This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 06/12/2019 at 17:57:58 (UTC).

KARSON CURTIS ET AL VS CALIFORNIA HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER ET

Case Summary

On 10/11/2017 KARSON CURTIS filed a Personal Injury - Medical Malpractice lawsuit against CALIFORNIA HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER ET. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****9022

  • Filing Date:

    10/11/2017

  • 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

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs and Guardian Ad Litems

DUNMORE DANA K.

DUNMORE DANA K

Plaintiff and Petitioner

DUNMORE DANA K

Defendants and Respondents

JONES KELLY M.D.

DOES 1 TO 30

CORE MICHAEL A. M.D.

CALIFORNIA HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER

AHMAD KHALIFA M.D. DOE1

Minor

CURTIS KARSON

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff, Petitioner and Minor Attorney

MICHELS PHILIP ESQ.

Defendant and Respondent Attorneys

TAYLOR N. DENISE ESQ.

FRASER STEPHEN C. ESQ.

BRANDMEYER KENT THOMAS

FRASER STEPHEN CLARK ESQ.

TAYLOR NINA DENISE ESQ.

 

Court Documents

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

4/24/2018: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

OPPOSITION TO EX PARTE APPLICATION OF; ETC

7/17/2018: OPPOSITION TO EX PARTE APPLICATION OF; ETC

Minute Order

7/17/2018: Minute Order

NOTICE OF RULING ON EX PARTE APPLICATION; NOTICE OF ORDER TRANSFERRING ACTION

7/24/2018: NOTICE OF RULING ON EX PARTE APPLICATION; NOTICE OF ORDER TRANSFERRING ACTION

Minute Order

8/1/2018: Minute Order

NOTICE TO STATE COURT PURSUANT TO 42 U.S.C. ? 233(L)(1)

8/14/2018: NOTICE TO STATE COURT PURSUANT TO 42 U.S.C. ? 233(L)(1)

Demurrer

12/10/2018: Demurrer

Motion for Trial Preference

12/13/2018: Motion for Trial Preference

Objection

1/9/2019: Objection

Declaration

1/18/2019: Declaration

Notice

1/18/2019: Notice

Opposition

1/23/2019: Opposition

Reply

1/29/2019: Reply

Reply

1/29/2019: Reply

Notice

2/28/2019: Notice

NOTICE OF DEMURRER AND DEMURRER TO COMPLAINT; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF JULIANNE M. DEMARCO

1/16/2018: NOTICE OF DEMURRER AND DEMURRER TO COMPLAINT; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF JULIANNE M. DEMARCO

DECLARATION OF TRIAL ATTORNEY PURSUANT TO SECTION 9 OF THE CALIFORNIA RULES OF COURT, JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION STANDARDS

1/16/2018: DECLARATION OF TRIAL ATTORNEY PURSUANT TO SECTION 9 OF THE CALIFORNIA RULES OF COURT, JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION STANDARDS

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

12/21/2017: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

51 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 06/12/2019
  • Notice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/20/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 78; Hearing on Motion for Trial Preference - Not Held - Taken Off Calendar by Party

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/14/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 78; Hearing on Motion - Other (for an order to stay proceedings) - Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/14/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 78; Hearing on Motion - Other (Determination Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2679) - Not Held - Taken Off Calendar by Party

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/28/2019
  • Notice (to State Court of Filing of Writ of Mandamus to State Court); Filed by Ahmad Khalifa M.D. Doe1 (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/25/2019
  • Notice of Deposit - Jury; Filed by Ahmad Khalifa M.D. Doe1 (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/25/2019
  • Answer ( TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT); Filed by Ahmad Khalifa M.D. Doe1 (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/06/2019
  • Notice of Ruling ( OF RULING RE DEFENDANT KHALIFA'SDE~R TO THE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINTAND MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS); Filed by KARSON CURTIS,, by and through guardian ad litem (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/05/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 78; Hearing on Motion - Other (for an order to stay proceedings) - Held - Motion Denied

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/05/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 78; Hearing on Demurrer - without Motion to Strike - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
99 More Docket Entries
  • 12/21/2017
  • Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by DANA K. DUNMORE (Plaintiff); KARSON CURTIS,, by and through guardian ad litem (Plaintiff); DANA K DUNMORE (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/21/2017
  • Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by DANA K. DUNMORE (Plaintiff); KARSON CURTIS,, by and through guardian ad litem (Plaintiff); DANA K DUNMORE (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/21/2017
  • Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by DANA K. DUNMORE (Plaintiff); KARSON CURTIS,, by and through guardian ad litem (Plaintiff); DANA K DUNMORE (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/16/2017
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/16/2017
  • Summons Issued; Filed by DANA K. DUNMORE (Plaintiff); KARSON CURTIS,, by and through guardian ad litem (Plaintiff); DANA K DUNMORE (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/11/2017
  • COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1. NEGLIGENCE ON BEHALF OF KARSON CURTIS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/11/2017
  • APPLICATION AND ORDER FOR APPOINTMENT OF GUARDIAN AD LITEM

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/11/2017
  • Complaint; Filed by DANA K DUNMORE (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/11/2017
  • Application ; Filed by Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/17/2017
  • Opposition Document; Filed by Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC679022    Hearing Date: November 20, 2019    Dept: 78

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 78

KARSON CURTIS, a minor by and through his Guardian ad Litem DANA K. DUNMORE, et al.;

Plaintiffs,

vs.

california hospital medical center, et al.;

Defendants.

Case No.:

BC 679022

Hearing Date:

November 20, 2019

[TENTATIVE] RULING RE:

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR TRIAL SETTING PREFERENCE

Plaintiffs’ Motion for Trial Setting Preference is GRANTED.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

This is an action for medical negligence. The First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) alleges as follows. Plaintiff Karson Curtis (“Curtis”) was born to his mother, Plaintiff Dana K. Dunmore (“Dunmore”) on January 16, 2014. (FAC ¶ 21.) Curtis and Dunmore received care associated with Dunmore’s pregnancy and Curtis’s birth at Defendant California Hospital Medical Center (“CMC”) and its defendant physicians. (FAC ¶¶ 11, 21.) Both Dunmore and Curtis were injured as a result of the negligent care they received from CMC. (FAC ¶¶ 15, 23.) Defendants concealed the cause of Curtis’s injuries from Dunmore, even after Dunmore asked them, because they knew their negligence was the cause. (FAC ¶ 17.)

procedural history

Plaintiffs filed the Complaint on October 11, 2017, and filed the FAC on February 7, 2018, alleging two counts of negligence on behalf of Dunmore and Curtis, respectively.

Defendant Ahmad Khalifa, M.D. (“Khalifa”) was added as Doe defendant 1 on April 2, 2018.

On August 3, 2018, Khalifa removed this action to the United States District Court for the Central District of California.

On November 8, 2018, the case was ordered remanded back to this court.

On November 16, 2018, Khalifa gave notice that he was appealing the federal court’s remand of his case.

Khalifa filed a Motion to Stay Proceedings on November 16, 2018, which this Court denied on February 5, 2019.

Khalifa filed a Demurrer to the FAC on December 10, 2018, which this Court overruled on February 5, 2019.

On August 1, 2019, Plaintiffs filed the instant Motion for Trial Preference. On November 4, 2019, Defendants Kelly Jones and Michael Core filed a Response to the Motion. On November 5, 2019, CMC filed a Response to the Motion. On November 7, 2019, Khalifa filed an Opposition to the Motion. On November 12, 2019, Plaintiffs filed a Reply to the Opposition.

Discussion

  1. MOTION FOR TRIAL PREFERENCE

Plaintiffs seek a trial preference under Code of Civil Procedure section 36 subdivision (b), which provides:

“A civil action to recover damages for wrongful death or personal injury shall be entitled to preference upon the motion of any party to the action who is under 14 years of age unless the court finds that the party does not have a substantial interest in the case as a whole. A civil action subject to subdivision (a) shall be given preference over a case subject to this subdivision.”

Section 36, subdivision (f) provides:

“Upon the granting of such a motion for preference, the court shall set the matter for trial not more than 120 days from that date and there shall be no continuance beyond 120 days from the granting of the motion for preference except for physical disability of a party or a party's attorney, or upon a showing of good cause stated in the record.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 36, subd. (f).)

Courts have held that:

. . . section 36 was enacted for the purpose of assuring that an aged or terminally ill plaintiff would be able to participate in the trial of his or her case and be able to realize redress upon the claim asserted. Such a preference is not only necessary to assure a party's peace of mind that he or she will live to see a particular dispute brought to resolution but it can also have substantive consequences. The party's presence and ability to testify in person and/or assist counsel may be critical to success. In addition, the nature of the ultimate recovery can be adversely affected by a plaintiff's death prior to judgment.

(Looney v. Superior Court (1993) 16 Cal.App.4th 521, 532.)

Plaintiffs argue that this case, which is based on negligence during Plaintiff Curtis’ labor and delivery and his mother’s prenatal care resulting in brain damage, should be granted trial preference between Curtis is under fourteen years of age and has a substantial interest in the case. (Motion at pp. 3-4.) The Motion is supported by the Declaration of Elizabeth Hernandez, which provides that Plaintiff Curtis’ date of birth is January 14, 2014. (Hernandez Decl., ¶ 2, Exh. 1.)

Defendants CMC, Kelly Jones and Michael Core filed Responses to the Motion, acknowledging non-opposition but requesting that the Court select a trial date closer to the outside 120th day due to the need to conduct discovery. (Jones Response, pp. 1-2; CMC Response, pp. 1-2.)

Defendant Khalifa filed an Opposition, reprising his arguments raised previously in his denied Demurrer and Motion to Stay, arguing that the Motion may not be granted because the United States has not been joined as a party despite being an “essential party.” (Opposition at pp. 4-6.)

The Court finds no merit to Khalifa’s Opposition. This Court has previously addressed these arguments in its rulings on Khalifa’s Demurrer and Motion to Stay. Further, the United States Attorney General has previously filed with this Court a Notice specifying that it has determined that Khalifa is not deemed to be a Federal employee. (Amended Notice to State Court, p. 1.) The Court does not have jurisdiction over the United States in this because it has not been named as a party, made a general appearance, or been served with a complaint and summons. (Code Civ. Proc., § 410.50.) Khalifa has not cited any authority for the proposition that a non-party over whom this Court lacks jurisdiction is an essential “party,” nor that such lack of service prevails over Plaintiff Curtis’ statutory right to trial setting preference. The fact that Khalifa has a pending appeal in the Ninth Circuit regarding the remand of this case is an unpersuasive reason to deny this motion.

The statutory right to trial setting preference pursuant to section 36, subdivision (b) is mandatory for this Court to apply. (Peters v. Superior Court (1989) 212 Cal.App.3d 218, 223.)

Plaintiffs’ Motion for Trial Setting Preference is GRANTED.

Trial in this matter is set for March 17, 2020 at 9:30 A.M. The Final Status Conference will be held on March 3, 2020 at 8:30 A.M.

Plaintiffs to give notice.

DATED: November 20, 2019

_____________________________

Hon. Robert S. Draper

Judge of the Superior Court