On 09/12/2016 WYNDMANN SHELTON filed a Personal Injury - Medical Malpractice lawsuit against QUEEN OF THE VALLEY HOSPITAL. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is LAURA A. SEIGLE. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.
****3788
09/12/2016
Pending - Other Pending
Los Angeles County Superior Courts
Stanley Mosk Courthouse
Los Angeles, California
LAURA A. SEIGLE
SHELTON WYNDMANN
SHELTON WYNDY
GUTKIN DAVID JON M.D.
DOES 1 THROUGH 100
ENCARE WEST DIVISION
EMCARE SURGICAL SERVICES DIVISION
QUEEN OF THE VALLEY HOSPITAL
CITRUS VALLEY HEALTH PARTNERS INC.
GUTKIN DAVID JON D.O.
LAW OFFICES OF BRUCE M. BUNCH A.P.C.
LEIBL LOREN S. ESQ.
LYNCH GREGORY G. ESQ.
2/9/2018: ORDER AND STIPULATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL FSC AND RELATED MOTION/DISCOVERY DATES PERSONAL INJURY COURTS ONLY (CENTRAL DISTRICT)
5/9/2018: Opposition
5/15/2018: REPLY IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR AN ORDER COMPELLING PLAINTIFF TO FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO SECURE AN AWARD OF FEES AND COSTS
6/13/2018: Minute Order
6/14/2018: Minute Order
6/14/2018: ORDER RE: MOTION FOR ORDER REQUIRING PIAINTTFF TO FILE AN UNDERTAKING; ETC
8/24/2018: Answer
9/13/2018: Request for Dismissal
1/25/2019: Ex Parte Application
1/25/2019: Notice
5/10/2019: Motion to Continue Trial Date
9/12/2016: COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR 4EDICAL NEGLIGENCE
9/12/2016: SUMMONS
9/12/2016: Unknown
6/19/2017: PROOF OF SERVICE BY MAIL
6/22/2017: PROOF OF SERVICE BY MAIL
7/26/2017: DEFENDANT CITRUS VALLEY HEALTH PARTNERS, INC.'S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
7/26/2017: DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Motion to Continue Trial Date; Filed by David Jon D.O. Gutkin (Defendant)
at 08:30 AM in Department 4B, Laura A. Seigle, Presiding; Jury Trial - Not Held - Continued - Party's Motion
at 10:00 AM in Department 4B, Laura A. Seigle, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Continued - Party's Motion
at 08:30 AM in Department 4B, Laura A. Seigle, Presiding; Hearing on Ex Parte Application (to continue trial and final status conference and all discovery and motion cutoffs) - Held - Motion Granted
Ex Parte Application (to continue trial and final status conference and all discovery and motion cutoffs); Filed by David Jon D.O. Gutkin (Defendant)
Minute Order ( (Hearing on Ex Parte Application to continue trial and final s...)); Filed by Clerk
Notice (OF CONTINUATION OF TRIAL DATE, FINAL STATUS CONFERENCE DATE AND DISCOVERY CUT OFF DATES); Filed by David Jon D.O. Gutkin (Defendant)
Notice of Entry of Dismissal and Proof of Service; Filed by CITRUS VALLEY HEALTH PARTNERS, INC. (Defendant)
NOTICE OF ENTRY OF DISMISSAL AND PROOF OF SERVICE
Request for Dismissal; Filed by Plaintiff/Petitioner
Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by Wyndmann Shelton (Plaintiff); Wyndy Shelton (Legacy Party)
PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS
PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS
Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by Wyndmann Shelton (Plaintiff); Wyndy Shelton (Legacy Party)
Proof of Service by Mail; Filed by Wyndmann Shelton (Plaintiff); Wyndy Shelton (Legacy Party)
PROOF OF SERVICE BY MAIL
Complaint; Filed by Wyndmann Shelton (Plaintiff)
ORDER ON COURT FEE WAIVER
SUMMONS
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR 4EDICAL NEGLIGENCE
Case Number: BC633788 Hearing Date: December 23, 2019 Dept: 4B
[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: MOTION FOR TERMINATING SANCTIONS
On September 12, 2016, plaintiff Wyndmann Shelton aka Wyndy Shelton filed this action against defendant David Jon D.O. Gutkin (“Defendant”) for medical malpractice. Defendant filed a motion to compel Plaintiff to file an undertaking of $8,292.80 to secure fees and costs. On September 30, 2019, the Court granted the motion and ordered Plaintiff to file an undertaking within 30 days after service of the order. The Court stated that if Plaintiff failed to file the undertaking, the action would be dismissed as to Defendant. On October 2, 2019, Defendant served a notice of ruling on Plaintiff by mail. As of November 15, 2019, Plaintiff had not filed an undertaking. On November 15, 2019, Defendant filed this motion to dismiss. Plaintiff did not file an opposition.
Code of Civil Procedure section 1030, subdivision (d) states that if a plaintiff does not file an undertaking within the time allowed, “the plaintiff’s action . . . shall be dismissed as to the defendant in whose favor the order requiring the undertaking was made.” This statute does not give the Court discretion in the matter. Accordingly, the motion is GRANTED, and the claims against Defendant are dismissed.
Moving party to give notice.
Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SSCDEPT4B@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative.
Case Number: BC633788 Hearing Date: December 12, 2019 Dept: 4B
[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: MOTION TO BE RELIEVED
Bruce M. Bunch seeks to be relieved as counsel of record for plaintiff Wyndmann Shelton aka Wyndy Shelton on the grounds that an irreparable breakdown has created a conflict of interest. Absent a showing of resulting prejudice, an attorney’s request for withdrawal should be granted. (People v. Prince (1968) 268 Cal.App.2d 398, 406.) Counsel’s Motion complies with California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1362. The Court notes that trial in this matter is currently set for May 29, 2020 and no prejudice will result from granting this motion. Accordingly, this unopposed motion to be relieved is GRANTED and effective upon filing a proof of service showing service of this Order on Plaintiff and all parties who have appeared.
Moving party to give notice.
Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SSCDEPT4B@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative.
Case Number: BC633788 Hearing Date: October 25, 2019 Dept: 4B
[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF’S DEPOSITION
Defendant David Jon Gutkin, M.D. (“Defendant”) seeks an order compelling plaintiff Wyndman Shelton (“Plaintiff”) to attend a deposition scheduled for November 11-12, 2019 and to produce the documents requested in her Notice of Deposition. Plaintiff’s deposition began on August 8, 2019 in Louisiana but was suspended after one and a half hours after Plaintiff developed a fever of 100.7 degrees. The parties then rescheduled Plaintiff’s deposition for September 24-25, 2019 to take place at Plaintiff’s bedside in Louisiana. However, the day before the deposition, Plaintiff’s attorney cancelled the deposition, stating Plaintiff was unwell. Plaintiff’s deposition is currently scheduled for November 11-12, 2019. Defendant seeks sanctions for Plaintiff’s failure to proceed with the September 24-25 deposition and last-minute cancellation after defense counsel had already made travel arrangements.
Any party may obtain discovery, subject to restrictions, by taking the oral deposition of any person, including any party to the action. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.010.) A properly served deposition notice is effective to require a party or party-affiliated deponent to attend and to testify, as well as to produce documents for inspection and copying. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.280, subd. (a).) “If, after service of a deposition notice, a party . . . without having served a valid objection . . . fails to appear for examination, or to proceed with it, or to produce for inspection any document . . . described in the deposition notice, the party giving notice may move for an order compelling deponent’s attendance and testimony, and the production . . . of any document . . . described in the deposition notice.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.450, subd. (a).)
Plaintiff contends she was unable to attend her September 24-25 deposition because she was unwell, but presents no evidence, such as statement from a doctor, about her inability to attend. Defendant has been trying to take Plaintiff’s deposition for more than a year. Defendant has taken reasonable steps to accommodate Plaintiff’s medical situation and has the right to take Plaintiff’s deposition in full. Thus, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s motion and orders Plaintiff to appear for her deposition on November 11-12, 2019.
Where a motion to compel a party’s appearance and testimony at deposition is granted, the court shall impose a monetary sanction in favor of the party who noticed the deposition and against the deponent, unless the court finds the one subject to sanctions acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.450, subd. (g)(1).) Plaintiff states she will appear at the November 11-12 deposition. At this point, the Court does not impose sanctions based on Plaintiff’s assurances.
Moving party to give notice.
Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SSCDEPT4B@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.