This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 05/28/2019 at 02:18:02 (UTC).

MARK MURPHY ET AL VS UROLOGY OF SOUTH BAY INC ET AL

Case Summary

On 01/18/2017 MARK MURPHY filed a Personal Injury - Medical Malpractice lawsuit against UROLOGY OF SOUTH BAY INC. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are MARC D. GROSS and DEIRDRE HILL. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****7260

  • Filing Date:

    01/18/2017

  • 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

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

MARC D. GROSS

DEIRDRE HILL

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs and Petitioners

MURPHY KELI

MURPHY MARK

Defendants and Respondents

SOUTH BAY UROLOGY MEDICAL GROUP INC

KOO ALEC S. M.D.

UROLOGY SPECIALTY GROUP

DOES 1 TO 50

SKYLIN UROLOGY

NOWZARI FARHAD B M.D.

UROLOGY OF SOUTH BAY INC

LESSER TIMOTHY F. M D

SKYLINE UROLOGY

UROLOGY OF SOUTH BAY INC.

LESSER TIMOTHY F. M.D.

NOWZARI FARHAD B. M.D.

10 More Parties Available

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

HUNT STEVEN D. ESQ.

HUNG STEVEN D.

Defendant and Respondent Attorneys

CREASON JAMES A. ESQ.

CREASON TUCKER ALEXANDER LLP

 

Court Documents

NOTICE OF CHANGE OF FIRM NAME

3/1/2018: NOTICE OF CHANGE OF FIRM NAME

DECLARATION OF ROCCO ALEXANDER RE: EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT BY DEFENDANT, TIMOTHY F. LESSER, M.D.

3/29/2018: DECLARATION OF ROCCO ALEXANDER RE: EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT BY DEFENDANT, TIMOTHY F. LESSER, M.D.

SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT BY DEFENDANT, SKYLINE UROLOGY

3/29/2018: SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT BY DEFENDANT, SKYLINE UROLOGY

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION BY DEFENDANT, SKYLINE UROLOGY; AND MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

3/29/2018: NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION BY DEFENDANT, SKYLINE UROLOGY; AND MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION BY DEFENDANT, ALEC S. KOO, M.D.; AND MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

3/29/2018: NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION BY DEFENDANT, ALEC S. KOO, M.D.; AND MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

SFPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT BY DEFENDANT, TIMOTHY F. LESSER, M.D.

3/29/2018: SFPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT BY DEFENDANT, TIMOTHY F. LESSER, M.D.

SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT BY DEFENDANT, FARHAD B. NOWZARI, M.D.

3/29/2018: SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT BY DEFENDANT, FARHAD B. NOWZARI, M.D.

DECLARATION OF J. BRADLEY TAYLOR, M.D., IN SUPPORT OF MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT/SUMMARY ADJUDICATION ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANTS FARHAD B. NOWZARI, M.D., TIMOTHY F. LESSER, M.D., ALEC S. KOO, M.D., AND

3/29/2018: DECLARATION OF J. BRADLEY TAYLOR, M.D., IN SUPPORT OF MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT/SUMMARY ADJUDICATION ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANTS FARHAD B. NOWZARI, M.D., TIMOTHY F. LESSER, M.D., ALEC S. KOO, M.D., AND

ORDER AND STIPULATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL

5/3/2018: ORDER AND STIPULATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL

NOTICE OF CONTINUANCE OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR IN TILE ALTERNATIVE FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION BY DEFENDANT, TIMOTHY F. LESSER, M.D.

7/20/2018: NOTICE OF CONTINUANCE OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR IN TILE ALTERNATIVE FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION BY DEFENDANT, TIMOTHY F. LESSER, M.D.

Unknown

8/3/2018: Unknown

Case Management Statement

9/21/2018: Case Management Statement

Notice of Case Reassignment and Order for Plaintiff to Give Notice

12/24/2018: Notice of Case Reassignment and Order for Plaintiff to Give Notice

Notice

2/15/2019: Notice

Notice

2/15/2019: Notice

Stipulation

3/12/2019: Stipulation

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

2/6/2017: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

DESIGNATION OF TRIAL COUNSEL

2/9/2017: DESIGNATION OF TRIAL COUNSEL

46 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 05/16/2019
  • [Proposed Order] and Stipulation to Continue Trial, FSC (and Related Motion/Discovery Dates) Personal Injury Courts Only (Central District); Filed by UROLOGY OF SOUTH BAY, INC. (Defendant); Skyline Urology (Defendant); Farhad B. Nowzari,, M.D. (Defendant) et al.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/02/2019
  • Notice (Notice of Execution of Order on Stipulation to Continue Trial); Filed by UROLOGY OF SOUTH BAY, INC. (Defendant); Skyline Urology (Defendant); Farhad B. Nowzari,, M.D. (Defendant) et al.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/26/2019
  • [Proposed Order] and Stipulation to Continue Trial, FSC (and Related Motion/Discovery Dates) Personal Injury Courts Only (Central District); Filed by Skyline Urology (Defendant); SKYLINE UROLOGY (Defendant); Farhad B. Nowzari,, M.D. (Defendant) et al.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/12/2019
  • Stipulation - No Order (to Continue Trial); Filed by SKYLINE UROLOGY (Defendant); Farhad B. Nowzari,, M.D. (Defendant); Timothy F. Lesser,, M.D. (Defendant) et al.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/06/2019
  • Notice (OF TRIAL AND FINAL STATUS CONFERENCE); Filed by MARK MURPHY (Plaintiff); Keli Murphy (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/04/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department B, Deirdre Hill, Presiding; Trial Setting Conference - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/04/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department B, Deirdre Hill, Presiding; Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment - Not Held - Taken Off Calendar by Party

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/04/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department B, Deirdre Hill, Presiding; Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment - Not Held - Taken Off Calendar by Party

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/04/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department B, Deirdre Hill, Presiding; Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment - Not Held - Taken Off Calendar by Party

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/04/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department B, Deirdre Hill, Presiding; Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment - Not Held - Taken Off Calendar by Party

    Read MoreRead Less
166 More Docket Entries
  • 02/06/2017
  • Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by Keli Murphy (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/06/2017
  • PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/06/2017
  • Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by MARK MURPHY (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/06/2017
  • Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by MARK MURPHY (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/18/2017
  • Summons; Filed by null

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/18/2017
  • Complaint; Filed by MARK MURPHY (Plaintiff); Keli Murphy (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/18/2017
  • Complaint filed-Summons Issued; Filed by null

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/18/2017
  • Complaint

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/18/2017
  • COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR MEDICAL MALPRACTICE AND LOSS-OFCONSORTIUM

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/18/2017
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC647260    Hearing Date: January 03, 2020    Dept: SWB

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Southwest District

Torrance Dept. B

MARK MURPHY, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

Case No.:

BC647260

vs.

[Tentative] RULING

UROLOGY OF SOUTH BAY, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

Hearing Date: January 3, 2020

Moving Parties: Defendants Urology of South Bay, Inc., et al.

Responding Party: Plaintiffs Mark Murphy and Keli Murphy

As to plaintiff Mark Murphy:

(1) Motion to Compel Answers to Form Interrogatories, Set Two

(2) Motion to Compel Answers to Special Interrogatories, Set Two

(3) Motion to Compel Responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set Three

(4) Motion to Deem Matters Admitted in Request for Admissions, Set One

As to plaintiff Keli Murphy:

(5) Motion to Compel Answers to Special Interrogatories, Set Two

(6) Motion to Compel Responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set Two

The court considered the moving and opposition papers.

RULING

The motions are MOOT.

The court orders plaintiff Mark Murphy to pay to defendants a monetary sanction in the amount of $1,040 within 30 days.

The court orders plaintiff Keli Murphy to pay to defendants a monetary sanction in the amount of $720 within 30 days.

BACKGROUND

On January 18, 2017, Mark Murphy filed a complaint against defendants Urology of South Bay, Inc., Skyline Urology, Farhad B. Nowzari, M.D., South Bay Urology Medical Group, Inc., Timothy F. Lesser, M.D., Urology Specialty Group, and Alec S. Koo for medical malpractice and loss of consortium.

Trial is set for March 3, 2020.

LEGAL AUTHORITY

Interrogatories

If a party to whom interrogatories are directed fails to serve a timely response, the propounding party may move for an order compelling responses and for a monetary sanction. CCP §2030.290(b). The statute contains no time limit for a motion to compel where no responses have been served. All that need be shown in the moving papers is that a set of interrogatories was properly served on the opposing party, that the time to respond has expired, and that no response of any kind has been served. Leach v. Superior Court (1980) 111 Cal. App. 3d 902, 905-906.

Request for Production of Documents

Where there has been no timely response to a CCP §2031.010 demand, the demanding party must seek an order compelling a response. CCP §2031.300. Failure to timely respond waives all objections, including privilege and work product. Thus, unless the party to whom the demand was directed obtains relief from waiver, he or she cannot raise objections to the documents demanded. There is no deadline for a motion to compel responses. Likewise, for failure to respond, the moving party need not attempt to resolve the matter outside court before filing the motion. Where the motion seeks only a response to the inspection demand, no showing of “good cause” is required. Weil & Brown, Civil Procedure Before Trial, 8:1487.

Request for Admissions

Pursuant to CCP § 2033.280(b), a party may move for an order that the genuineness of any documents and the truth of any matters specified in the requests be deemed admitted, as well as for a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010). “Failure to timely respond to RFA does not result in automatic admissions. Rather, the propounder of the RFA must ‘move for an order that the genuineness of any documents and the truth of any matters specified in the requests be deemed admitted, as well as for a monetary sanction’ under § 2023.010 et seq.” Weil & Brown, Civ. Proc. Before Trial, ¶ 8:1370, citing CCP § 2033.280(b). The court “shall” grant the motion to deem RFA admitted, “unless it finds that the party to whom the requests for admission have been directed has served, before the hearing on the motion, a proposed response to the requests for admission that is in substantial compliance with Section 2033.220.” CCP § 2033.280(c).

DISCUSSION

Defendants request that the court compel plaintiff Mark Murphy to serve responses to defendants’ second set of form interrogatories and special interrogatories, third set of request for production of documents, and to deem admitted the matters in the request for admissions, set one. Defendants also request that the court compel plaintiff Keli Murphy to serve responses to the second set of special interrogatories and third set of request for production of documents. The requests were served on July 17, 2019. Responses were due on August 21.

Defendants provided plaintiffs with extensions of time to respond to September 4. Defense counsel sent correspondence on October 2, requesting responses within 14 days. Defense counsel sent another letter on October 28, requesting responses by November 11.

As of the filing date of the motions on November 13, plaintiffs had not served responses.

In opposition, plaintiffs contend that they will serve responses by December 23. According to plaintiffs’ counsel’s declaration he forwarded the requests to plaintiffs and then inquired as to the status of their draft responses. Plaintiffs informed counsel that “they were extremely busy with work and life and traveling for work and unable to complete their initial draft responses.” Counsel states that he has done his best to obtain information and to assist his clients in the preparation of their responses.

The motions are deemed MOOT based on defendants’ purported receipt of responses.

Monetary sanctions

Under CCP § 2023.030(a), “[t]he court may impose a monetary sanction ordering that one engaging in the misuse of the discovery process, or any attorney advising that conduct, or both pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct. . . . If a monetary sanction is authorized by any provision of this title, the court shall impose that sanction unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” Under CCP § 2023.010, an example of the misuse of the discovery process is “(d) Failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery.”

Sanctions are mandatory in connection with motions to compel responses to interrogatories and requests for production of documents against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel unless the court “finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” CCP §§ 2030.290(c), 2031.300(c).

It is mandatory that the court impose a monetary sanction on the party or attorney whose failure to serve a timely response to requests for admission necessitated a motion to deem them admitted. CCP § 2033.280(c).

Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1348(a) states: “The court may award sanctions under the Discovery Act in favor of a party who files a motion to compel discovery, even though no opposition to the motion was filed, or opposition to the motion was withdrawn, or the requested discovery was provided to the moving party after the motion was filed.”

Defendants request sanctions against plaintiff M. Murphy in the amount of $5,440 for all four motions and against K. Murphy in the amount of $1,720 for both motions.

The court finds that $1,040 ($200/hr. x 4 hrs., $240 in filing fees) is a reasonable amount to be imposed against plaintiff Mark Murphy.

The court finds that $720 ($200/hr. x 3 hrs., $120 in filing fees) is a reasonable amount to be imposed against plaintiff Keli Murphy.

Defendants are ordered to give notice of ruling.