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.
Pending - Other Pending
Los Angeles County Superior Courts
Stanley Mosk Courthouse
Los Angeles, California
MICHELLE WILLIAMS COURT
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
ARENT FOX LLP
JEFFRY THOMAS E. JR.
ALBIN-RILEY DEBRA J.
HASKINS STEVEN A.
MAKIN JEFFREY R.
DOES 1-25 INCLUSIVE
BRYAN CAVE LLP
SHERMAN BRUCE ESQ
ABELES JERROLD ESQ.
AMBERG JOHN W.
ABELES JERROLD EVAN
3/8/2018: NOTICE OF ENTRY OF ORDER FILED MARCH 1,2018
4/10/2018: Minute Order
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
4/26/2018: DECLARATION OF THOMAS E. JEFFRY, JR. IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
4/26/2018: DEFENDANTS' SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
8/31/2018: DECLARATION OF JAMES K THEIRING IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
9/12/2018: Proof of Service
9/12/2018: SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF THOMAS E. JEFFRY, JR. IN SUPPORT OF REPLY SUPPORTING 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
9/18/2018: OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS' [PROPOSED] ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
1/17/2018: ORDER APPPOINTING COURT APPROVED REPORTER AS OFFICIAL REPORTER PRO TEMPORE
11/29/2017: ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDER SHORTENING TIME FOR HEARING ON MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER
12/4/2017: NOTICE OF ASSOCIATION OF COUNSEL
11/1/2017: CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER
10/17/2017: CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT "BY FAX"
10/18/2017: NOTICE RE: CONTINUANCE OF HEARING
10/24/2017: Proof of Service
at 08:30 AM in Department 74; Hearing on Ex Parte Application ( to Continue Trial and Trial-Related Dates) - Held - Motion GrantedRead MoreRead Less
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
Minute Order ( (Hearing on Ex Parte Application to Continue Trial and Trial-...)); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
Notice of Ruling; Filed by Arent Fox LLP (Defendant); Thomas E. Jeffry, Jr. (Defendant); Debra J. Albin-Riley (Defendant) et al.Read MoreRead Less
at 08:30 AM in Department 74; Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery ResponsesRead MoreRead Less
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
at 08:30 AM in Department 74; Ex-Parte Proceedings - Held - Motion GrantedRead MoreRead Less
Minute Order; Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
Declaration; Filed by Deanco Healthcare LLC (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
Stipulation and Order; Filed by Deanco Healthcare LLC (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
Notice and Acknowledgment of Receipt; Filed by Plaintiff/PetitionerRead MoreRead Less
Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by Plaintiff/PetitionerRead MoreRead Less
at 08:30 AM in Department 74; Unknown Event TypeRead MoreRead Less
NOTICE OF CASE REASSIGNMENT AND OF ORDER FOR PLAINTIFF TO GIVE NOTICERead MoreRead Less
Notice of Case Reassignment and Order for Plaintiff to Give Notice; Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
Notice of Case Management Conference; Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCERead MoreRead Less
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR LEGAL MALPRACTICERead MoreRead Less
SUMMONSRead MoreRead Less
Complaint; Filed by Deanco Healthcare LLC (Plaintiff); Deanco Healthcare Realty, LLC (Plaintiff); San Fernando Community Hospital (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
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.
Defendants are entitled to sanctions. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (c).) Sanctions of $2205.65 are awarded.
Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases