This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 06/06/2019 at 10:43:03 (UTC).

DEANCO HEALTHCARE LLC ET AL VS ARENT FOX LLP ET AL

Case Summary

On 06/06/2017 DEANCO HEALTHCARE LLC filed a Labor - Wrongful Termination lawsuit against ARENT FOX LLP. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is MICHELLE WILLIAMS COURT. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****4381

  • Filing Date:

    06/06/2017

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Labor - Wrongful Termination

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

MICHELLE WILLIAMS COURT

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs, Petitioners and Cross Defendants

MISSION COMMUNITY HOSPITAL

SAN FERNANDO COMMUNITY HOSPITAL

DEANCO HEALTHCARE LLC

DEANCO HEALTHCARE REALTY LLC

DEANCO HEALTHCARE LLC DBA MISSION COMMUNITY HOSPITAL FKA SAN FERNANDO COMMUNITY HOSPITAL A CALIFORNIA NON-PROFIT PUBLIC BENEFIT CORPORATION

DEANCO HEALTHCARE REALTY LLC FKA SAN FERNANDO COMMUNITY HOSPITAL

DEANCO HEALTHCARE REALTY. LLC

Defendants, Respondents and Cross Plaintiffs

ARENT FOX LLP

JEFFRY THOMAS E. JR.

ALBIN-RILEY DEBRA J.

HASKINS STEVEN A.

MAKIN JEFFREY R.

DOES 1-25 INCLUSIVE

Other

BRYAN CAVE LLP

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorney

SHERMAN BRUCE ESQ

Defendant Attorneys

ABELES JERROLD ESQ.

AMBERG JOHN W.

ABELES JERROLD EVAN

 

Court Documents

NOTICE OF ENTRY OF ORDER FILED MARCH 1,2018

3/8/2018: NOTICE OF ENTRY OF ORDER FILED MARCH 1,2018

Minute Order

4/10/2018: Minute Order

DEFENDANTS' OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR STAY OF PROTECTIVE ORDER PENDING REVIEW BY THE COURT OF APPEAL; SUPPORTING DECLARATION OF TIMOTHY L. HAVES

4/23/2018: DEFENDANTS' OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR STAY OF PROTECTIVE ORDER PENDING REVIEW BY THE COURT OF APPEAL; SUPPORTING DECLARATION OF TIMOTHY L. HAVES

DECLARATION OF THOMAS E. JEFFRY, JR. IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

4/26/2018: DECLARATION OF THOMAS E. JEFFRY, JR. IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

DEFENDANTS' SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

4/26/2018: DEFENDANTS' SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

DECLARATION OF JAMES K THEIRING IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

8/31/2018: DECLARATION OF JAMES K THEIRING IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Proof of Service

9/12/2018: Proof of Service

SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF THOMAS E. JEFFRY, JR. IN SUPPORT OF REPLY SUPPORTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

9/12/2018: SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF THOMAS E. JEFFRY, JR. IN SUPPORT OF REPLY SUPPORTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

DEFENDANTS' EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO DECLARATIONS OF CRAIG B. GARNER, DAVID HERMAN AND JAMES K. THEIRING SUBMITTED IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

9/12/2018: DEFENDANTS' EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO DECLARATIONS OF CRAIG B. GARNER, DAVID HERMAN AND JAMES K. THEIRING SUBMITTED IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS' [PROPOSED] ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

9/18/2018: OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS' [PROPOSED] ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Notice

10/5/2018: Notice

ORDER APPPOINTING COURT APPROVED REPORTER AS OFFICIAL REPORTER PRO TEMPORE

1/17/2018: ORDER APPPOINTING COURT APPROVED REPORTER AS OFFICIAL REPORTER PRO TEMPORE

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDER SHORTENING TIME FOR HEARING ON MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER

11/29/2017: ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDER SHORTENING TIME FOR HEARING ON MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER

NOTICE OF ASSOCIATION OF COUNSEL

12/4/2017: NOTICE OF ASSOCIATION OF COUNSEL

CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER

11/1/2017: CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER

CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT "BY FAX"

10/17/2017: CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT "BY FAX"

NOTICE RE: CONTINUANCE OF HEARING

10/18/2017: NOTICE RE: CONTINUANCE OF HEARING

Proof of Service

10/24/2017: Proof of Service

89 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 04/15/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 74; Hearing on Ex Parte Application ( to Continue Trial and Trial-Related Dates) - Held - Motion Granted

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/15/2019
  • Ex Parte Application (Joint Ex Parte Stipulation and Application to Continue Trial and Trial-Related Dates); Filed by Arent Fox LLP (Defendant); Thomas E. Jeffry, Jr. (Defendant); Debra J. Albin-Riley (Defendant) et al.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/15/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Hearing on Ex Parte Application to Continue Trial and Trial-...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/15/2019
  • Notice of Ruling; Filed by Arent Fox LLP (Defendant); Thomas E. Jeffry, Jr. (Defendant); Debra J. Albin-Riley (Defendant) et al.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/27/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 74; Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/05/2018
  • Notice (of Entry of Order to Continue Final Status Conference , Trial Date, and Have All Pretrial Deadlines be calculated from the new continued trial date); Filed by Deanco Healthcare LLC (Plaintiff); Deanco Healthcare Realty, LLC (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/03/2018
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 74; Ex-Parte Proceedings - Held - Motion Granted

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/03/2018
  • Minute Order; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/03/2018
  • Declaration; Filed by Deanco Healthcare LLC (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/03/2018
  • Stipulation and Order; Filed by Deanco Healthcare LLC (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
232 More Docket Entries
  • 09/05/2017
  • Notice and Acknowledgment of Receipt; Filed by Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/05/2017
  • Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/17/2017
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 74; Unknown Event Type

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/11/2017
  • NOTICE OF CASE REASSIGNMENT AND OF ORDER FOR PLAINTIFF TO GIVE NOTICE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/11/2017
  • Notice of Case Reassignment and Order for Plaintiff to Give Notice; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/29/2017
  • Notice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/29/2017
  • NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/08/2017
  • COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR LEGAL MALPRACTICE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/08/2017
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/06/2017
  • Complaint; Filed by Deanco Healthcare LLC (Plaintiff); Deanco Healthcare Realty, LLC (Plaintiff); San Fernando Community Hospital (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC664381    Hearing Date: February 14, 2020    Dept: 74

BC664381 DEANCO HEALTHCARE LLC ET AL VS ARENT FOX LLP

Defendant’s Motion for Summary Adjudication

TENTATIVE RULING: The motion is denied as summary adjudication of the alleged acts of malpractice individually is inappropriate in this case.

“[W]here separate causes of action are commingled into one, court[s] may grant summary adjudication of the individual claims.” (Dominguez v. Washington Mutual Bank (2008) 168 Cal. App. 4th 714, 727; citing Lilienthal & Fowler v. Sup. Ct. (1993) 12 Cal.App.4th 1848, 1854–1855.)

Defendants rely on Lilienthal in this motion, arguing that each act of malpractice is separate and distinct, and should be adjudicated individually.

The court disagrees. Unlike Lilienthal, the acts alleged here did not arise in separate representations of the same client. This case is similar to Crouse v. Brobeck (1998) 67 Cal. App. 4th 1509. That case factually distinguished Lillianthal as involving malpractice claims arising from different services and unrelated transactions, and applied the rule that different acts of negligence contributing to a single injury do not create separate causes of action. (Id. at p. 1526 n.2.) Here, as in Crouse, the acts were all part of a single representation in a single dispute, and the harm alleged is a single injury; that SFCH and plaintiffs were not determined to be the prevailing party and Darbun was awarded it attorney fees and costs.

The motion is denied as the court finds summary adjudication of the individual acts alleged improper.

Case Number: BC664381    Hearing Date: November 18, 2019    Dept: 74

BC664381 DEANCO HEALTHCARE LLC ET AL VS ARENT FOX LLP ET AL

Defendants’ Motion to Compel Further Responses to Discovery and for Sanctions

TENTATIVE RULING: The motion is granted in part. Plaintiffs are ordered to provide further responses, without objections, to request for admissions number 26, 27, 28, 37, 38, 39, 40, 43, 76, 77, 79 and 80 within 15 days. The remainder of the motion is taken off calendar. Sanctions of $2205.65 are awarded against plaintiffs, jointly and severally, payable within 30 days.

Defendants have filed this motion to compel covering nine separate sets of discovery requests. Each set of discovery requests requires its own motion to compel further responses unless the requests and responses at issue are identical. It appears that the first two sets, requests for admissions set 3, have identical requests and responses from Deanco Healthcare and Deanco Realty. The court will consider those requests. The remainder of the motion is taken off calendar. Defendants can recalendar them as individual motions for each set of discovery requests.

Request numbers 26, 27 and 28 are for admissions that plaintiffs did not use their own funds to pay legal fees in the Darbun litigation, but funds from San Fernando Community Hospital. Issues in this action include whether defendants were representing plaintiffs as well as the hospital. The request is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. It is no vague as to time, as there is a specific time during which plaintiffs had any involvement or paid any legal fees. It is not burdensome or oppressive. Further response is ordered.

Request numbers 37, 38, 39, 40 and 43 seek admissions of the good quality of specific actions taken in the Darbun litigation. The standard of defendants’ services in the Darbun action is relevant, even if the subject of the request is not an action for which malpractice is claimed. The requests are not vague, ambiguous or compound. Further response is ordered.

Request numbers 76, 77, 79 and 80 seek admission as to the malpractice claim, its accrual and standing to pursue the claim. The set of requests was properly accompanied by the declaration of the necessity for exceeding the statutory number of requests. Timeliness and standing are issues relevant to the malpractice action. Further response is ordered.

Sanctions

Defendants are entitled to sanctions. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (c).) Sanctions of $2205.65 are awarded.