Search

Attributes

This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 10/26/2018 at 11:02:16 (UTC).

LEONID RUDIN ET AL VS HUNTINGTON HOSPITAL ET AL

Case Summary

On 05/12/2017 LEONID RUDIN filed a Personal Injury - Medical Malpractice lawsuit against HUNTINGTON HOSPITAL. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Burbank Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is YOLANDA OROZCO. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****1280

  • Filing Date:

    05/12/2017

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Medical Malpractice

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Burbank Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

YOLANDA OROZCO

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs and Petitioners

KIERZENBLAT HAVIVA

RUDIN LEONID

Defendants and Respondents

MOAZZAM ALAN M. D.

LIU MAY M.D.

DAGA NIKHIL M.D.

HUNTINGTON HOSPITAL

DOES 1 TO 100

DURAIRAT AZHIL M.D.

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorney

SILBERBERG MARSHALL ESQ.

Defendant and Respondent Attorneys

WEISS DAVID J. ESQ.

LAMB MICHAEL V. ESQ.

BLESSEY RAYMOND L. ESQ

 

Court Documents

Stipulation to Continue Trial/FSC [and Related Motion/Discovery Dates] Personal Injury Courts Only (Department 91, 92, 93, 97)

9/11/2018: Stipulation to Continue Trial/FSC [and Related Motion/Discovery Dates] Personal Injury Courts Only (Department 91, 92, 93, 97)

NOTICE OF NON-OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON BEHALF OF ALAN MOAZZAM, M.D.

9/26/2018: NOTICE OF NON-OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON BEHALF OF ALAN MOAZZAM, M.D.

Order

10/5/2018: Order

Minute Order

10/5/2018: Minute Order

Declaration in Support of Attorney's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel-Civil

10/10/2018: Declaration in Support of Attorney's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel-Civil

NOTICE OF CHANGE OF NAME OF LAW FIRM

4/5/2018: NOTICE OF CHANGE OF NAME OF LAW FIRM

NOTICE OF MOTION AND SUMMARY JUDGMENI MOTION OF DEFENDANT ALAN MOAZZAM, M.D.; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATIONS OF JOHN S. CAYLEY AND MICHAEL EILBERT, M.D.

7/18/2018: NOTICE OF MOTION AND SUMMARY JUDGMENI MOTION OF DEFENDANT ALAN MOAZZAM, M.D.; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATIONS OF JOHN S. CAYLEY AND MICHAEL EILBERT, M.D.

SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS AND EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION OF DEFENDANT ALAN MOAZZAM M.D.

7/18/2018: SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS AND EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION OF DEFENDANT ALAN MOAZZAM M.D.

APPENDIX OF EXHIBITS IN SUPPORT OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION OF DEFENDANT ALAN MOAZZAM, M.D.

7/18/2018: APPENDIX OF EXHIBITS IN SUPPORT OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION OF DEFENDANT ALAN MOAZZAM, M.D.

SUBSTITUTION OF ATTORNEY

12/15/2017: SUBSTITUTION OF ATTORNEY

SUBSTITUTION OF ATTORNEY

12/15/2017: SUBSTITUTION OF ATTORNEY

COMPLAINT 1. MEDICAL MALPRACTICE 2. LOSS OF CONSORTIUM

5/12/2017: COMPLAINT 1. MEDICAL MALPRACTICE 2. LOSS OF CONSORTIUM

SUMMONS

5/17/2017: SUMMONS

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

6/5/2017: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

DEFENDANTS HUNTINGTON MEMORIAL HOSPITAL AND MAY LIU, M.D.'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES; ETC

6/26/2017: DEFENDANTS HUNTINGTON MEMORIAL HOSPITAL AND MAY LIU, M.D.'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES; ETC

Proof of Service

7/7/2017: Proof of Service

PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

7/17/2017: PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

8/7/2017: ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

7 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 10/16/2018
  • Notice of Case Assignment

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/10/2018
  • Declaration in Support of Attorney's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel-Civil; Filed by Leonid Rudin (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/10/2018
  • Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel; Filed by Marshall, Silberberg, Esq. (Attorney)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/05/2018
  • at 1:30 PM in Department 7, Yolanda Orozco, Presiding; Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment - Not Held - Taken Off Calendar by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/05/2018
  • Order (name extension) (transferring personal injury case to independent calendar court); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/05/2018
  • Certificate of Mailing for (Minute Order (Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment) of 10/05/2018); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/05/2018
  • Notice of Case Reassignment and Order for Plaintiff to Give Notice; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/05/2018
  • Minute Order ( (Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/26/2018
  • Notice; Filed by Leonid Rudin (Plaintiff); Haviva Kierzenblat (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/26/2018
  • NOTICE OF NON-OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON BEHALF OF ALAN MOAZZAM, M.D.

    Read MoreRead Less
25 More Docket Entries
  • 06/15/2017
  • Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by Leonid Rudin (Plaintiff); Haviva Kierzenblat (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/15/2017
  • PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/05/2017
  • PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/05/2017
  • PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/05/2017
  • Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by Leonid Rudin (Plaintiff); Haviva Kierzenblat (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/05/2017
  • Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by Leonid Rudin (Plaintiff); Haviva Kierzenblat (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/17/2017
  • Summons; Filed by Leonid Rudin (Plaintiff); Haviva Kierzenblat (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/17/2017
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/12/2017
  • COMPLAINT 1. MEDICAL MALPRACTICE 2. LOSS OF CONSORTIUM

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/12/2017
  • Complaint; Filed by Leonid Rudin (Plaintiff); Haviva Kierzenblat (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC661280    Hearing Date: March 26, 2021    Dept: D

TENTATIVE RULING
Calendar:    12
Date:         3/26/2021
Case No:      BC661280 Trial Date: December 6, 2021
Case Name: Rudin, et al. v. Huntington Memorial Hospital, et al.
MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
Moving Party: Defendant Huntington Memorial Hospital       
Responding Party: Plaintiff Leonid Rudin   
RELIEF REQUESTED:
Order compelling further responses to Requests for Production, Set Three 
MONETARY SANCTION
 None sought 
FACTUAL BACKGROUND:
The complaint alleges that in February of 2017, plaintiff E. Leonid Rudin presented to defendant Huntington Hospital with complaints of severe chest pain and an abnormal EGK that was suspicious for ST elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI).  Plaintiff was taken to Huntington Hospital as it was a known STEMI receiving facility and held itself out as a facility with properly trained staff and physicians, which was properly equipped, managed and designed to care for patients with severe coronary emergencies.  Plaintiff alleges that he was admitted first to the emergency department where his EKGs continued to be suspicious for myocardial infarction, which is well known to lead to severe cardiac damage and death. The complaint alleges that despite the objective findings of plaintiff’s EKGs and his ongoing complaints of chest pain, plaintiff did not receive timely cardiac intervention such that his heart has been irreparably damaged. 
Plaintiff Haviva Kierzenblat, plaintiff Rudin’s spouse, brings a cause of action for loss of consortium. 
The file shows that on March 22, 2021, the court received a Stipulation and Protective Order—Confidential and Highly Confidential Designations, filed by plaintiffs, pursuant to which the parties have agreed to a Protective Order.   
ANALYSIS:
The motion seeks further responses and compliance with plaintiff’s statement of compliance as to Request for Production of Documents, Set Three, Requests Nos. 25 through 29, which seek documents evidencing plaintiff’s claims for loss of past and future earnings. 
Plaintiff has filed an Opposition/Response to the motion, arguing that there are two parts to the motion, one seeking further responses to the Requests for Production of Documents, and one seeking to compel production of documents plaintiff undertook to produce.   
Plaintiff indicates that to the extent the motion seeks further responses to the subject discovery, the motion is untimely and should be denied, as it is brought more than 45 days after supplemental responses were served.  
CCP § 2031.310(c), which applies to a motion to compel further responses to document demands, and provides:
“Unless notice of this motion is given within 45 days of the service of the response, or any supplemental response, or on or before any specific later late to which the propounding party and the responding party have agreed in writing, the demanding party waives any right to compel a further response to the inspection demand.” 
Defendant in the reply appears to concede that it is not seeking further responses to the subject discovery, indicating that “further written responses to the requests are not the crux of the motion.”   This appears to be a concession that any request for such relief would be untimely, and the Court accordingly does not order that further responses be served. 
The opposition/response indicates that with respect to the second part of the motion, seeking to compel compliance and actual production of the documents, plaintiff does not oppose this part of the motion, and has circulated a protective order based on the Los Angeles Superior Court template, and will produce documents in accordance with his statement of compliance, as well as tax returns, with appropriate redactions of such information as plaintiff’s social security number, subject to the protective order.  This appears appropriate, as there is no time limitation with respect to a motion to compel compliance with a statement of compliance.  See CCP § 2031.320; Standon Co., Inc. v. Superior Court (1990) 225 Cal.App.3d 898, 903 (construing predecessor CCP section 2031, subdivision (m)).  
The Court is in receipt of the Stipulation and Protective Order—Confidential and Highly Confidential Designations, filed by plaintiffs, and signed by the parties, and will sign and enter the Stipulation and Protective Order as the order of this Court. 
This appears to render the motion moot, as plaintiff has agreed to produce documents as to each of the subject Requests, subject to the protective order. 
The reply requests that the Court enter an order requiring the production to take place as agreed within a reasonable time.  The Court will enter such an order. 
RULING:
Defendant Huntington Memorial Hospital’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production, Set Three, Propounded to Plaintiff Leonid Rudin:
The Court is in receipt of the Stipulation and Protective Order—Confidential and Highly 
Confidential Designations, filed by plaintiffs, and signed by the parties, and will sign and enter the Stipulation and Protective Order as the order of this Court this date. 
At the concession of the parties, and subject to the Protective Order, the motion is GRANTED IN PART.  Plaintiff Leonid Rudin is ordered to produce documents and/or permit the inspection promised in written responses and in the opposition/response to this motion to Request for Production, Set Three, Requests Nos. 25 through 29, within thirty days.  Plaintiff is permitted to redact from those documents his social security number. 
Motion to compel further responses to the subject requests for production of documents is otherwise denied as untimely, at the concession in the reply. 
GIVEN THE CORONAVIRUS CRISIS, AND TO PROMOTE APPROPRIATE SOCIAL DISTANCING, UNTIL FURTHER ORDERED, DEPARTMENT D IS ENCOURAGING AUDIO OR VIDEO APPEARANCES 
Please make arrangements in advance if you wish to appear via LACourtConnect by visiting www.lacourt.org, and scheduling a remote appearance.  Please note that LACourtConnect offers an audio-only appearance option at a current cost of $15.00 and a video appearance option at a cost of $23.00.   Counsel and parties (including self-represented litigants) are encouraged not to personally appear, unless they have obtained advance permission of the Court.  Anyone who appears in person for the hearing will be required to comply with strict social distancing measures, including, but not limited to, assigned seating, capacity limitations in the courtroom, designated waiting areas, and strictly enforced spacing in line to communicate with court staff.  If no appearance is set up through LACourtConnect, or otherwise, then the Court will assume the parties are submitting on the tentative. 
 
related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where HUNTINGTON HOSPITAL is a litigant