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

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

 

Party Details

Guardian Ad Litems and Plaintiffs

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

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

2/7/2018: DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

NOTICE OF TAKING HEARING OF DEFENDANTS' DEMURRER OFF CALENDAR

2/13/2018: NOTICE OF TAKING HEARING OF DEFENDANTS' DEMURRER OFF CALENDAR

DECLARATION OF JULLANNE M. DEMARCO RE INABILITY TO COMPLETE PRE-DEMURRER MEET AND CONFER PROCESS

3/7/2018: DECLARATION OF JULLANNE M. DEMARCO RE INABILITY TO COMPLETE PRE-DEMURRER MEET AND CONFER PROCESS

NOTICE OF DEMURRER AND DEMURRER OF DEFENDANTS KELLY JONES M.D.AND MICHAEL A, CORE M.D.TO PLAINTIFFS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT;AND ETC.

3/13/2018: NOTICE OF DEMURRER AND DEMURRER OF DEFENDANTS KELLY JONES M.D.AND MICHAEL A, CORE M.D.TO PLAINTIFFS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT;AND ETC.

NOTICE OF TAKING DEMURRER OFF- CALENDAR

4/2/2018: NOTICE OF TAKING DEMURRER OFF- CALENDAR

SUMMONS

4/4/2018: SUMMONS

AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT

4/4/2018: AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

4/10/2018: DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

4/10/2018: ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

4/24/2018: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL

5/31/2018: REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL

NOTICE OF ENTRY OF DISMISSAL AND PROOF OF SERVICE

6/7/2018: NOTICE OF ENTRY OF DISMISSAL AND PROOF OF SERVICE

REQUEST FOR REFUND

6/12/2018: REQUEST FOR REFUND

Unknown

6/21/2018: Unknown

OPPOSITION TO EX PARTE APPLICATION OF; ETC

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

EX PARTE APPLICATION OF DEFENDANT ALIMED KHALIFA, M.D. TO EXTEND TIME FOR RESPONSIVE PLEADING TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT AND TO CONTINUE TRIAL

7/17/2018: EX PARTE APPLICATION OF DEFENDANT ALIMED KHALIFA, M.D. TO EXTEND TIME FOR RESPONSIVE PLEADING TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT AND TO CONTINUE TRIAL

Minute Order

7/17/2018: Minute Order

Minute Order

7/17/2018: Minute Order

51 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

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

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

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

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 05/14/2019
  • Docketat 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 More [-] Read Less
  • 02/28/2019
  • DocketNotice (to State Court of Filing of Writ of Mandamus to State Court); Filed by Ahmad Khalifa M.D. Doe1 (Defendant)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 02/25/2019
  • DocketNotice of Deposit - Jury; Filed by Ahmad Khalifa M.D. Doe1 (Defendant)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 02/25/2019
  • DocketAnswer ( TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT); Filed by Ahmad Khalifa M.D. Doe1 (Defendant)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 02/06/2019
  • DocketNotice 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 More [-] Read Less
  • 02/05/2019
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 78; Hearing on Motion - Other (for an order to stay proceedings) - Held - Motion Denied

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 02/05/2019
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 78; Hearing on Demurrer - without Motion to Strike - Held

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

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

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

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 11/16/2017
  • DocketSUMMONS

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 11/16/2017
  • DocketSummons Issued; Filed by DANA K. DUNMORE (Plaintiff); KARSON CURTIS,, by and through guardian ad litem (Plaintiff); DANA K DUNMORE (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 10/11/2017
  • DocketCOMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1. NEGLIGENCE ON BEHALF OF KARSON CURTIS

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 10/11/2017
  • DocketAPPLICATION AND ORDER FOR APPOINTMENT OF GUARDIAN AD LITEM

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 10/11/2017
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by DANA K DUNMORE (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 10/11/2017
  • DocketApplication ; Filed by Plaintiff/Petitioner

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 07/17/2017
  • DocketOpposition Document; Filed by Plaintiff/Petitioner

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: ****9022    Hearing Date: August 31, 2020    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.:

****9022

Hearing Date:

August 31, 2020

[TENTATIVE] RULING RE:

PlaintiffS’ Petition to Approve Minor’s Compromise AS TO karson curtis

Petitioner Dana Dunmore’s Petition to Approve Minor’s Compromise will be GRANTED as to Beneficiary Karson Curtis after Petitioner presents a revised Order pursuant to requirements herein.

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.

On March 6, 2020, Plaintiffs filed the instant Petition to Approve Compromise of Disputed Claim as to Karson Curtis.

No Oppositions have been filed.

Discussion

  1. PETITION TO APPROVE MINOR’S COMPROMISE

Under Code of Civil Procedure section 372, any settlement of a claim made by a minor or adult with a disability must be approved by the Court. ;If the Court is satisfied that the settlement is in the best interest of the person, then the Court should approve the settlement.  (See Pearson v. Superior Court (2012) 202 Cal.App.4th 1333, 1338.)   

On May 26, 2020, Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Settlement of the Entire Case. The settlement agreement is conditioned upon approval of this Petition for Minor’s Compromise. (Petition, ¶ 1.)

A compromise or covenant for a disputed claim or damages, money, or other property of a minor is valid only after it has been approved by the superior court. (Prob. Code ; 3500(b).) The petition “must be verified by the petitioner and must contain a full disclosure of all information that has any bearing upon the reasonableness of the compromise, covenant, settlement, or disposition.” (Cal. Rules of Court, 7.950.)

The total settlement is in the amount of $4,7000,000, with $2,185,500 from Dignity Health dba California Hospital, $2,185,500 from Kelly Jones MD and Michael Core, and $329,000 from Ahmad Khalifa MD. (Petition, ¶ 11.)

The parties propose to allocate the settlement as follows: $300,000 to petitioner Dunmore for her individual prospective claim for wrongful death and past care; $500,000 to be used to purchase an annuity for the benefit of Carson ($2,005/mo for the life of Carson or 30 years beginning at age 18), and $4,200,000 allocated to Carson. (Petition, Attch. 11.) Of the $4,200,000, the following are to be deducted: $767,752.62 attorneys’ fees to Michels & Lew, $59,415.99 costs to Michels & Lew, $4,500 attorneys fee to Randolph Sharon Esq. for preparation of the trust, $272,511.24 Department of Health Service Lien to be kept in Michels & Lew’s client trust account. (Petition, Attch. 11.) The remaining $3,095,820.15 is to be paid to Citizens Business Bank, trustee of the Karson Curtis Special Needs Trust. (Petition, Attch. 11.)

The Court finds as follows:

  1. Carson is a person with a disability that substantially impairs the his ability to provide for his own care or custody and constitutes a substantial handicap; (Prob. Code 3604 (b)(1) );

  2. Carson is a person with a disability is likely to have special needs that will not be met without the trust; (Prob. Code 3604 (b)(2) );

  3. The money to be paid to the trust does not exceed the amount that appears reasonably necessary to meet Carson’s special needs. (Prob. Code 3604 (b)(3) );

  4. the orders to establish a Special Needs Trust;

  5. the Court appoints CITIZENS BUSNESS BANK as Trustee and waives bond;

  6. the Trustee may pay agents and advisors and other expenses, except that compensation to the Trustee’s attorneys shall be subject to Court approval;

  7. So long as CITIZENS BUSNESS BANK is acting as trustee, it may receive interim compensation on acct, in accordance with its published fee schedule for trust of this type as it may exist from time to time and such compensation shall be reviewed by the Court upon the occasion of the Trustee’s Court accountings;

  8. The trustee may hire a case worker or other persons with expertise relating to the special needs of the beneficiary, at the expense of the Trust, to advise it regarding the special needs of Carson;

  9. the Trustee is authorized to spend up to $60,000 to purchase a vehicle which will be used to transport Carson and which will accommodate his special needs.

  10. Title to the vehicle be in the name of Carson’s’s mother Dana Dumore in order to avoid liability to trust and the trust shall have a lien on the vehicle in order to secure the purchase price. The trust will be responsible for the payment of registration, insurance, maintenance and repairs.

  11. The Los Angeles Superior Court retains jurisdiction.

  12. Prior to opening the trust file Petitioner must provide a copy of this order, this ruling, and the Application to the Directors of THE HCS, THE SH, DDS (for record code 30 602F & 3611C

  13. The trustee is ordered to open trust file by ____________2020 for the Special Needs Trust by filing with the Probate Department of the LA Superior Court a “Notice of Commencement of Proceedings for a Court Supervised Trust”(LASC Form PRO 044) in order to have a probate case number assigned to this trust pursuant to LASC Rule 4.115 (e ) and so that the Probate Court can enter this trust in its computer tracking system.

  14. The trustee is ordered to attach a conformed copy of the settlement order establishing the trust to the Notice of Commencement of Proceeding for a Court Supervised Trust (LASC Rule 4.115 (e)

  15. the Trustee is ordered to set a status hearing date in the trust file 14 months from the date of this order for the Probate Court to check on the timely filing of the trustee’s first account current.

  16. The Court sets a status hearing on ___________ at 8:30 a.m. in Dept 78 to determine if the petitioner has filed proof in the civil case that the trust file has been opened in the Probate Department of the LA Superior Court;

  17. The Court orders the first account for the Special Needs Trust to be filed in the trust file supervised by Probate Department of the LA Superior Court within 12 months for the date of the order approving the establishment of the Special Needs Trust and biennially thereafter, unless earlier requested by the Trustee or other interested parties. The Trustee shall also submit accountings as provided in Probate Code Sections 16062 and 16063.

Further, the Petitioner must submit a revised Order with the following changes:

  1. Paragraph 2 on page 1 needs to be completed with hearing date, time, etc.

  2. Paragraph 9c on page 4 of the order needs to be revised to state: “Attached hereto and made a part hereof is a copy of the Karson Curtis Special Needs Trust. Dana Dumore is authorized and directed to execute the Karson Curtis Special Trust, a copy of which is made part of this order.”

  3. The trust should have a signature line for Dana Dumore to sign before the trustee’s signature line.

  4. Petitioner must provide a copy of the Order, this Ruling, and the Application to the Directors of DHCS, DSH, DDS (Prob. Code 3602(f) & 3611(c)

Pursuant to Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 7.952, the Petitioner and Carson attend the hearing unless the Court finds good cause. This Court will require the minor petitioners to attend the hearing remotely by LACourtConnnect. Given the nature of the settlement, if the Carson cannot attend the hearing because of conflicting school obligations, the Court will find good cause to excuse Carson’s’ appearance.

Petitioner Dana Dunmore’s Petition to Approve Minor’s Compromise will be GRANTED as to Beneficiary Karson Curtis after Petitioner presents a revised Order pursuant to requirements herein.

DATED: August 31, 2020

____________________________

Hon. Robert S. Draper

Judge of the Superior Court



Case Number: ****9022    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



related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where CALIFORNIA HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER is a litigant