This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 05/28/2019 at 17:22:22 (UTC).

WYNDMANN SHELTON VS QUEEN OF THE VALLEY HOSPITAL ET AL

Case Summary

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.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****3788

  • Filing Date:

    09/12/2016

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Medical Malpractice

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

LAURA A. SEIGLE

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs and Petitioners

SHELTON WYNDMANN

SHELTON WYNDY

Defendants and Respondents

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.

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorney

LAW OFFICES OF BRUCE M. BUNCH A.P.C.

Defendant Attorneys

LEIBL LOREN S. ESQ.

LYNCH GREGORY G. ESQ.

 

Court Documents

ORDER AND STIPULATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL FSC AND RELATED MOTION/DISCOVERY DATES PERSONAL INJURY COURTS ONLY (CENTRAL DISTRICT)

2/9/2018: ORDER AND STIPULATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL FSC AND RELATED MOTION/DISCOVERY DATES PERSONAL INJURY COURTS ONLY (CENTRAL DISTRICT)

Opposition

5/9/2018: Opposition

REPLY IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR AN ORDER COMPELLING PLAINTIFF TO FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO SECURE AN AWARD OF FEES AND COSTS

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

Minute Order

6/13/2018: Minute Order

Minute Order

6/14/2018: Minute Order

ORDER RE: MOTION FOR ORDER REQUIRING PIAINTTFF TO FILE AN UNDERTAKING; ETC

6/14/2018: ORDER RE: MOTION FOR ORDER REQUIRING PIAINTTFF TO FILE AN UNDERTAKING; ETC

Answer

8/24/2018: Answer

Request for Dismissal

9/13/2018: Request for Dismissal

Ex Parte Application

1/25/2019: Ex Parte Application

Notice

1/25/2019: Notice

Motion to Continue Trial Date

5/10/2019: Motion to Continue Trial Date

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR 4EDICAL NEGLIGENCE

9/12/2016: COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR 4EDICAL NEGLIGENCE

SUMMONS

9/12/2016: SUMMONS

Unknown

9/12/2016: Unknown

PROOF OF SERVICE BY MAIL

6/19/2017: PROOF OF SERVICE BY MAIL

PROOF OF SERVICE BY MAIL

6/22/2017: PROOF OF SERVICE BY MAIL

DEFENDANT CITRUS VALLEY HEALTH PARTNERS, INC.'S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

7/26/2017: DEFENDANT CITRUS VALLEY HEALTH PARTNERS, INC.'S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

7/26/2017: DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

13 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 05/10/2019
  • Motion to Continue Trial Date; Filed by David Jon D.O. Gutkin (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/28/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 4B, Laura A. Seigle, Presiding; Jury Trial - Not Held - Continued - Party's Motion

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/20/2019
  • at 10:00 AM in Department 4B, Laura A. Seigle, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Continued - Party's Motion

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/25/2019
  • 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

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/25/2019
  • Ex Parte Application (to continue trial and final status conference and all discovery and motion cutoffs); Filed by David Jon D.O. Gutkin (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/25/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Hearing on Ex Parte Application to continue trial and final s...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/25/2019
  • Notice (OF CONTINUATION OF TRIAL DATE, FINAL STATUS CONFERENCE DATE AND DISCOVERY CUT OFF DATES); Filed by David Jon D.O. Gutkin (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/18/2018
  • Notice of Entry of Dismissal and Proof of Service; Filed by CITRUS VALLEY HEALTH PARTNERS, INC. (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/18/2018
  • NOTICE OF ENTRY OF DISMISSAL AND PROOF OF SERVICE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/13/2018
  • Request for Dismissal; Filed by Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
36 More Docket Entries
  • 06/22/2017
  • Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by Wyndmann Shelton (Plaintiff); Wyndy Shelton (Legacy Party)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/22/2017
  • PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/19/2017
  • PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/19/2017
  • Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by Wyndmann Shelton (Plaintiff); Wyndy Shelton (Legacy Party)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/19/2017
  • Proof of Service by Mail; Filed by Wyndmann Shelton (Plaintiff); Wyndy Shelton (Legacy Party)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/19/2017
  • PROOF OF SERVICE BY MAIL

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/12/2016
  • Complaint; Filed by Wyndmann Shelton (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/12/2016
  • ORDER ON COURT FEE WAIVER

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/12/2016
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/12/2016
  • COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR 4EDICAL NEGLIGENCE

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC633788    Hearing Date: March 22, 2021    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

WYNDMANN SHELTON aka WYNDY SHELTON,

Plaintiff(s),

vs.

QUEEN OF THE VALLEY HOSPITAL, et al.,

Defendant(s).

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

BC633788

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

Dept. 27

1:30 p.m.

March 22, 2021

Introduction

This medical malpractice action was filed on September 12, 2016 by Plaintiff Wyndmann Shelton aka Wyndy Shelton against Defendants David Jon Gutkin, D.O. (erroneously sued as “David Jon Gutkin, M.D.”)(“Dr. Gutkin”), Citrus Valley Health Partners (erroneously sued as Queen of the Valley Hospital”), Emcare West Division, and Emcare Surgical Services Division. 

Citrus Valley Health Partners was dismissed on September 18, 2018.  Dr. Gutkin’s motion for terminating sanctions was granted on December 23, 2019 and he was dismissed from the action, leaving Emcare West Division and Emcare Surgical Services Division as the remaining defendants.  

On April 6, 2020, the Court set an order to show cause re: dismissal for failure to file proof of service of summons as to the remaining defendants.  On August 11, 2020, after Plaintiff stated that they had not been served, the Court dismissed the complaint without prejudice. 

Plaintiff requests the Court reconsider the August 11, 2020 dismissal under Code of Civil Procedure section 1008. Plaintiff contends that the OSC should have been discharged because a proof of service filed on June 19, 2017 shows that EmCare West Division was served.  

Reconsideration¿under CCP § 1008¿

“When an application for an order has been made to a judge, or to a court, and refused in whole or in part, or granted, or granted conditionally, or on terms, any party affected by the order may, within 10 days after service upon the party of written notice of entry of the order and based upon new or different facts, circumstances, or law, make application to the same judge or court that made the order, to reconsider the matter and modify, amend, or revoke the prior order.¿ The party making the application shall state by affidavit what application was made before, when and¿to what judge, what order or decisions were made, and what new or different facts, circumstances, or law are claimed¿to be shown.”¿ (Code¿Civ. Proc., § 1008,¿subd. (a).)¿¿

In addition, a party must provide a satisfactory explanation for failing to offer the¿new or different facts¿in the first place.¿ (New York Times Co. v. Superior Court¿(2005) 135 Cal.App.4th 206, 213.)¿ The “satisfactory explanation” requirement has been satisfied where parties were previously prevented from presenting the “new or different facts” due to no fault of their own.¿ (See¿In re Marriage of¿Okum¿(1987) 195 Cal.App.3d 176, 184 [party was prohibited by the court from soliciting corroborating testimony when ruling on the original order]; see also¿Glade v.¿Glade¿(1995) 38¿Cal.App.4th 1441, 1457 [party was prohibited from addressing the court after arriving to the hearing five minutes late due to construction concealing the court].)¿¿¿

Plaintiff’s Motion fails to satisfy the requirements of section 1008.  First, the Motion was not made within 10 days after service upon the party of written notice of entry of order.  The order was served by mail on Plaintiff on August 11, 2020 by the clerk.  However, the Motion was not filed until August 31, 2020, which is more than ten days after the order was served. 

Second, Plaintiff does not identify any “new” or “different” facts.  Plaintiff contends a proof of service filed on June 19, 2017 should have discharged the OSCHowever, the existence of the proof of service is not a new or different fact; it had already been brought to the Court’s attention at the hearing(Mosely Decl., ¶ 3.)  

Third, because the proof of service had already been presented to the Court, Plaintiff logically cannot provide a satisfactory explanation for why it was not offered earlier. 

Plaintiff’s Motion is DENIED. 

Moving party to give notice.

22nd day of March 2021

Hon. Edward B. Moreton, Jr.

Judge of the Superior Court

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.

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where CITRUS VALLEY HEALTH PARTNERS is a litigant

Latest cases where EMANATE HEALTH MEDICAL CENTER is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer LEIBL LOREN SIDNEY

Latest cases represented by Lawyer LYNCH GREGORY G.