This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 06/29/2019 at 01:03:06 (UTC).

JARVONA RICHARDSON VS FAMILY PLANNING ASSOCIATES MEDICAL GRO

Case Summary

On 04/13/2018 a Personal Injury - Medical Malpractice case was filed by JARVONA RICHARDSON against FAMILY PLANNING ASSOCIATES MEDICAL GRO in the jurisdiction of Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****2323

  • Filing Date:

    04/13/2018

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Medical Malpractice

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

CHRISTOPHER K. LUI

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner

RICHARDSON JARVONA

Respondents and Defendants

DOES 1 - 100 INCLUSIVE

FAMILY PLANNING ASSOCIATES MEDICAL GROUP

FUENTES LESLIE DOE 5

BETTS BONNIE DOE 2

SAN JUAN VELINDA P. DOE 4

MARMET RUBEN DOE 1

 

Court Documents

AMENDMENT TO CROSS-COMPLAINT

6/14/2018: AMENDMENT TO CROSS-COMPLAINT

AMENDMENT TO CROSS-COMPLAINT

6/14/2018: AMENDMENT TO CROSS-COMPLAINT

AMENDMENT TO CROSS-COMPLAINT

6/14/2018: AMENDMENT TO CROSS-COMPLAINT

AMENDMENT TO CROSS-COMPLAINT

6/14/2018: AMENDMENT TO CROSS-COMPLAINT

AMENDMENT TO CROSS-COMPLAINT

6/14/2018: AMENDMENT TO CROSS-COMPLAINT

Memorandum of Points & Authorities

5/20/2019: Memorandum of Points & Authorities

Memorandum of Points & Authorities

5/20/2019: Memorandum of Points & Authorities

Declaration

5/20/2019: Declaration

Declaration

5/20/2019: Declaration

Demurrer - with Motion to Strike

5/20/2019: Demurrer - with Motion to Strike

Notice of Motion

5/20/2019: Notice of Motion

Reply

6/13/2019: Reply

Reply

6/13/2019: Reply

Request for Dismissal

6/17/2019: Request for Dismissal

Minute Order

6/20/2019: Minute Order

Stipulation and Order

6/24/2019: Stipulation and Order

Answer

6/26/2019: Answer

Notice of Entry of Dismissal and Proof of Service

6/28/2019: Notice of Entry of Dismissal and Proof of Service

6 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 06/28/2019
  • Notice of Entry of Dismissal and Proof of Service; Filed by Family Planning Associates Medical Group (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/26/2019
  • Answer; Filed by Family Planning Associates Medical Group (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/24/2019
  • Stipulation and Order ([Proposed Order] And Stipulation to Continue Trial, FSC Personal Injury Courts Only (Central District)); Filed by Family Planning Associates Medical Group (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/20/2019
  • at 1:30 PM in Department 4A, Christopher K. Lui, Presiding; Hearing on Demurrer - with Motion to Strike (CCP 430.10) - Not Held - Taken Off Calendar by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/20/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Defendant Family Planning Associates Medical Group's Demurrer...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/17/2019
  • Request for Dismissal; Filed by Family Planning Associates Medical Group (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/13/2019
  • Reply (Reply to Non-Opposition to Motion To Strike); Filed by Jarvona Richardson (Plaintiff); Family Planning Associates Medical Group (Defendant); Fuentes, Leslie (Doe 5) (Defendant) et al.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/13/2019
  • Reply (Reply to Non-Opposition to Demurrer); Filed by Family Planning Associates Medical Group (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/20/2019
  • Declaration (Declaration of Kat Todd in Support of Demurrer to Plaintiff's Complaint); Filed by Family Planning Associates Medical Group (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/20/2019
  • Memorandum of Points & Authorities; Filed by Family Planning Associates Medical Group (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
7 More Docket Entries
  • 06/14/2018
  • AMENDMENT TO CROSS-COMPLAINT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/14/2018
  • Amendment to Complaint; Filed by Jarvona Richardson (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/14/2018
  • AMENDMENT TO CROSS-COMPLAINT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/14/2018
  • AMENDMENT TO CROSS-COMPLAINT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/14/2018
  • Amendment to Complaint; Filed by Jarvona Richardson (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/14/2018
  • Amendment to Complaint; Filed by Jarvona Richardson (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/14/2018
  • Amendment to Complaint; Filed by Jarvona Richardson (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/14/2018
  • Amendment to Complaint; Filed by Jarvona Richardson (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/13/2018
  • Summons; Filed by Jarvona Richardson (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/13/2018
  • Complaint; Filed by Jarvona Richardson (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC702323    Hearing Date: February 27, 2020    Dept: 28

Motion for Summary Judgment 

Having considered the moving, opposing, and reply papers, the Court rules as follows.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Jarvona Richardson (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendant Family Planning Associates Medical Group, Inc. (“Defendant”) on April 13, 2018, alleging causes of action for medical negligence and negligent infliction of emotional distress.

This action arises from allegations that on March 29, 2017, Defendant negligently performed an abortion and IUD procedure. Plaintiff subsequently gave birth to her child, and now seeks damages for injuries, as well as for the “wrongful birth” of her child. 

PARTYS REQUESTS

Defendant moves the court for summary judgment of Plaintiff’s claims as Defendant met the relevant standards of care at all times, and that no actions of an agent or employee of Defendant caused Plaintiff or her child’s injuries. 

Plaintiff argues that Defendant’s evidence fails to carry its burden on summary judgment as it is inadmissible for lack of foundation. Alternatively, triable issues remain as to whether Defendant met its burden of care.

LEGAL STANDARD

The purpose of a motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication “is to provide courts with a mechanism to cut through the parties’ pleadings in order to determine whether, despite their allegations, trial is in fact necessary to resolve their dispute.”  (Aguilar v. Atl. Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal. 4th 826, 843.) “Code of Civil Procedure section 437c, subdivision (c), requires the trial judge to grant summary judgment if all the evidence submitted, and ‘all inferences reasonably deducible from the evidence’ and uncontradicted by other inferences or evidence, show that there is no triable issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” (Adler v. Manor Healthcare Corp. (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1110, 1119.)

“On a motion for summary judgment, the initial burden is always on the moving party to make a prima facie showing that there are no triable issues of material fact.” (Scalf v. D. B. Log Homes, Inc. (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 1510, 1519.) The moving party is entitled to summary judgment if they can show that there is no triable issue of material fact or if they have a complete defense thereto. (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfiend Co. (2001) 25 Cal. 4th 826, 843.) 

Once the moving party has met that burden, section 437c shifts the burden to the opposing party to show that there is a triable issue of material fact as to the cause of action.  If the opposing party cannot do so, summary judgment should be granted. (Avivi v. Centro Medico Urgente Med. Ctr. (2008) 159 Cal. App. 4th 463, 467.)

When deciding whether to grant summary judgment, the Court must consider all of the evidence set forth in the papers, except evidence to which the Court has sustained an objection, as well as all reasonable inferences that may be drawn from that evidence, in the light most favorable to the party opposing summary judgment. (Avivi, 159 Cal. App. 4th at 467.)  

Summary adjudication may be granted as to one or more causes of action within an action, or one or more claims for damages. (Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. §437c(f).) 

DISCUSSION

Evidentiary Objections to the Declaration of Josepha Seletz

Plaintiff objects to the declaration of Josepha Seletz, M.D., in its entirety on the ground that it fails to disclose the matter relied upon in forming the opinion. “The required foundational showing that the opinion rests on matters of a type experts reasonably rely on is not made where, as here, the expert does not disclose what he relied on in forming his opinion.” (Kelley v. Trunk (1998) 66 Cal. App. 4th 519, 524.)

Indeed, a review of the Seletz declaration reveals that aside from providing a chronological recitation of the facts underlying Plaintiff’s claim and a conclusory assertion as to the standard of care, Seletz provides no factual foundation for her opinion.

Plaintiff’s objection to the declaration of Josepha Seletz is SUSTAINED. 

Standard of Care

Defendant moves for summary judgment of Plaintiff’s now sole claim for medical negligence on the ground that Plaintiff cannot show that Defendant’s conduct fell below the relevant standard of care.

“The elements of a cause of action for medical malpractice are: (1) a duty to use such skill, prudence, and diligence as other members of the profession commonly possess and exercise; (2) a breach of the duty; (3) a proximate causal connection between the negligent conduct and the injury; and (4) resulting loss or damage.” (Lattimore v. Dickey (2015) 239 Cal.App.4th 959, 968.)

In support of its position, Defendant submits the declaration of Josepha Seletz, M.D. As reflected above, the Court sustains Plaintiff’s objection to the declaration of Seletz in its entirety. 

As Defendant’s sole evidentiary submission on the standard if care issue is the Seletz declaration, Defendant has not met its burden of demonstrating the non-existence of a triable issue as to whether Defendant’s performing surgeon met the relevant standard of care while performing the abortion procedure on Plaintiff.

Causation

Defendant also moves for summary judgment on the ground that Plaintiff cannot establish that any action or omission by Defendant caused her injuries. 

Similar to its standard of care argument, Defendant relies entirely on the declaration of Josepha Seletz. By making a conclusory assertion as to whether Defendant’s conduct caused the harm suffered by Plaintiff, Seletz does “not disclose the matter relied on in forming the opinion expressed.” (Kelley, supra at 534.)

Therefore, Defendant has failed to submit admissible evidence demonstrating the non-existence of a triable issue as to the causation of Plaintiff’s injuries. 

Defendant has failed to meet its burden on summary judgment. Accordingly, Defendant’s motion is denied.  

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED.

Defendant is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

Case Number: BC702323    Hearing Date: February 19, 2020    Dept: 28

Motion to Deem Matters in Request for Admissions (Set One) as True

Having considered the moving, opposing, and reply papers, the Court rules as follows.

BACKGROUND

On April 13, 2018, Plaintiff Jarvona Richardson (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendant Family Planning Associates Medical Group, Inc., aka FPA Women’s Health.  The complaint alleges medical malpractice and negligent infliction of emotional distress for a failed pregnancy termination that occurred on March 13, 2017.

On June 14, 2018, Plaintiff filed amendments to the complaint renaming Doe 1 as Defendant Ruben Marmet, Doe 2 as Defendant Bonnie Betts, Doe 3 as Defendant Alexia Eslava, and Doe 4 as Defendant Hyka Galadzhyan.

On June 17, 2019, the Court dismissed Defendants Ruben Marmel, M.D., Bonnie Betts, R.N., Alexa Eslave, M.A., Leslie Fuente, and Velida P. San Juan from the complaint with prejudice.

On July 23, 2019, the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s claim for punitive damages and the cause of action for negligent infliction of emotional distress.

On January 17, 2020, Defendant Family Planning Associates Medical Group, Inc. filed a motion deem matters in Request for Admission (Set One) as true against Plaintiff pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.280, subdivision (b).

Trial is set for May 18, 2020.

PARTYS REQUEST

Defendant Family Planning Associates Medical Group, Inc. (“Moving Defendant”) asks the Court to deem the matters in Request for Admissions (Set One) as true against Plaintiff because she failed to serve timely responses.

LEGAL STANDARD

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.280, subdivision (b), a “party may move for an order that the genuineness of any documents and the truth of any matters specified in the requests be deemed admitted, as well as for a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with section 2023.010).”  The court “shall” grant the motion to deem requests for admission admitted “unless it finds that the party to whom the requests for admission have been directed has served, before the hearing on the motion, a proposed response to the requests for admission that is in substantial compliance with Section 2033.220.”  (Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.280, subd. (c).)

Under California Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030, subd. (a), “[t]he court may impose a monetary sanction ordering that one engaging in the misuse of the discovery process, or any attorney advising that conduct, or both pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct. . . . If a monetary sanction is authorized by any provision of this title, the court shall impose that sanction unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” Failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery is a misuse of the discovery process.  (Code of Civ. Proc. § 2023.010.)

Sanctions are mandatory in connection with a motion to deem matters specified in a request for admissions as true against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel unless the court “finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.”  (Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.280, subd. (c).)

California Rules of Court, rule 3.1348, subdivision (a) states: “The court may award sanctions under the Discovery Act in favor of a party who files a motion to compel discovery, even though no opposition to the motion was filed, or opposition to the motion was withdrawn, or the requested discovery was provided to the moving party after the motion was filed.”

DISCUSSION

On November 8, 2019, Moving Defendant served Request for Admissions (Set One) on Plaintiff by U.S. mail.  (Todd Decl., ¶ 2, Exh. A.)  On December 11, 2019, Plaintiff served unverified responses on Moving Defendant.  (Galadzhyan Decl., ¶¶ 4-5, Exh. A.)  On January 13, 2020, Plaintiff served the verification to its responses served on December 11, 2019.  (Galadzhyan Decl., ¶¶ 7, 9, Exh. B.)

The Court finds the motion must be denied.  Plaintiff has served substantially compliant verified responses before this hearing.  As such, the Court cannot grant the motion pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.280, subdivision (c).

CONCLUSION

The motion is DENIED.

Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of this ruling.