support of his impracticability argument. However, Holland is distinguishable. The Court of Appeal found that the case was stayed in Holland pending the appeal. “On two occasions, the court had stated its view, in unambiguous terms, that the case was not to proceed to trial until the pending appeal had been decided.” (Id. at 484.) Indeed, Defendants Cedars-Sinai Medical Group and Inpatient Specialty Practices, Inc. raised this issue and Plaintiff has not addressed it. Plaintiff has not shown that this case was stayed by an order of this Court or the Court of Appeal. Furthermore, Plaintiff has failed to show how liability arising out of a joint venture precluded him from bringing this case to trial in five years.

  1. The health of Plaintiff’s counsel

Plaintiff argues that the health of both of Plaintiff’s counsel precluded bringing this action to trial within five years. Plaintiff argues that that Ms. Denise Platt-Maginn died in December of 2019. Plaintiff also argues that when trial in this matter was last continued, it was explicitly on the basis of Mr. Balisok’s health condition. (See Balisok Decl. ¶ 2.) In December 2018, Mr. Balisok developed acute renal failure which his doctor stated made it impossible for Mr. Balisok to work. (See Dr. Levy Decl. ¶¶ 3-4.)

The Centre also argues that Plaintiff has failed to show that the health of Mr. Balisok or the death of Ms. Platt-Maginn made the trial of this action impracticable or futile. Dr. Kea argues that Plaintiff’s opposition fails to oppose his motion to dismiss because it did not mention Dr. Kea. The Court considers the opposition filed by Plaintiff to also include Dr. Kea. Dr. Kea also argues that Plaintiffs arguments with respect to counsels’ health do not show causation. Finally, Cedars-Sinai Medical Group and Inpatient Specialty Practices, Inc. argue that Plaintiff requested that the trial be set after February/March 2020 but that there was no indication that the case had been stayed. The Court agrees. The Court’s June 4, 2019, order setting the trial date in July 2020 does not indicate that the case had been stayed in the interim nor does it mention that the parties orally agreed to extend the deadline to prosecute this case. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 583.330(b) [“The parties may extend the time within which an action must be brought to trial pursuant to this article by the following means: . . .(b) By oral agreement made in open court, if entered in the minutes of the court or a transcript is made.”]

Illness of counsel or illness of one of the parties can constitute impracticability. “[T]o apply the impracticability (tolling) exception to the five-year requirement: (1) [the plaintiff] has shown a circumstance of impracticability (lengthy illness) that (2) has a ‘causal connection’ to his failure to move the case to trial. [citations omitted]” (Tamburina v. Combined Ins. Co. of America (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 323, 328.)

“A bare showing that a counsel was ill does not warrant the attribution of such causation. Two kinds of circumstance occur to us in which it may be appropriate to say that the illness o[f] counsel has caused Sierra Nevada, supra,

(Id. 333–334.) Here, Plaintiff’s establish a bare showing of illness of counsel. However, the evidence established that the illness of counsel did not occur at the end of the five-year period. Mr. Balisok’s illness occurred for a period in December 2018. Mr. Balisok’s was also hospitalized for about a week in May 2019. Furthermore, Plaintiff does not argue that he had sole counsel for the entirety of this case and that Mr. Balisok’s illness deprived Plaintiff of a substantial portion of the five-year period for prosecution of the trial. Finally, Plaintiff does not argue or provide evidence that Mr. Balisok’s health was such as to prevent him from preparing for trial after the passing of co-counsel Denise Platt-Maginn.

Conclusion

Defendants’ motions to dismiss are GRANTED. Plaintiff was required to bring this action to trial before March 11, 2020. Plaintiff has failed to meet his burden in showing that counsel’s illness prevented him from prosecuting his case within the five-year period.