This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 08/15/2019 at 09:58:21 (UTC).

KAREN DENISE FOSBROOK VS MEDICAL DEPOT INC ET AL

Case Summary

On 11/01/2017 KAREN DENISE FOSBROOK filed a Personal Injury - Other Product Liability lawsuit against MEDICAL DEPOT INC. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is JON R. TAKASUGI. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.
Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****2049

  • Filing Date:

    11/01/2017

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Other Product Liability

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

JON R. TAKASUGI

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

FOSBROOK KARN DENISE

Defendants and Cross Plaintiffs

MEDICAL HOME REHAB INC

MEDICAL DEPOT INC

HL CORP USA

Defendant and Cross Defendant

HL CORP USA

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

GRASSINI LAWRENCE P. ESQ.

Defendant Attorneys

MARSHALL MATTHEW L. ESQ.

WILLIAMSON IAN

Cross Defendant Attorney

GROSS JAMIE LEIGH

 

Court Documents

Opposition

6/17/2019: Opposition

Response

6/17/2019: Response

Reply

6/21/2019: Reply

Notice

6/27/2019: Notice

Minute Order

6/28/2019: Minute Order

Joinder

7/9/2019: Joinder

Cross-Complaint

7/11/2019: Cross-Complaint

Summons

7/11/2019: Summons

Response

7/18/2019: Response

Declaration

7/18/2019: Declaration

Answer

7/19/2019: Answer

Minute Order

7/22/2019: Minute Order

Notice

7/23/2019: Notice

Proof of Service by Substituted Service

7/23/2019: Proof of Service by Substituted Service

Answer

7/29/2019: Answer

Notice of Ruling

7/30/2019: Notice of Ruling

Minute Order

7/30/2019: Minute Order

Declaration

7/31/2019: Declaration

33 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 11/02/2020
  • Hearingat 08:30 AM in Department 3 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; : OSC RE Dismissal

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 01/22/2020
  • Hearingat 08:30 AM in Department 3 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Jury Trial

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 01/07/2020
  • Hearingat 10:00 AM in Department 3 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Final Status Conference

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 08/06/2019
  • DocketNotice (of Final Status Conference and Trial Continuance); Filed by HL Corp (USA) (Defendant)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 08/01/2019
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 3, Jon R. Takasugi, Presiding; Hearing on Ex Parte Application (To Continue Trial and Related Dates) - Held

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 08/01/2019
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Hearing on Ex Parte Application To Continue Trial and Related...)); Filed by Clerk

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 08/01/2019
  • DocketEx Parte Application (To Continue Trial and Related Dates); Filed by HL Corp (USA) (Defendant)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 07/31/2019
  • DocketProof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by HL Corp (USA) (Defendant)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 07/31/2019
  • DocketDeclaration (Of Jamie L. Gross in Support of Defendant's Ex Parte Application To Continue Trial Date, Trial Related Deadlines); Filed by HL Corp (USA) (Defendant)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 07/31/2019
  • DocketMemorandum of Points & Authorities; Filed by HL Corp (USA) (Defendant)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
43 More Docket Entries
  • 01/08/2018
  • DocketAnswer; Filed by MEDICAL HOME REHAB INC (Defendant)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 01/08/2018
  • DocketAnswer; Filed by MEDICAL DEPOT INC (Defendant)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 01/08/2018
  • DocketANSWER TO COMPLAINT; AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES; PRAYER FOR RELIEF AND JURY DEMAND

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 12/06/2017
  • DocketProof-Service/Summons; Filed by KARN DENISE FOSBROOK (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 12/06/2017
  • DocketPROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 11/27/2017
  • DocketPROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 11/27/2017
  • DocketProof-Service/Summons; Filed by KARN DENISE FOSBROOK (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 11/01/2017
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by KARN DENISE FOSBROOK (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 11/01/2017
  • DocketSUMMONS

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 11/01/2017
  • DocketCOMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURIES

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: ****2049    Hearing Date: May 14, 2021    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

KAREN DENISE FOSBROOK,

Plaintiff(s),

vs.

MEDICAL DEPOT, INC., ET AL.,

Defendant(s).

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CASE NO: ****2049

[TENTATIVE] ORDER CONTINUING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES

Dept. 31

10:00 a.m.

May 14, 2021

Defendant’s, Medical Depot, Inc. and Medical Home Rehab, Inc.’s Motions to Compel Further Responses against HL Corp (USA) are premature and will be continued to a new date as set forth below.  The parties are ordered to participate in an Informal Discovery Conference (“IDC”) as required by the Court’s Standing Order Re: PI Court Procedures (9/26/19), which is available on the LA Superior Court’s website, under the Personal Injury section.

If the above date is not convenient for the parties and/or an IDC cannot be scheduled, for whatever reason, within the necessary time period, Moving Party must use the online reservation system to promptly continue the hearing on the motion to a date at least two weeks after the IDC.

Cross-Complainants Medical Depot, Inc. and Medical Home Rehab, Inc. are ordered to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at sscdept31@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.orgIf the department does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on the tentative and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion may be placed off calendar.  If a party submits on the tentative, the party’s email must include the case number and must identify the party submitting on the tentative.  If the parties do not submit on the tentative, they should arrange to appear remotely.

Dated this 14th day of May, 2021

Hon. Thomas D. Long

Judge of the Superior Court



Case Number: ****2049    Hearing Date: August 27, 2020    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

KAREN DENISE FOSBROOK,

Plaintiff(s),

vs.

MEDICAL DEPOT, INC., ET AL.,

Defendant(s).

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CASE NO: ****2049

[TENTATIVE] ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION TO APPEAR PRO HAC VICE

Dept. 31

8:30 a.m.

August 27, 2020

Defendant, HL Corp (USA) seeks an order permitting James Regan to appear as counsel pro hac vice in this action. The application fully satisfies CRC 9.40. The applicant establishes that he is licensed in the State of New York and is in good standing. He has not appeared pro hac vice in any other case in the past two years. He does not regularly work on live in California. A licensed California attorney, Jamie L. Gross, is associated as counsel in this case.

The court previously heard this matter on 7/1/20, where it noted its concern over the lack of proof of service of the moving papers on the State Bar. (CRC 9.40(c)(1).) The court informed Counsel that absent proof of service, the application could not be granted. The court continued the instant motion to 8/27/20.

On 7/29/20, Reagan filed an Amended Application to Appear as Counsel Pro Hac Vice providing that the State Bar was served with the moving papers and related documents. Moreover, Reagan filed a proof of service showing service of the moving papers and of notice of the hearing on the State Bar

Counsel’s motion to be admitted pro hac vice is granted.

Moving Defendant is ordered to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at sscdept31@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  If the department does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on the tentative and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion may be placed off calendar. If a party submits on the tentative, the party’s email must include the case number and must identify the party submitting on the tentative. If the parties do not submit on the tentative, they should arrange to appear remotely.

Dated this 27th day of August, 2020

Hon. Thomas D. Long

Judge of the Superior Court



Case Number: ****2049    Hearing Date: July 01, 2020    Dept: 31

8

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

KAREN DENISE FOSBROOK,

Plaintiff(s),

vs.

MEDICAL DEPOT, INC., ET AL.,

Defendant(s).

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CASE NO: ****2049

[TENTATIVE] ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION TO APPEAR PRO HAC VICE

Dept. 31

1:30 p.m.

July 1, 2020

Defendant, HL Corp (USA) seeks an order permitting James Regan to appear as counsel pro hac vice in this action. The application fully satisfies CRC 9.40. The applicant establishes that he is licensed in the State of New York and is in good standing. He has not appeared pro hac vice in any other case in the past two years. He does not regularly work on live in California. A licensed California attorney, Jamie L. Gross, is associated as counsel in this case.

The Court’s only concern is the lack of proof of service of the moving papers on the State Bar. CRC 9.40(c)(1) requires a proof of service on the State Bar. Regan declares that the $50 fee has been paid to the State Bar and a copy of the application is being served on the State Bar, but there is no actual proof of service. This is a key distinction, as proof of service shows that the State Bar was given notice of the hearing date on the application and an opportunity to contest the application if it chooses to do so. Notably, there have been two amended notices of hearing, and there is no proof of service of either of those documents on the State Bar either. Absent proof of service, the application cannot be granted. If Defendant provides timely proof of service on the State Bar prior to the hearing, the Court will grant the application.

Moving Defendant is ordered to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at sscdept31@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  If the department does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on the tentative and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion may be placed off calendar. If a party submits on the tentative, the party’s email must include the case number and must identify the party submitting on the tentative. If the parties do not submit on the tentative, they should arrange to appear remotely.

Dated this 1st day of July, 2020

Hon. Thomas D. Long

Judge of the Superior Court



Case Number: ****2049    Hearing Date: October 31, 2019    Dept: 3

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

KAREN DENISE FOSBROOK,

Plaintiff(s),

vs.

MEDICAL DEPOT, INC., ET AL.,

Defendant(s).

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CASE NO: ****2049

[TENTATIVE] ORDER CONTINUING HEARING ON MOTION FOR SANCTIONS

Dept. 3

1:30 p.m.

October 31, 2019

The parties have had ongoing issues with Defendant’s responses to RPDs for some time now. At this time, only one issue remains between the parties: Defendant’s response to RPD 12.

RPD 12, as narrowed by the parties through meet and confer efforts, asks for documents that discuss, concern, or relate to any incidents of personal injury caused or alleged to have been caused by the model knee walker for a period of five years before the subject incident through the present.

Prior to the filing of this motion for sanctions, Defendant’s most recent response to the RPD stated that Defendant would produce all responsive documents to the extent they exist. Defendant did not produce any documents.

Plaintiff filed this motion, correctly noting the response was not code-compliant. CCP ;2031.230 governs responses to RPDs when there are no responsive documents to produce. It provides, in pertinent part:

A representation of inability to comply with the particular demand … shall affirm that a diligent search and a reasonable inquiry has been made in an effort to comply with that demand. This statement shall also specify whether the inability to comply is because the particular item or category has never existed, has been destroyed, has been lost, misplaced, or stolen, or has never been, or is no longer, in the possession, custody, or control of the responding party. …

Defendant, realizing its response was not code-compliant, served another supplemental response to the demand after Plaintiff filed this motion. Defendant’s current response states, “…limiting the response to five years before the incident through the present, after diligent search and reasonable inquiry, Defendant is not in possession, custody, or control of any documents regarding prior complaints of personal injury involving any issue similar to that alleged by plaintiff because no such documents exist.”

Plaintiff, in reply, correctly notes that nothing in the current iteration of RPD 12 limits production to prior “similar” incidents. The RPD seeks production of documents relating to ANY incident. Notably, it is for Plaintiff, not Defendant (as well as the trial court in connection with motions in limine), to determine if a prior issue is sufficiently similar to warrant presentation of evidence and argument at trial concerning the prior incident. This is not for Defendant to unilaterally decide.

Plaintiff also, in reply, voices concerns that Defendant’s opposition consistently refers to prior “complaints” about the model knee walker. While Defendant’s current response is not limited to prior “complaints,” Plaintiff is correct that the RPD does not only ask for production of prior “complaints,” but instead for production of “documents that discuss, concern, or relate to” the subject model knee walker.

Imposition of issue sanctions is extremely harsh. The Court notes that it has not, previously, imposed monetary sanctions, which is typically a prerequisite to imposition of issue sanctions. The Court is extremely concerned that Defendant is not honoring its discovery obligations. However, because there have been no prior monetary sanctions, and because issue sanctions are extremely harsh, the Court is inclined to continue the hearing on this motion for one month. The hearing is continued to Friday, 11/29/19 at 1:30 p.m. in Department 3 of the Spring Street Courthouse. Notably, trial is not scheduled until 1/22/20.

The Court orders Defendant to serve a fully code-compliant response, with the above discussion in mind, within one week. If the response is code-complaint, the Court asks Plaintiff to take this motion off calendar. If Plaintiff believes the response remains deficient, each party must file a brief concerning the status of the response and the request for sanctions at least one week prior to the continued hearing date. The parties must provide a courtesy copy of the brief directly to the department.

Plaintiff is ordered to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at sscdept3@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  If the department does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on the tentative and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion may be placed off calendar. If a party submits on the tentative, the party’s email must include the case number and must identify the party submitting on the tentative.



related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where MEDICAL DEPOT, INC. is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer GROSS JAMIE L.