This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 08/14/2019 at 09:28:56 (UTC).

IVETTE ROSALES ET AL VS THE NORTHEAST COMMUNITY CLINIC ET AL

Case Summary

On 01/19/2016 IVETTE ROSALES filed a Personal Injury - Medical Malpractice lawsuit against THE NORTHEAST COMMUNITY CLINIC. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is JON R. TAKASUGI. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****7569

  • Filing Date:

    01/19/2016

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Medical Malpractice

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

JON R. TAKASUGI

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs and Petitioners

BROWN DONALD

ROSALES IVETTE

Defendants and Respondents

CACHUR THOMAS MD

DOES 1 TO 30

WOMEN WELLNESS CENTER

STEINBERG DAVID N. MD

CALIFORNIA FAMILY CARE CLINIC

NORTHEAST COMMUNITY CLINIC THE

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

ONWAEZE LAW GROUP APC

ONWAEZE OGOCHUKWU VICTOR ESQ.

Defendant and Respondent Attorneys

BORGES FREDRICK ESQ.

TAGGART DEBORAH S.

TAYLOR BLESSEY LLP

GREER DENISE HERZOG ESQ.

BLESSEY RAYMOND LESLIE ESQ

BORGES FREDRICK MARIO ESQ.

TAGGART DEBORAH S. ESQ.

 

Court Documents

Notice

7/23/2019: Notice

SUBSTITUTION OF ATTORNEY

12/21/2017: SUBSTITUTION OF ATTORNEY

Minute Order

1/23/2019: Minute Order

Notice

2/13/2019: Notice

Demand for Jury Trial

3/4/2019: Demand for Jury Trial

COMPLAINT FOR 1. PROFESSIONAL NEGLIGENCE

1/19/2016: COMPLAINT FOR 1. PROFESSIONAL NEGLIGENCE

OPPOSITION OF PLAINTIFFS TO THE JOINT MOTION OF DEFENDANTS FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS ON PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT FOR PROFESSIONAL NEGLIGENCE, ETC.

5/4/2016: OPPOSITION OF PLAINTIFFS TO THE JOINT MOTION OF DEFENDANTS FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS ON PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT FOR PROFESSIONAL NEGLIGENCE, ETC.

REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO JOINDER IN DAVID N. STEINBERG, M.D.'S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS AS TO THE ENTIRE COMPLAINT

5/11/2016: REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO JOINDER IN DAVID N. STEINBERG, M.D.'S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS AS TO THE ENTIRE COMPLAINT

Minute Order

5/19/2016: Minute Order

NOTICE OF ENTRY OF JUDGMENT OR ORDER

6/27/2016: NOTICE OF ENTRY OF JUDGMENT OR ORDER

NOTICE OF REJECTION PROPOSAL JUDGMENT

7/6/2016: NOTICE OF REJECTION PROPOSAL JUDGMENT

OPPOSITION OF DEFENDANT CACHUR TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR ORDER [FOR] SETTLED STATEMENT [ON APPEAL]; DECLARATION OF RONAN J. DUGGAN

10/5/2016: OPPOSITION OF DEFENDANT CACHUR TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR ORDER [FOR] SETTLED STATEMENT [ON APPEAL]; DECLARATION OF RONAN J. DUGGAN

Minute Order

10/20/2016: Minute Order

NOTICE OF RULING ON PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR ORDER [FOR) SETTLED STATEMENT [ON APPEAL]

10/24/2016: NOTICE OF RULING ON PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR ORDER [FOR) SETTLED STATEMENT [ON APPEAL]

NOTICE OF FEES DUE FOR CLERK'S TRANSCRIPT ON APPEAL (CIVIL)

3/8/2017: NOTICE OF FEES DUE FOR CLERK'S TRANSCRIPT ON APPEAL (CIVIL)

NOTICE RE: CONTINUANCE OF HEARING

10/16/2017: NOTICE RE: CONTINUANCE OF HEARING

NOTICE RE: CONTINUANCE OF HEARING

10/16/2017: NOTICE RE: CONTINUANCE OF HEARING

NOTICE RE: CONTINUANCE OF HEARING

10/16/2017: NOTICE RE: CONTINUANCE OF HEARING

57 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 11/06/2019
  • Hearingat 08:30 AM in Department 3 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Non-Jury Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/17/2019
  • Hearingat 10:00 AM in Department 3 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Final Status Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/26/2019
  • Hearingat 13:30 PM in Department 3 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Hearing on Motion to Compel (name extension)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/26/2019
  • Hearingat 13:30 PM in Department 3 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Hearing on Motion to Compel (name extension)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/26/2019
  • Hearingat 13:30 PM in Department 3 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Hearing on Motion to Compel (name extension)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/24/2019
  • Docketat 1:30 PM in Department 3, Jon R. Takasugi, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Compel (Plaintiffs' Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One) - Not Held - Rescheduled by Party

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/24/2019
  • Docketat 1:30 PM in Department 3, Jon R. Takasugi, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Compel (Plaintiffs' Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One) - Not Held - Rescheduled by Party

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/24/2019
  • Docketat 1:30 PM in Department 3, Jon R. Takasugi, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Compel (Plaintiffs' Responses to Demand for Production of Documents, Set One) - Not Held - Rescheduled by Party

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/23/2019
  • DocketNotice (of Continuance of Defendant Thomas Cachur, D.O.'s Motions to Compel); Filed by Thomas, MD Cachur (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/12/2019
  • DocketMotion to Compel (Responses to Two Sets of Form Interrogatories); Filed by Thomas, MD Cachur (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
116 More Docket Entries
  • 02/23/2016
  • DocketAnswer; Filed by Defendant/Respondent

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/22/2016
  • DocketANSWER TO COMPLAINT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/22/2016
  • DocketDemand for Jury Trial; Filed by Defendant/Respondent

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/22/2016
  • DocketDEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/22/2016
  • DocketAnswer; Filed by Defendant/Respondent

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/11/2016
  • DocketAnswer; Filed by Northeast Community Clinic, The (Defendant); Women Wellness Center (Legacy Party); California Family Care Clinic (Legacy Party)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/11/2016
  • DocketANSWER TO COMPLAINT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/19/2016
  • DocketSUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/19/2016
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Ivette Rosales (Plaintiff); Donald Brown (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/19/2016
  • DocketCOMPLAINT FOR 1. PROFESSIONAL NEGLIGENCE

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC607569    Hearing Date: September 30, 2020    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

IVETTE ROSALES, ET AL.,

Plaintiff(s),

vs.

THE NORTHEAST COMMUNITY CLINIC, ET AL.,

Defendant(s).

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: BC607569

[TENTATIVE] ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Dept. 31

10:30 a.m.

September 30, 2020

  1. Background Facts

    Plaintiffs, Ivette Rosales and Donald Brown filed this action against Defendants, The Northeast Community Clinic, et al. for medical malpractice arising out of Defendants’ care and treatment of Rosales in connection with her pregnancy.

  2. Motion for Summary Judgment

    Defendant, The Northeast Community Clinic dba Women’s Wellness Center dba California Family Care moves for summary judgment on the complaint, contending the care and treatment of Plaintiff complied with the standard of care at all times and did not cause or contribute to Plaintiff’s damages. Defendant submits the Declaration of Dr. Michael P. Nageotte, M.D., who opines that Defendant acted within the standard of acre in their treatment of Plaintiff, and that to a reasonable degree of medical probability, no action or inaction on the part of Defendant caused or substantially contributed to Plaintiff’s injuries. (Mot. Nageotte ¿¿ 17-20.)

  1. Standard of Care

    The standard of care against which the acts of health care providers are to be measured is a matter within the knowledge of experts. (Elcome v. Chin (2003) 110 Cal.App.4th 310, 317.) Unless the conduct required by the particular circumstances is within the common knowledge of the layman, the standard of care in a malpractice action can only be proved by an expert’s testimony. Id. If the “common knowledge” exception does not apply to a medical malpractice action, expert evidence is conclusive and cannot be disregarded. (Id.)

    A medical practitioner is not necessarily negligent just because he chooses one medically acceptable method of treatment or diagnosis and it turns out that another medically accepted method would have been a better choice. (CACI 506.) Likewise, a medical practitioner is not necessarily negligent just because his efforts are unsuccessful or he makes an error that was reasonable under the circumstances. (CACI 505.)

    Whether the standard of care in the community has been breached presents the basic issue in a malpractice action and can only be proved by opinion testimony unless the medical question is within the common knowledge of laypersons. (See Jambazian v. Borden (1994) 25 Cal.App4th 836, 844.) “‘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.’“ (Munro v. Regents of University of California (1989) 215 Cal.App.3d 977, 984-985.)

  2. Causation

    In order to establish that defendant's negligence was a “substantial factor” in causing injury or death, the plaintiff must prove the negligence was of itself sufficient to bring about that harm. “The law is well settled that in a personal injury action causation must be proven within a reasonable medical probability based upon competent expert testimony. Mere possibility alone is insufficient to establish a prima facie case. [Citations.] That there is a distinction between a reasonable medical ‘probability’ and a medical 'possibility' needs little discussion. There can be many possible ‘causes,’ indeed, an infinite number of circumstances which can produce an injury or disease. A possible cause only becomes ‘probable’ when, in the absence of other reasonable causal explanations, it becomes more likely than not that the injury was a result of its action. This is the outer limit of inference upon which an issue may be submitted to the jury.” (Bromme v. Pavitt (1992) 5 Cal.App.4th 1487, 1498; citing Jones v. Ortho Pharmaceutical Corp. (1985) 163 Cal.App.3d 396, 402 403.)

  3. Moving Burden

    Defendant supports its motion with the Expert Declaration of Dr. Michael P. Nageotte, M.D.; Dr. Nageotte’s declaration is sufficient to meet Defendant’s moving burden to establish it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. (Mot. Decl. ¿¿ 17-20.) The burden therefore shifts to Plaintiffs to raise a triable issue of material fact in this regard.

  4. Opposing Burden

    The Court has not received any opposition to the motion. Notably, on 3/11/20, Defendant filed and served a notice of non-opposition to the motion. Based on current conditions, including, but not limited to, the spread of COVID-19, the matter was continued to 9/30/20. Defendant again filed and served a notice of non-opposition to the motion on 9/24/20.

    Plaintiffs, therefore, necessarily failed to meet the shifted burden.

    Defendant, The Northeast Community Clinic dba Women’s Wellness Center dba California Family Care’s motion for summary judgment is granted.

    Moving Defendant is ordered to give notice.

    Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at sscdept31@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  If the department does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on the tentative and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion may be placed off calendar. If a party submits on the tentative, the party’s email must include the case number and must identify the party submitting on the tentative. If the parties do not submit on the tentative, they should arrange to appear remotely.

    Dated this 30th day of September, 2020

Hon. Thomas D. Long

Judge of the Superior Court

Case Number: BC607569    Hearing Date: March 13, 2020    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

IVETTE ROSALES, ET AL.,

Plaintiff(s),

vs.

THE NORTHEAST COMMUNITY CLINIC, ET AL.,

Defendant(s).

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: BC607569

[TENTATIVE] ORDER TAKING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OFF CALENDAR

Dept. 31

1:30 p.m.

March 16, 2020

On 1/02/20, Plaintiff filed a request for dismissal. On 1/09/20, Defendant filed a notice of taking motion for summary judgment off calendar. The Court notes that Defendant has not used the online reservation system to remove the hearing on the motion from the calendar.

The Court asks Counsel to use the online system to immediately remove any matter from calendar once the relief sought by way of the motion is rendered moot.

Defendant is ordered to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at sscdept31@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  If the department does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on the tentative and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion may be placed off calendar. If a party submits on the tentative, the party’s email must include the case number and must identify the party submitting on the tentative.

Dated this 16th day of March, 2020

Hon. Thomas D. Long

Judge of the Superior Court

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where THE NORTHEAST COMMUNITY CLINIC A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer TAGGART DEBORAH S. ESQ.