This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 06/26/2019 at 15:41:38 (UTC).

SASHA JARA ET AL VS GEORGE DELSHAD ET AL

Case Summary

On 02/03/2015 SASHA JARA filed a Personal Injury - Medical Malpractice lawsuit against GEORGE DELSHAD. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is CHRISTOPHER K. LUI. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****1333

  • Filing Date:

    02/03/2015

  • 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

CHRISTOPHER K. LUI

 

Party Details

Plaintiff, Petitioner and Guardian Ad Litem

JARA SASHA

Defendants and Respondents

DELSHAD GEORGE M.D.

DOES 1 TO 25

KIM MEESOOK M.D.

VALLEY PRESBYTERIAN HOSPITAL

DELSHAD GEORGE

KIM MEESOOK M.D. *SUM JUDGMENT

Minor

RIVAS RYLAND

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff, Petitioner and Minor Attorneys

FOX & FOX LAW CORPORATION

FOX JAMES EDWARD

Defendant and Respondent Attorneys

TRAPP JANET E. ESQ.

TROTTER MICHAEL J. ESQ.

TAGGART DEBORAH S.

FELAHY SARAH

 

Court Documents

NOTICE OF CHANGE OF FIRM NAME

1/31/2018: NOTICE OF CHANGE OF FIRM NAME

EXHIBITS IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT GEORGE DELSHAD, M.D'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION

8/17/2018: EXHIBITS IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT GEORGE DELSHAD, M.D'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION

DECLARATION OF SARAH FELAHY IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT GEORGE DELSHAD, M.D.'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION

8/17/2018: DECLARATION OF SARAH FELAHY IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT GEORGE DELSHAD, M.D.'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION

Opposition

3/27/2019: Opposition

Response

3/27/2019: Response

Motion in Limine

5/16/2019: Motion in Limine

Motion in Limine

5/16/2019: Motion in Limine

Motion in Limine

5/16/2019: Motion in Limine

APPLICATION AND ORDER FOR APPOINTMENT OF GUARDIAN AD LITEM-CIVIL EX PARTE

2/18/2015: APPLICATION AND ORDER FOR APPOINTMENT OF GUARDIAN AD LITEM-CIVIL EX PARTE

ANSWER OF DEFENDANT GEORGE DELSHAD, M.D. TO PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT

6/2/2015: ANSWER OF DEFENDANT GEORGE DELSHAD, M.D. TO PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT

NOTICE OF RULING ON DEFENDANT MEE SOOK KIM, M.D.'S UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

4/27/2016: NOTICE OF RULING ON DEFENDANT MEE SOOK KIM, M.D.'S UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

NOTICE OF LODGING RECORDS IN SUPPORT OF MOTION SUMMARY JUDGMENT/ADJUDICATION BY DEFENDANT VALLEY PRESBYTERIAN HOSPITAL

6/15/2016: NOTICE OF LODGING RECORDS IN SUPPORT OF MOTION SUMMARY JUDGMENT/ADJUDICATION BY DEFENDANT VALLEY PRESBYTERIAN HOSPITAL

DECLARATION OF JENNA M. BATEMAN IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT/ ADJUDICATION BY DEFENDANT VALLEY PRESBYTERIAN HOSPITAL

6/15/2016: DECLARATION OF JENNA M. BATEMAN IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT/ ADJUDICATION BY DEFENDANT VALLEY PRESBYTERIAN HOSPITAL

SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION OF ISSUES BY DEFENDANT VALLEY PRESBYTERIAN HOSPITAL

6/15/2016: SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION OF ISSUES BY DEFENDANT VALLEY PRESBYTERIAN HOSPITAL

NOTICE RE: CONTINUANCE OF HEARING

7/27/2016: NOTICE RE: CONTINUANCE OF HEARING

PLAINTIFFS' OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT VALLEY PRESBYTERIAN HOSPITAL'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (C.C.P. ? 437(C)L)

8/15/2016: PLAINTIFFS' OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT VALLEY PRESBYTERIAN HOSPITAL'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (C.C.P. ? 437(C)L)

STATEMENT OF EVIDENCE

8/15/2016: STATEMENT OF EVIDENCE

DEFENDANT VALLEY PRESBYTERIAN HOSPITAL'S REPLY TO PLAINTIFFS' OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT/ADJUDICATION; DECLARATION OF JENNA ANDERSON, ESQ.

9/9/2016: DEFENDANT VALLEY PRESBYTERIAN HOSPITAL'S REPLY TO PLAINTIFFS' OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT/ADJUDICATION; DECLARATION OF JENNA ANDERSON, ESQ.

52 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 06/24/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 4A, Christopher K. Lui, Presiding; Jury Trial - Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/10/2019
  • at 10:00 AM in Department 4A, Christopher K. Lui, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/30/2019
  • Notice of Ruling; Filed by George Delshad (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/28/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 4A, Christopher K. Lui, Presiding; Ex-Parte Proceedings (to Continue Trial and all Discovery Deadlines and Cut-offs) - Held - Motion Granted

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/28/2019
  • Ex Parte Application (to Continue Trial); Filed by George Delshad (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/28/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Defendant George Delshad, M.D.'s Ex-Parte Application to Cont...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/16/2019
  • Notice (Mil 8 PReclude Cumlative Testimony of Experts); Filed by George Delshad (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/16/2019
  • Motion in Limine (MIL 1- Damages); Filed by George Delshad (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/16/2019
  • Motion in Limine (MIL 4- Expert Testimony); Filed by George Delshad (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/16/2019
  • Motion in Limine (MIL 5); Filed by George Delshad (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
104 More Docket Entries
  • 03/18/2015
  • PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/16/2015
  • Declaration; Filed by Sasha Jara (Plaintiff); Ryland Rivas (Legacy Party)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/16/2015
  • DECLARATION OF NON SERVICE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/05/2015
  • Summons; Filed by Sasha Jara (Plaintiff); Ryland Rivas (Legacy Party)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/05/2015
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/25/2015
  • Ord Apptng Guardian Ad Litem; Filed by Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/18/2015
  • Application ; Filed by Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/18/2015
  • APPLICATION AND ORDER FOR APPOINTMENT OF GUARDIAN AD LITEM-CIVIL EX PARTE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/03/2015
  • COMPLAINT FOR FRAUD, BATTERY AND MEDICAL MALPRACTICE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/03/2015
  • Complaint; Filed by Sasha Jara (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC571333    Hearing Date: December 03, 2019    Dept: 4A

Petition to Approve Minor’s Compromise of Pending Action

Having considered the moving papers, the Court rules as follows.  No opposition was filed.

BACKGROUND

On February 18, 2015, Plaintiffs Sasha Jara and Ryland Rivas, by and through his guardian ad litem, Sasha Jara, filed a complaint against Defendants George Delshad, M.D., Valley Presbyterian Hospital, and Meesook Kim, M.D. for fraud, battery, and medical malpractice.

On September 26, 2019, Petitioner Sasha Jara filed this petition to approve a compromise of disputed claim for minor Plaintiff Ryland Rivas.

On October 23, 2019, the Court continued the hearing on Petitioner Sasha Jara’s petition because item 13(a) was not completed and the Probate Department of the Superior Court needed time to review the petition pursuant to Los Angeles Superior Court Rule 4.115, subdivision (c).

OSC re: Dismissal is set for February 4, 2020.

PARTY’S REQUESTS

Petitioner Sasha Jara (“Petitioner”) requests that the Court grant the petition to approve a compromise of disputed claim for minor Plaintiff Ryland Rivas (“Claimant”).

LEGAL STANDARD

Pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 7.952(a), Petitioner and Claimant are required to attend the hearing on the petition.  However, the Court finds that Claimant’s attendance is not required due to Claimant’s age and the settlement amount. 

DISCUSSION

The Court finds the petition must be denied for two reasons.

First, item 13a. of the petition is not filled out.  Second, a special needs trust is not appropriate in this case pursuant to Probate Code section 3604, subdivision (b).

Probate Code section 3604, subdivision (b) states “[a] special needs trust may be established . . . only if the court determines all of the following: (1) That the minor or person with a disability has a disability that substantially impairs the individual’s ability to provide for the individual’s own care or custody and creates a substantial handicap.  (2) That the minor or person with a disability is likely to have special needs that will not be met without the trust.  (3) That money to be paid to the trust does not exceed the amount that appears reasonably necessary to meet the special needs of the minor or person with a disability.”

An August 28, 2019 report from James Kim, M.D. states Claimant was diagnosed to have cerebral palsy involving Claimant’s left side due to neonatal stroke, which has improved.  (Petition, p. 18.)  Dr. Kim also assessed that Claimant’s neurological examination was unremarkable except possible slight slowing in left hand coordination.  (Ibid.)  There was no need for neurological intervention.  (Ibid.)  Dr. Kim explained that the cerebral palsy is static and that he does not expect it to impair Claimant’s motor functions.  (Ibid.)  Dr. Kim also explained that there would be a possible seizure disorder and cognitive slowing, but only recommended continued speech therapy as needed and routine pediatric care.  (Ibid.)

The Court finds this doctor’s report does not show that Claimant has a disability that substantially impairs Claimant’s ability to provide for Claimant’s own care or custody and creates a substantial handicap.  Claimant appears to be doing better.  There is specter of a seizure disorder and cognitive slowing.  However, this fear was not expressed as if it is likely to occur.  Dr. Kim’s opinion that there is no need for neurological intervention or any other treatment besides speech therapy and routine pediatric care strongly suggests that Claimant does not have a disability and that, if Claimant does have a disability, it does not rise to the level of creating a substantial handicap.  As such, a special needs trust is an inappropriate means to disburse Claimant’s net settlement.

The petition filed on September 26, 2019 is DENIED, without prejudice to the submission of an amended petition in compliance with the above.

Petitioner is ordered to give notice of this ruling.