This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 10/15/2020 at 01:16:22 (UTC).

ERICKA ORTIZ ET AL VS ELMCREST CARE CENTER ET AL

Case Summary

On 04/27/2018 ERICKA ORTIZ filed a Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury lawsuit against ELMCREST CARE CENTER. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Pomona Courthouse South located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are GEORGINA T. RIZK and PETER A. HERNANDEZ. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****2695

  • Filing Date:

    04/27/2018

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Pomona Courthouse South

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

GEORGINA T. RIZK

PETER A. HERNANDEZ

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs, Petitioners and Appellants

ORTIZ DELORES

ORTIZ ERICA INDIVIDUAL AND ADMINISTRATO

ORTIZ JESSE

ORTIZ ARACELY

ORTIZ GARIELA

ORTIZ ERICA INDIVIDUAL AND ADMINISTRATOR

Defendants and Respondents

RIVAS DIANA

BALANO SHARON

LUNA DAVID

CRISTALES JUANITA

DOES 1-50 INCLUSIVE

ELMCREST CARE CENTER

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

LAW OFFICE OF JOSEPH M. KAR PC

LARIAN LAW FIRM

LEGALCLEAR

FIRM LARIAN LAW

HANAIE JIMMY

LARIAN ALEXANDER M.

KAR JOSEPH MICHAEL

Defendant and Respondent Attorneys

CROSS LISA A.

CROSS LISA ANNE

 

Court Documents

Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order

5/12/2020: Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order

Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Default

1/10/2020: Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Default

Reply - REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO RECONSIDER OR FOR RELIEF ALTERNATIVELY ETC

1/29/2020: Reply - REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO RECONSIDER OR FOR RELIEF ALTERNATIVELY ETC

Notice of Lodging - NOTICE OF LODGING OF LODGING HEARING TRANSCRIPT OF 2/4/2019

2/4/2020: Notice of Lodging - NOTICE OF LODGING OF LODGING HEARING TRANSCRIPT OF 2/4/2019

Appeal - Remittitur - Appeal Dismissed - APPEAL - REMITTITUR - APPEAL DISMISSED B297295

8/29/2019: Appeal - Remittitur - Appeal Dismissed - APPEAL - REMITTITUR - APPEAL DISMISSED B297295

Appeal - Notice of Default Issued - NOTICE OF DEFAULT

5/16/2019: Appeal - Notice of Default Issued - NOTICE OF DEFAULT

Opposition - Opposition Opposition to Joinder to Motion to Compel Arbitration; Memorandum of Points and Authorities

1/22/2019: Opposition - Opposition Opposition to Joinder to Motion to Compel Arbitration; Memorandum of Points and Authorities

PROOF OF SERVICE ON FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

9/7/2018: PROOF OF SERVICE ON FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

REPLY OF DEFENDANT ELMCREST CARE CENTER TO PLAINTIFFS OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT?S MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF SAMER ARAFAT

9/24/2018: REPLY OF DEFENDANT ELMCREST CARE CENTER TO PLAINTIFFS OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT?S MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF SAMER ARAFAT

Notice of Case Reassignment and Order for Plaintiff to Give Notice -

10/17/2018: Notice of Case Reassignment and Order for Plaintiff to Give Notice -

Notice of Status Conference and Order

10/22/2018: Notice of Status Conference and Order

Legacy Document -

10/1/2018: Legacy Document -

Notice - Re: Reassignment

10/9/2018: Notice - Re: Reassignment

SUMMONS ON FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

9/13/2018: SUMMONS ON FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION, ETC

9/17/2018: OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION, ETC

NOTICE OF ERRATA

9/18/2018: NOTICE OF ERRATA

ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR:1) ELDER ABUSE AND NEGLECT (WELFARE & INSTITUTIONS CODE SEC. 15600 ET SEQ.); ETC

4/17/2018: ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR:1) ELDER ABUSE AND NEGLECT (WELFARE & INSTITUTIONS CODE SEC. 15600 ET SEQ.); ETC

SUMMONS -

4/20/2018: SUMMONS -

29 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 12/01/2021
  • Hearing12/01/2021 at 08:30 AM in Department O at 400 Civic Center Plaza, Pomona, CA 91766; Status Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/13/2020
  • Docketat 09:30 AM in Department O, Peter A. Hernandez, Presiding; Status Conference (ReArbitration) - Held - Continued

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/13/2020
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Status Conference Re: Arbitration)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/05/2020
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department O, Peter A. Hernandez, Presiding; Status Conference (ReArbitration) - Not Held - Continued - Court's Motion

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/12/2020
  • DocketNotice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/06/2020
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department O, Peter A. Hernandez, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Default (CCP 473.5) - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/06/2020
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Hearing on Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Order Compelling Arbitr...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/06/2020
  • DocketOrder (on the Court's Tentative Ruling); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/06/2020
  • DocketOrder Appointing Court Approved Reporter as Official Reporter Pro Tempore; Filed by Ortiz, Erica, Individual and administrator (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/04/2020
  • DocketNotice of Lodging (of lodging hearing transcript of 2/4/2019); Filed by Ortiz, Erica, Individual and administrator (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
43 More Docket Entries
  • 09/13/2018
  • DocketSUMMONS ON FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/07/2018
  • DocketFirst Amended Complaint; Filed by Ortiz, Erica, Individual and administrator (Plaintiff); Delores Ortiz (Plaintiff); Gariela Ortiz (Plaintiff) et al.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/07/2018
  • DocketProof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by Ortiz, Erica, Individual and administrator (Plaintiff); Delores Ortiz (Plaintiff); Gariela Ortiz (Plaintiff) et al.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/07/2018
  • DocketFIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/07/2018
  • DocketPROOF OF SERVICE ON FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/24/2018
  • DocketMotion to Compel; Filed by Elmcrest Care Center (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/24/2018
  • DocketNOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION OF DEFENDANT ELMCREST CARE CENTER FOR AN ORDER COMPELLING PLAINTIFFS TO ARBITRATE THE CONTROVERSY AND STAYING THE SUPERIOR COURT ACTION; ETC

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/27/2018
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Ortiz, Erica, Individual and administrator (Plaintiff); Delores Ortiz (Plaintiff); Gariela Ortiz (Plaintiff) et al.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/20/2018
  • DocketSUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/17/2018
  • DocketORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR:1) ELDER ABUSE AND NEGLECT (WELFARE & INSTITUTIONS CODE SEC. 15600 ET SEQ.); ETC

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC702695    Hearing Date: February 06, 2020    Dept: O

Plaintiffs Ericka Ortiz, Dolores Ortiz, Gabriela Ortiz, Jesse Ortiz, and Aracely Ortiz’s motion for reconsideration is DENIED.

Plaintiffs Ericka Ortiz, Dolores Ortiz, Gabriela Ortiz, Jesse Ortiz, and Aracely Ortiz (“Plaintiffs”) move for reconsideration of the court’s ruling on February 8, 2019 compelling arbitration as to plaintiff Ericka Ortiz, the personal representative and administrator for the Estate of Jose de Jesus Ortiz, and staying all proceedings as to the remaining non-signatory plaintiffs pending arbitration.

“A court may reconsider its order granting or denying a motion and may even reconsider or alter its judgment so long as judgment has not yet been entered. Once judgment has been entered, however, the court may not reconsider it and loses its unrestricted power to change the judgment.” (Passavanti v. Williams (1990) 225 Cal.App.3d 1602, 1606.)

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. (CCP § 1008.) The legislative intent was to restrict these motions to circumstances where a party offers the court some fact or circumstance not previously considered, and some valid reason for not offering it early. (Gilberd v. AC Transit (1995) 32 Cal.App.4th 1494, 1500.) The burden is comparable to that of a party seeking a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence, i.e. the information must be such that the Moving party could not with reasonable diligence have discovered or produced it at trial. (New York Times Co. v. Superior Court (Wall Street Network, Ltd.) (2005) 135 Cal.App.4th 206, 212-213.)

As a preliminary procedural matter, the motion should have been made within 10 days after service upon the party of notice of entry of the order. (CCP § 1008, subd. (a).) The Court had entered its order on February 8, 2019. Thus, this motion--filed almost a whole year later on January 10, 2020--is untimely.

Furthermore, Plaintiffs have not raised any new facts that could not with reasonable diligence have been raised at the previous hearing.Plaintiffs argue that Jose de Jesus Ortiz’s estate cannot afford to pay for the arbitration. Plaintiffs had the opportunity to raise this issue at the original hearing on this issue and do not explain why they failed to raise this argument at the previous hearing. Further, the Court notes that Plaintiffs excluded the issue of substantive unconscionability the first time it brought the issue to the Court’s attention and, yet, the Court found the pay provision “fair and reasonable.” (February 8, 2019 Order at 6:6-17.) Plaintiffs now assert as part of this motion that the decedent, Jose de Jesus Ortiz, was on government disability and insurance at the time he was admitted to Defendants’ facility. (Ortiz Decl., ¶ 7.) Thus, the Court is hard-pressed to find that this is a new fact or circumstance to Plaintiffs.

Accordingly, motion is DENIED.