This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 03/10/2022 at 21:15:25 (UTC).

KJERSTI FLAA VS ALEXANDER KOTLARENKO, ET AL.

Case Summary

On 10/06/2021 KJERSTI FLAA filed a Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury lawsuit against ALEXANDER KOTLARENKO. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Spring Street Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.
Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *******6943

  • Filing Date:

    10/06/2021

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

FLAA KJERSTI

Defendants

KOTLARENKO ALEXANDER

KOTLARENKO DR. MARINA MD

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Defendant Attorneys

MALYAN CHRISTINA

ROTH HEATHER M.

 

Court Documents

Complaint

10/6/2021: Complaint

Notice of Case Assignment - Unlimited Civil Case

10/6/2021: Notice of Case Assignment - Unlimited Civil Case

Civil Case Cover Sheet

10/6/2021: Civil Case Cover Sheet

Summons - SUMMONS ON COMPLAINT

10/6/2021: Summons - SUMMONS ON COMPLAINT

Notice of Posting of Jury Fees

12/13/2021: Notice of Posting of Jury Fees

Answer

12/13/2021: Answer

PI General Order

11/3/2021: PI General Order

Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR [PI GENERAL ORDER], STANDING ORDER RE PI PROCEDURES AND HEARING DATES

11/3/2021: Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR [PI GENERAL ORDER], STANDING ORDER RE PI PROCEDURES AND HEARING DATES

 

Docket Entries

  • 10/02/2024
  • Hearing10/02/2024 at 08:30 AM in Department 31 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/05/2023
  • Hearing04/05/2023 at 08:30 AM in Department 31 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Non-Jury Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/22/2023
  • Hearing03/22/2023 at 10:00 AM in Department 31 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Final Status Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/13/2021
  • DocketNotice of Posting of Jury Fees; Filed by Alex Kotlarenko Erroneously Sued As Alexander Kotlarenko (Defendant); Marina Kotlarenko Erroneously Sued As Dr. Marina Kotlarenko, MD (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/13/2021
  • DocketAnswer; Filed by Alex Kotlarenko Erroneously Sued As Alexander Kotlarenko (Defendant); Marina Kotlarenko Erroneously Sued As Dr. Marina Kotlarenko, MD (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/03/2021
  • DocketCertificate of Mailing for ([PI General Order], Standing Order re PI Procedures and Hearing Dates); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/03/2021
  • DocketPI General Order; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/06/2021
  • DocketSummons (on Complaint); Filed by Kjersti Flaa (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/06/2021
  • DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Unlimited Civil Case; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/06/2021
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Kjersti Flaa (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/06/2021
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by Kjersti Flaa (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: *******6943 Hearing Date: March 23, 2022 Dept: B

LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT – SOUTHWEST DISTRICT

Honorable Gary Y. Tanaka Wednesday, March 23, 2022

Department B Calendar No. 7

PROCEEDINGS

Estate of Alejandro Alers, Sr., et al. v. Olympia Medical Center, et al.

20STCV36943

  1. HealthCare Partners Affiliates Medical Group, et al.’s Motion for Summary Judgment

    TENTATIVE RULING

    HealthCare Partners Affiliates Medical Group, et al.’s Motion for Summary Judgment is granted.

    Background

    Plaintiffs filed their Complaint on September 28, 2020. Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint was submitted on January 19, 2021, but never officially filed. On August 24, 2021, the parties stipulated that the First Amended Complaint was deemed filed on January 19, 2021. Plaintiffs alleged numerous causes of action in relation to the death of Plaintiffs’ decedent Alejandro Alers, Sr. The Plaintiffs in this action were the Estate of Alejandro Alers, Sr., Alejandro Alers, Jr., and Hazel Alers. Each of the Plaintiffs brought this action in pro per. On November 23, 2021, Plaintiffs filed their Second Amended Complaint. On December 10, 2021, claims brought on behalf of the Estate were dismissed. The only cause of action that remains as to Plaintiff Hazel Alers against moving Defendants is the cause of action for Wrongful Death.

    Motion for Summary Judgment

    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. Atlantic 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.) A defendant moving for summary judgment or summary adjudication “has met his or her burden of showing that a cause of action has no merit if the party has shown that one or more elements of the cause of action . . . cannot be established, or that there is a complete defense to the cause of action.” CCP 437c(p)(2). “Once the defendant . . . has met that burden, the burden shifts to the plaintiff . . . to show that a triable issue of one or more material facts exists as to the cause of action or a defense thereto.” CCP 437c(p)(2). “If the plaintiff cannot do so, summary judgment should be granted.” Avivi v. Centro Medico Urgente Medical Center (2008) 159 Cal. App. 4th 463, 467.

    “A plaintiff or cross-complainant has met his or her burden of showing that there is no defense to a cause of action if that party has proved each element of the cause of action entitling the party to judgment on the cause of action. Once the plaintiff or cross-complainant has met that burden, the burden shifts to the defendant or cross-defendant to show that a triable issue of one or more material facts exists as to the cause of action or a defense thereto.” Code Civ. Proc., 437c(p)(1).

    “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; CCP 437c(c).)

    Defendants HealthCare Partners Affiliates Medical Group, Mary Jean Lockard, N.P., N. Isabel Kiefer, M.D., Hagop Sarkissian, M.D., and Kelly Winer, S.W. move for an order granting summary judgment in their favor and against Plaintiff Hazel Alers. The motion is made on the grounds that Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint has no merit and fails to present any triable issues of material fact because (1) Plaintiff has admitted that the care and treatment rendered to decedent by moving Defendants was at all times appropriate; and (2) Plaintiff has admitted that no act or omission to act on the part of moving Defendants caused decedent's death.

Defendants have met their initial burden to show that Plaintiff cannot establish the elements of her causes of action. The same elements of negligence are encompassed within the first cause of action for wrongful death. “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. The standard of care with respect to acts of medical professionals is exclusively within the knowledge of experts, and, thus, whether the medical professional met or breached the standard of care can only be established by expert testimony. See, Landeros v. Flood (1976) 17 Cal.3d 399, 410.

Here, on December 16, 2021, the Court granted Defendants’ Motion to Deem Requests for Admissions Admitted. (Defendants’ Ex. C.) The requests for admission requested that Plaintiff Hazel Alers admit that the care and treatment rendered to decedent by moving Defendants were appropriate and no act or omission on the part of Defendants caused decedent’s injuries and death. (Defendants’ Ex. D.) Thus, Plaintiff has admitted that she cannot establish the elements of her only cause of action for Wrongful Death. Defendants submitted competent evidence to establish a complete defense to the cause of action. CCP 437c(b) authorizes the use of admissions to support a motion for summary judgment. See, D’Amico v. Board of Med. Examiners (1974) 11 Cal.3d 1, 22. Plaintiff has not met her burden to provide competent evidence to demonstrate the existence of a triable issue of material fact as to her cause of action.

Therefore, Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is granted.

Defendants are ordered to give notice of this ruling.


related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases represented by Lawyer MALYAN CHRISTINA

Latest cases represented by Lawyer ROTH HEATHER M.