This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 07/06/2019 at 10:55:57 (UTC).

PREMIERE MEDICAL CENTER OF BURBANK VS NHP/PMB BURBANK MEDICA

Case Summary

On 11/09/2015 PREMIERE MEDICAL CENTER OF BURBANK filed a Contract - Other Contract lawsuit against NHP/PMB BURBANK MEDICA. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Glendale Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are JOHN P. DOYLE, RALPH C. HOFER and CURTIS A. KIN. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****4632

  • Filing Date:

    11/09/2015

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Contract - Other Contract

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Glendale Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

JOHN P. DOYLE

RALPH C. HOFER

CURTIS A. KIN

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs

PREMIERE MEDICAL CENTER OF BURBANK INC.

MARSH MICHAEL D.

Defendants

NHP/PMB BURBANK MEDICAL PLAZA I LLC

PROVIDENCE HEALTH & SERVICES

MICHAEL D. MARSH

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorneys

FREUND & BRACKEY LLP

HUBER CRAIG ALAN

Defendant Attorneys

MANN & ZARPAS LLP

MANN LLOYD STEWART

BUCHIGNANI ANTONY EDWARD

THEODORA ORIGNHER PC

 

Court Documents

Minute Order

1/25/2016: Minute Order

Legacy Document

3/15/2016: Legacy Document

Legacy Document

4/12/2016: Legacy Document

Order

4/12/2016: Order

Memorandum of Points & Authorities

4/19/2016: Memorandum of Points & Authorities

Case Management Statement

4/25/2016: Case Management Statement

Legacy Document

4/26/2016: Legacy Document

Legacy Document

6/6/2016: Legacy Document

Legacy Document

6/28/2016: Legacy Document

Legacy Document

8/17/2016: Legacy Document

Minute Order

9/8/2016: Minute Order

Legacy Document

9/9/2016: Legacy Document

Legacy Document

6/11/2018: Legacy Document

Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order

6/12/2018: Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order

Minute Order

9/12/2018: Minute Order

Minute Order

12/12/2018: Minute Order

Minute Order

2/21/2019: Minute Order

Notice of Posting of Jury Fees

5/20/2019: Notice of Posting of Jury Fees

76 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 07/01/2019
  • Fourth Amended Complaint; Filed by MICHAEL D. MARSH (Plaintiff); PREMIERE MEDICAL CENTER OF BURBANK, INC. (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/01/2019
  • Fourth Amended Complaint; Filed by PREMIERE MEDICAL CENTER OF BURBANK, INC. (Plaintiff); MICHAEL D. MARSH (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/20/2019
  • Notice of Posting of Jury Fees; Filed by PREMIERE MEDICAL CENTER OF BURBANK, INC. (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/17/2019
  • Notice of Posting of Jury Fees; Filed by PREMIERE MEDICAL CENTER OF BURBANK, INC. (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/10/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department E, Curtis A. Kin, Presiding; Status Conference - Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/10/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Status Conference)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/10/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department E, Curtis A. Kin, Presiding; Status Conference - Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/02/2019
  • at 1:30 PM in Department E, Curtis A. Kin, Presiding; Court Order

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/02/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Court Order)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/02/2019
  • Certificate of Mailing for (Minute Order (Court Order) of 04/02/2019); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
178 More Docket Entries
  • 01/14/2016
  • Notice of Related Case; Filed by PREMIERE MEDICAL CENTER OF BURBANK, INC. (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/14/2016
  • Notice-Related Cases (WITH BC604193 FILED 12/14/15 ); Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/09/2015
  • Complaint filed-Summons Issued; Filed by PREMIERE MEDICAL CENTER OF BURBANK, INC. (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/09/2015
  • Summons; Filed by PREMIERE MEDICAL CENTER OF BURBANK, INC. (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/09/2015
  • Civil Case Cover Sheet

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/09/2015
  • Summons Filed; Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/09/2015
  • Notice of Case Management Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/09/2015
  • Notice of Case Assignment - Unlimited Civil Case

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/09/2015
  • Complaint filed-Summons Issued (- CONTRACT COMPLAINT - RECEIPT: BUR462569014 11-09-15); Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/09/2015
  • Notice (Notice of Order to Show Cause Re Failure to Comply with Trial Court Delay Reduction Act)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: EC064632    Hearing Date: October 25, 2019    Dept: E

DEMURRER

MOTION TO STRIKE

[CCP §430.10 et. seq.]

Date: 10/25/19

Case: Premiere Medical Center v. NHP/PMB Burbank Medical Plaza, et al. (EC 064632)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendant NHP/PMB Burbank Medical Plaza I, LLC’s Demurrer to Fourth Amended Complaint (“FAC”) is OVERRULED as untimely.

Defendant NHP/PMB Burbank Medical Plaza I, LLC’s Motion to Strike Portions of the Fourth Amended Complaint is DENIED as untimely.

The demurrer and motion were filed nearly six weeks beyond the Court-ordered time for the filing of a responsive pleading. On July 16, 2019, the Court entered its Order granting leave to file the FAC, which deemed the FAC filed as of July 1, 2019. Pursuant to the Court’s July 16, 2019 Order, Defendant NHP was to “file a responsive pleading within 30 days after service of the Fourth Amended Complaint.” According to the Proof of Service for the FAC, that pleading was served by U.S. mail on July 1, 2019. The instant demurrer and motion to strike were filed many weeks late on September 17, 2019, without leave of Court. While the parties may have reached some agreement to untimely file such responsive pleadings (see Demurrer at 2 [“The demurrer is timely as it has been filed on or before September 17, 2019, which was the due date agreed upon by the parties”]), because the FAC is not the initial pleading, the parties were not permitted to stipulate to an extension of time without an advance order of the Court. (See CRC Rule 3.110(d) [“The parties may stipulate without leave of court to one 15-day extension beyond the 30-day time period prescribed for the response after service of the initial complaint”].)

Ten days to answer.