This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 08/27/2020 at 07:18:56 (UTC).

GAYANE BURSALIAN VS GLENDALE ADVENTIST MEDICAL CENTER

Case Summary

On 06/08/2018 GAYANE BURSALIAN filed a Personal Injury - Uninsured Motor Vehicle lawsuit against GLENDALE ADVENTIST MEDICAL CENTER. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are GEORGINA T. RIZK, KRISTIN S. ESCALANTE and MARK A. BORENSTEIN. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****9337

  • Filing Date:

    06/08/2018

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Uninsured Motor Vehicle

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

GEORGINA T. RIZK

KRISTIN S. ESCALANTE

MARK A. BORENSTEIN

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner

BURSALIAN GAYANE

Defendants and Respondents

GLENDALE ADVENTIST MEDICAL CENTER

DOES 1 TO 20

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

BUTLAND FREEMAN M.

BUTLAND FREEMAN MATTHEW ESQ.

Defendant Attorney

LAUFENBERG JEFFREY J. ESQ.

 

Court Documents

Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (COURT ORDER RE: 1. SETTING OF HEARING DATE ON PLAINTIFF'S...) OF 08/11/2020

8/11/2020: Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (COURT ORDER RE: 1. SETTING OF HEARING DATE ON PLAINTIFF'S...) OF 08/11/2020

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER RE: 1. SETTING OF HEARING DATE ON PLAINTIFF'S...)

8/11/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER RE: 1. SETTING OF HEARING DATE ON PLAINTIFF'S...)

Notice of Intent to Move for New Trial

7/10/2020: Notice of Intent to Move for New Trial

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (RULING ON SUBMITTED MATTER RE: DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMAR...)

7/1/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (RULING ON SUBMITTED MATTER RE: DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMAR...)

Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (COURT ORDER RE: CHANGING OF TIME FOR THE 06/26/2020 HEARING ...) OF 06/09/2020

6/9/2020: Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (COURT ORDER RE: CHANGING OF TIME FOR THE 06/26/2020 HEARING ...) OF 06/09/2020

Notice - NOTICE OF RESCHEDULING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

6/9/2020: Notice - NOTICE OF RESCHEDULING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER RE: CHANGING OF TIME FOR THE 06/26/2020 HEARING ...)

6/9/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER RE: CHANGING OF TIME FOR THE 06/26/2020 HEARING ...)

Separate Statement

4/6/2020: Separate Statement

Motion for Summary Judgment

4/6/2020: Motion for Summary Judgment

[Proposed Order] and Stipulation to Continue Trial, FSC (and Related Motion/Discovery Dates) Person - [PROPOSED ORDER] AND STIPULATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL, FSC (AND RELATED MOTION/DISCOVERY DATES) PERSO

1/30/2020: [Proposed Order] and Stipulation to Continue Trial, FSC (and Related Motion/Discovery Dates) Person - [PROPOSED ORDER] AND STIPULATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL, FSC (AND RELATED MOTION/DISCOVERY DATES) PERSO

Stipulation and Order - STIPULATION AND ORDER STIPULATION AND ORDER

11/19/2019: Stipulation and Order - STIPULATION AND ORDER STIPULATION AND ORDER

Answer - ANSWER TO UNVERIFED COMPLAINT

3/27/2019: Answer - ANSWER TO UNVERIFED COMPLAINT

Notice of Deposit - Jury

3/27/2019: Notice of Deposit - Jury

Demand for Jury Trial

3/27/2019: Demand for Jury Trial

Motion to Continue Trial Date

4/15/2019: Motion to Continue Trial Date

Notice of Ruling

5/17/2019: Notice of Ruling

SUMMONS -

6/8/2018: SUMMONS -

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1. PREMISES/NEGLIGENCE, ETC

6/8/2018: COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1. PREMISES/NEGLIGENCE, ETC

16 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 06/08/2021
  • Hearing06/08/2021 at 08:30 AM in Department 29 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/08/2020
  • Hearing09/08/2020 at 13:30 PM in Department 29 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Trial Setting Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/08/2020
  • Hearing09/08/2020 at 13:30 PM in Department 29 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Hearing on Motion for New Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/11/2020
  • Docketat 3:39 PM in Department 29, Kristin S. Escalante, Presiding; Court Order

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/11/2020
  • DocketCertificate of Mailing for ((Court Order Re: 1. Setting of Hearing Date on Plaintiff's...) of 08/11/2020); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/11/2020
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Court Order Re: 1. Setting of Hearing Date on Plaintiff's...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/13/2020
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 29, Kristin S. Escalante, Presiding; Jury Trial - Not Held - Continued - Stipulation

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/10/2020
  • DocketNotice of Intent to Move for New Trial ((pursuant to Motion for Summary Judgment Granted on 07/01/2020)); Filed by Gayane Bursalian (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/06/2020
  • DocketMemorandum of Costs (Summary); Filed by Glendale Adventist Medical Center (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/02/2020
  • Docketat 10:00 AM in Department 29, Kristin S. Escalante, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Continued - Stipulation

    Read MoreRead Less
23 More Docket Entries
  • 05/17/2019
  • DocketNotice of Ruling; Filed by Glendale Adventist Medical Center (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/16/2019
  • Docketat 1:30 PM in Department 2, Mark A. Borenstein, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Continue Trial - Held - Motion Granted

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/16/2019
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Hearing on Defendant's Motion to Continue Trial;)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/15/2019
  • DocketNotice of Motion and Motion to Continue Trial; Filed by Glendale Adventist Medical Center (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/27/2019
  • DocketDemand for Jury Trial; Filed by Glendale Adventist Medical Center (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/27/2019
  • DocketNotice of Deposit - Jury; Filed by Glendale Adventist Medical Center (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/27/2019
  • DocketAnswer (to Unverifed Complaint); Filed by Glendale Adventist Medical Center (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/08/2018
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Gayane Bursalian (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/08/2018
  • DocketSUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/08/2018
  • DocketCOMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1. PREMISES/NEGLIGENCE, ETC

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC709337    Hearing Date: June 26, 2020    Dept: 29

Gayane Buralian v. Glendale Adventist Medical Center et al.

Motion for Summary Judgment by Defendant Glendale Adventist Medical Center is DENIED. Defendant has not met its burden of showing that it is entitled to judgment in its favor as a matter of law. Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 437c(p)(2).

In this action, Plaintiff Gayane Bursalian alleges she was injured while crossing a roadway on the premises of Defendant Glendale Adventist Medical Center. She asserts a claim of premises liability against the defendant. Defendant moves for summary judgment, contending that there was no dangerous condition.

Prior to the accident, plaintiff was crossing an elevated roadway or drive deck in a marked cross-walk. To the left of the crosswalk was a metal expansion joint that connects the bridge for the parking structure and a bridge to another building on the hospital campus. The expansion joint was necessary to accommodate multidirectional movement, including seismic activity. The seismic expansion joint contains multiple, moveable plates that, by design, result in a channel that is approximately 3/8” deep and 2” to 2.5” wide. Those dimensions vary slightly with the movement of the structure.

Photographs of the site show that the expansion joint spans the drive deck area in a long, flattened V configuration. At the tip of the V, the expansion joint intersects and slightly encroaches into a painted crosswalk. The crosswalk is on a diagonal vis a vis the sidewalk from where plaintiff crossed. Although the expansion joint encroaches only at the edge of the crosswalk, it appears from the photographs that the encroaching portion of the expansion joint would be directly in the path of a pedestrian who walked straight ahead from the sidewalk instead of at a diagonal.

In her interrogatory responses, plaintiff identified the dangerous condition as a “defective metal pathway,” which clearly is a reference to the expansion joint. In her deposition, plaintiff identified the location of her fall as the place where a metal expansion joint intersected with the crosswalk, and stated that she had entered the crosswalk, and had started walking, when her foot got caught in the “crack” of the “metallic part,” referring to the channel in the expansion joint at the point where the expansion joint intersected with the sidewalk. Plaintiff’s deposition testimony, including the marked-up photographs, is sufficient to put defendant on notice that the condition at issue in the lawsuit is the intersection of the expansion joint with the crosswalk, not merely the expansion joint or cross-walk on its own.

Premises liability is a form of negligence, which requires a premises owner to exercise ordinary care in the management of the premises to avoid exposing others to an unreasonable risk of harm. (Brooks v. Eugene Burger Management Corp. (1989) 215 Cal.App.3d 1611, 1619.) “The elements of premises liability are the same as those for negligence: duty, breach, causation and damages.” (McIntyre v. The Colonies-Pacific LLC (2014) 228 Cal. App. 4th 664, 671.) Plaintiff may establish breach of the duty of due care by proving that a dangerous condition existed; that the defendant knew or should have known of it; and that the person failed to remedy or warn of the condition. (Vaughn v. Montgomery Ward & Co. (1950) 95 Cal.App.2d 553, 556.) Defendant has moved for summary judgment on that ground that the expansion joint was not defective and that the crosswalk had more than ample space and thus the expansion joint and crosswalk did not constitute a dangerous condition.

In support of the motion, defendant presents the declaration of its retained expert, Robert M. Pyke, a construction manager for healthcare facilities who oversees California’s Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development (OSHPD) permitting for healthcare facilities, among other things. Mr. Pyke opines that the expansion joint is necessary to accommodate movement, including seismic movement. The plans for the expansion joint were approved by the OSHPD, which approval was necessary before the construction could proceed. The top and bottom plates of the expansion joint, which result in the channel, are necessary for the proper functioning of the joint. Mr. Pyke examined the condition of the expansion joint and determined it was in excellent condition and had been properly maintained. The joint did not have any unexpected gaps, jagged edges, or other evidence of damage.

Mr. Pyke also opined that the crosswalk is sufficiently wide. The minimum width for a crosswalk is four feet; the crosswalk here is 9’4” wide at the narrowest and 10’5” at the widest.

If the only issue was whether the expansion joint, by itself was defective, or whether the crosswalk, by itself, was wide enough, Mr. Pyke’s declaration would be sufficient to meet defendant’s initial burden. But conspicuously absent from Mr. Pyke’s declaration is any discussion regarding the configuration of the expansion joint and the crosswalk. Specifically, Mr. Pyke does not address the encroachment of the expansion joint into the crosswalk and whether that configuration gives rise to an unreasonable risk of harm. As noted, plaintiff’s deposition is sufficient to put defendant on notice that it is the configuration– not either element on its own – that plaintiff contends constitutes a dangerous condition. The expansion joint may be exactly where it needs to be for structural reasons, but Mr. Pyke does not address whether the crosswalk could have been configured so that the apex of the expansion joint did not jut into the crosswalk. Mr. Pyke – and defendant’s motion – is silent on that point.

As defendant’s motion does not address that contention, defendant has not met its initial burden. A defendant moving for summary judgment bears the initial burden of making a prima facie showing either (1) one or more elements of the cause of action cannot be established, or (2) there is a complete defense to the cause of action. CCP 437c(p)(2). Unless and until a defendant meets that burden, the plaintiff has no burden to present controverting evidence. (Consumer Cause, Inc. v. SmileCare (2001) 91 Cal. App. 4th 454, 468 (“There is no obligation on the opposing party . . . to establish anything by affidavit unless and until the moving party has by affidavit stated facts establishing every element . . . necessary to sustain a judgment in his favor.”)) If a defendant fails to meet that burden, summary judgment must be denied, regardless of the sufficiency of any evidence in opposition.

Here, defendant has not established, as a matter of law, that the configuration of the crosswalk and expansion joint – and in particular, the encroachment of the expansion joint into the crosswalk – does not create a dangerous condition or give rise to an unreasonable risk of harm. For example, Mr. Pyke notes that the OSHPD approved the drawing for the expansion joint, but the drawing does not include the location of the crosswalk. Thus, while OSHPD’s approval of that drawing is relevant to whether the expansion joint by itself complies with the code, it has no relevance to whether the configuration of the elements was proper.

It may well be that defendant exercised due care in the design of the configuration of the crosswalk and the expansion joint and that the encroachment of the joint into the crosswalk did not give rise to a dangerous condition. But the Court cannot reach that conclusion as a matter of law in the absence of any evidence to support it. For example, the Court cannot speculate as to what an expert would say regarding the configuration. Defendant, as the moving party, bore the initial burden on showing that plaintiff could not establish that the configuration was dangerous, which it failed to do. Summary judgment must therefore be denied.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.