On 11/03/2017 DR CLAUDIA SHIELDS filed a Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury lawsuit against AURORA CHARTER OAK - LOS ANGELES LLC E. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are SAMANTHA P. JESSNER, RICHARD FRUIN and RICHARD L. FRUIN. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.
Pending - Other Pending
SAMANTHA P. JESSNER
RICHARD L. FRUIN
SHIELDS CLAUDIA DR.
SIGNATURE HEALTHCARE SERVICES LLC
DOES 1 THROUGH 25
AL-ASADI GHADA DR.
JACOB SAID DR.
AURORA CHARTER OAK
DR. OLIVER SOLOMON
SOLOMON DR. OLIVER
OAK AURORA CHARTER
AURORA CHARTER OAK - LOS ANGELES LLC
SOLOMON OLIVER DR.
CRUZ CESAR M.D. DOE 13
RODRIGUEZ STEVEN L. ESQ.
DR. SAID JACOB
RODRIGUEZ STEVEN L. ESQ.
POSTER SARA B.
POSTER SARA BROOKE
RODRIGUEZ STEVEN LEE ESQ.
POSTER SARA B.
WEISS DAVID J. ESQ.
LAW + BRANDMEYER LLP
VIRGIL CARMEN ESQ.
VIGIL CARMEN ESQ.
RODRIGUEZ STEVEN L. ESQ.
KISESKEY KELLY L.
LIU MICHAEL K. ESQ.
CASTANEDA MARGARET C.
WEISS DAVID JAY ESQ.
EVANS ELIZABETH A.
6/15/2018: OPPOSITION BY DEFENDANTS AURORA CHARTER OAK AND SIGNATURE HEALTHCARE SER VICES TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO MODIFY DEFENDANTS' RECORDS SUBPOENAS, AND REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS AGAINST PLAINTIFF AND PL
8/6/2018: Minute Order -
2/7/2018: DEFENDANTS CHADA AL-ASADI, M.D. AND SAID JACOB, M.D.'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO STRIKE PLAINTIFFS' FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
3/2/2018: DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
3/5/2018: NOTICE OF ACCEPTANCE OF DEFENDANTS' 170.6 CHALLENGE AGAINST JUDGE SAMANTHA P. JESSNER
3/6/2018: NOTICE RE: CONTINUANCE OF HEARING
3/6/2018: NOTICE RE: CONTINUANCE OF HEARING
2/16/2018: PEREMPTORY CHALLENGE TO JUDICIAL OFFICER
3/2/2018: DECLARATION OF CARMEN VIGIL RE ASSIGNMENT OF TRIAL ATTORNEY
6/4/2018: Complaint - (AMENDED)
6/12/2018: Answer - DEFENDANT OLIVER SOLOMON, D.O.'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
5/31/2019: Notice of Change of Firm Name
6/13/2019: Objection - OBJECTION PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTIONS TO THE DECLARATION OF DAVID J. PASTER, M.D., FILED BY DEFENDANT GHADA AL-ASADI, M.D. IN SUPPORT OF HER MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE,
6/13/2019: Opposition - OPPOSITION PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT GHADA AL-ASADI, M.D.'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, ALTERNATIVELY, FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION
6/13/2019: Objection - OBJECTION PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTION TO THE DECLARATION OF MARGARET C. CASTANEDA, ESQ., SUBMITTED BY DEFENDANT GHADA AL-ASADI, M.D., IN SUPPORT OF HER MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT/ADJUDICATION
6/13/2019: Response - RESPONSE PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT GHADA AL-ASADI, M.D.'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, ALTERNATIVELY, FOR SUMMARY ADJUD
6/13/2019: Declaration - DECLARATION APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT GHADA AL-ASADI, M.D.'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT/ADJUDICATION, DECLARATIONS DR. CLAUDIA SHIELDS, CARO
6/13/2019: Objection - OBJECTION PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTIONS TO THE DECLARATION OF EDWIN C. AMOS, M.D., FILED BY DEFENDANTS GHADA AL-ASADI, M.D. AND SAID JACOB, M.D. IN SUPPORT OF THEIR MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT,
Hearing07/06/2021 at 09:30 AM in Department 15 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Jury TrialRead MoreRead Less
Hearing06/25/2021 at 08:30 AM in Department 15 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Final Status ConferenceRead MoreRead Less
Hearing01/08/2021 at 09:15 AM in Department 15 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Hearing on Demurrer - without Motion to StrikeRead MoreRead Less
DocketReply (BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF HIS DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF?S SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT); Filed by Cesar Cruz, M.D. (DOE 13) (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
DocketObjection (PLAINTIFF?S OBJECTIONS TO DECLARATION OF TREVOR WONG, ESQ. IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT CESAR CRUZ, M.D.?S DEMURRER TO SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT; [PROPOSED] ORDER); Filed by Claudia Shields (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
DocketRequest for Judicial Notice; Filed by Claudia Shields (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
DocketOpposition (Plaintiff's Opposition to Demurrer of Defendant Cesar Cruz, M.D., to Second Amended Complaint); Filed by Claudia Shields (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
DocketDemurrer - without Motion to Strike (- Defendant Cesar Cruz, M.D.'s Demurrer to Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint); Filed by Cesar Cruz, M.D. (DOE 13) (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
DocketNotice and Acknowledgment of Receipt; Filed by Claudia Shields (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
Docketat 10:00 AM in Department 15, Richard L. Fruin, Presiding; Trial Setting Conference ((Post Covid-19)*) - HeldRead MoreRead Less
DocketSummons; Filed by Plaintiff/PetitionerRead MoreRead Less
DocketFIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR: 1. FALSE IMPRISONMENT; ETC.Read MoreRead Less
DocketNotice of Case Management Conference; Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
DocketNOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCERead MoreRead Less
DocketOSC-Failure to File Proof of Serv; Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
DocketORDER TO SHOW CAUSE HEARINGRead MoreRead Less
DocketSUMMONSRead MoreRead Less
DocketComplaint; Filed by Claudia Shields (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
DocketCOMPLAINT FOR: 1. FALSE IMPRISONMENT;Read MoreRead Less
DocketOrder Appointing Court Approved Reporter as Official Reporter Pro Tempore; Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
Case Number: BC682431 Hearing Date: August 11, 2021 Dept: 15
#\r\n15 TENTATIVE RULING 9:15 a.m., Wednesday, August 11,\r\n2021\r\n\r\n
DR.\r\nCLAUDIA SHIELDS v. AURORA CHARTER OAK, etc., et al. [BC682431]\r\n\r\n
RULING\r\nON MOTION OF DEFENDANT CESAR CRUZ, M.D., FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS\r\n\r\n
MEET\r\n& CONFER: DEFECTIVE – MP’s counsel’s decl. states only that he\r\n\r\n
spoke to one of Plaintiff’s attys\r\n[POSTER], that she said she’d speak to\r\nco-counsel and get back to him, and that she failed to do so.\r\n\r\n
BACKGROUND:\r\naction for false imprisonment, etc., as described previoulsy\r\n\r\n
June 4, 2018: Plaintiff filed her SAC asserting 10\r\ncauses of action [v. various\r\n\r\n
Defendants,\r\nincluding DOE 13]:\r\n\r\n
(7) Trespass\r\nto Chattels\r\n\r\n
(8) Invasion\r\nof Privacy\r\n (9) Violation of Welfare &\r\nInstitutions Code §15600\r\n\r\n
(10) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress\r\n\r\n
10/15/20: Plaintiff identified Dr. Cruz as DOE 13.\r\nAccording to moving defendant’s\r\ncounsel, Plaintiff’s counsel subsequently “confirmed via email that Plaintiff would dismiss\r\nclaims 3-8 against Dr. Cruz.”\r\n\r\n
Def\r\nCRUZ then demurred to the 9th cause of action for Elder Abuse,\r\n\r\n
and\r\nthat demurrer was sustained without leave to amend.\r\n\r\n
6/18/21: def Cruz’s Motion for Summary Judgment was\r\ndenied. In its ruling, the Court held\r\nthat Dr. Cruz did not address causes of action nos. 3-8 to the SAC, which were asserted against DOE\r\n13. The Court noted that despite\r\nPlaintiff’s counsel email which indicated their agreement to dismiss these claims, a formal request for\r\ndismissal was never filed and therefore\r\nthese claims against DOE 13 were still outstanding.\r\n\r\n
7/14/21: Moving defendant filed this motion, seeking\r\nJOP as to causes of\r\n\r\n
action\r\n3-8 of Plaintiff’s 2AC\r\n\r\n
RE\r\nEACH CAUSE OF ACTION ADDRESSED BY THE MOTION OF DEFENDANT CESAR CRUZ, M.D., FOR\r\nJUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS, THE COURT RULES AS FOLLOWS:\r\n\r\n
(3)\r\nFraud: GRANTED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND. Re the other\r\ndefendant doctors, the Court previously stated: “[The doctors] are not\r\nresponsible for the facility; they’re not responsible for locking her up.\r\nThey’re responsible for the medical judgment. [Plaintiff has] a cause of action\r\nagainst them alleging their medical judgment is below the standard of care.\r\nThat’s all that [Plaintiff is] allowed.” See Wong Decl. ¶11; Exhibit F p.\r\n54:14- 21. Here, Plaintiff fails to allege fraud with specificity as against\r\ndefendant CRUZ.\r\n\r\n
She\r\nargues that she can allege defendant CRUZ misrepresented to her that she could\r\nnot be released from her involuntary hold without Dr. AL-ASADI’s approval, and\r\nthat had she known of defendant’s CRUZ’ true role at the time, she could have\r\nspoken to him about getting released (or she could have gotten her friend\r\ninvolved) a day earlier. The argument is speculative, and doesn’t support her\r\nclaim. Instead, the Court agrees with moving Defendant’s\r\nargument to the effect that his alleged conduct occurred in connection with the\r\nprovision of medical services, and to the extent Plaintiff has a claim against\r\nhim, that claim is for professional negligence only.\r\n\r\n
(4)\r\nConcealment: GRANTED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND. See above re fraud. This claim\r\nfails for the same reasons. Plaintiff fails to allege facts demonstrating that\r\ndefendant CRUZ misrepresented a material fact to her, that he had a duty to\r\ndisclose such information, or that he intended to defraud her. Further, the\r\nCourt agrees with moving Defendant’s argument to the effect that his alleged\r\nconduct occurred in connection with the provision of medical services, and to\r\nthe extent Plaintiff has a claim against him, that claim is for professional\r\nnegligence only.\r\n\r\n
(5)\r\nNegligent Misrepresentation: GRANTED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND. See above re\r\nfraud. This claim fails for the same reasons. Plaintiff fails to allege facts\r\ndemonstrating that defendant CRUZ made a misrepresentation of material fact to\r\nher without reasonable grounds for believing it to be true; or that she\r\njustifiably relied on the representation to her detriment.\r\n\r\n
Further,\r\nthe Court agrees with moving Defendant’s argument to the effect that his\r\nalleged conduct occurred in connection with the provision of medical services,\r\nand to the extent Plaintiff has a claim against him, that claim is for\r\nprofessional negligence only.\r\n\r\n
(6)\r\nConversion: GRANTED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND. Plaintiff fails to allege facts\r\ndemonstrating that moving defendant had “an intention or purpose to convert the\r\ngoods and to exercise ownership over them, or to prevent [plaintiff] from\r\ntaking possession of [her] property.” See Collin v. American Empire Ins. Co.\r\n(1994) 21 CA4th 787, 812. Here, Plaintiff claims that her personal effects were\r\nconfiscated by the staff at defendant AURORA. There is no allegation that\r\ndefendant CRUZ took anything from her, or that he intended to do so. Nor could\r\nthere be, under the facts alleged. Further, the Court agrees with moving\r\nDefendant’s argument to the effect that his alleged conduct occurred in\r\nconnection with the provision of medical services, and to the extent Plaintiff\r\nhas a claim against him, that claim is for professional negligence only.\r\n\r\n
(7) Trespass to Chattels: GRANTED WITHOUT\r\nLEAVE TO AMEND. See above re conversion; the same reasoning applies here.\r\n\r\n
(8) Invasion of Privacy: GRANTED WITHOUT LEAVE\r\nTO AMEND. The only factual allegation re an invasion of privacy is found in\r\npara. 99 of Plaintiff’s 2AC, where she asserts:\r\n\r\n
99. By conducting the above -described\r\nstrip search of Dr. Shields, Aurora,\r\nSignature, and DOES 1 through 25 interfered with Dr. Shields' reasonable expectation of privacy by means of\r\nthreats, intimidation, and/or\r\ncoercion.\r\n\r\n
In the\r\nmoving papers, defendant CRUZ points out that Plaintiff doesn’t allege that he\r\nwas involved in the purported strip-search “or any other acts that would\r\nconstitute an invasion of her privacy.” In opposition, Plaintiff makes no\r\nargument to the contrary. Instead, Plaintiff apparently attempts to argue that\r\ndefendant CRUZ engaged in false light publicity by certifying Plaintiff as\r\n“gravely disabled,” thereby creating a “false impression about her.” Not only\r\ndoes this nonsensical assertion not appear in the 2AC, but even if that were\r\notherwise, it wouldn’t support an invasion of privacy claim.\r\n\r\n
Re\r\nPlaintiff’s argument to the effect that the Court “must” allow leave to amend:\r\nThe Court disagrees. See, e.g., CCP 430.41(e)(1), which states: “In response to\r\na demurrer and prior to the case being at issue, a complaint… shall not be\r\namended more than three times, absent an offer to the trial court as to such\r\nadditional facts to be pleaded that there is a reasonable possibility that the\r\ndefect can be cured to state a cause of action….” While the matter before the\r\nCourt is a motion for judgment on the pleadings, the result is the same. There\r\nis a 3-complaint limit, and Plaintiff has reached it.\r\n\r\n
Her\r\nassertion re certifying her as “gravely disabled” doesn’t show a reasonable\r\npossibility that the defect can be cured. Even if her right of privacy were\r\nsomehow implicated by such conduct, or if the Court were willing to allow her\r\nto assert a false light claim, the characterization of her condition on a\r\nmedical chart would be immunized as a communication made to “interested\r\npersons” under Civil Code 47.\r\n\r\n
MP is\r\nto serve notice of ruling. This TR shall\r\nbe the order of the Court, unless changed at the hearing, and shall by this\r\nreference be incorporated into the Minute Order. TR E-MAILED TO COUNSEL AT 8:30\r\na.m. on 8/11/21."
Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases