This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 06/19/2019 at 01:23:26 (UTC).

MARVYN GORDON VS CEDARS-SINAI MEDICAL CENTER ET AL

Case Summary

On 06/28/2017 MARVYN GORDON filed a Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury lawsuit against CEDARS-SINAI MEDICAL CENTER. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is JON R. TAKASUGI. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.
Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****6118

  • Filing Date:

    06/28/2017

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

JON R. TAKASUGI

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner

GORDON MARVYN

Respondents and Defendants

DOES 1 THROUGH 20

IPPOLITI M.D. ANDREW F.

CEDARS-SINAI MEDICAL CENTER

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorney

O'CALLAHAN JAMES G. ESQ.

Respondent and Defendant Attorney

REBACK ROBERT C. ESQ.

 

Court Documents

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

12/3/2018: Stipulation to Continue Trial/FSC [and Related Motion/Discovery Dates] Personal Injury Courts Only (Department 91, 92, 93, 97)

Declaration

2/19/2019: Declaration

Ex Parte Application

2/21/2019: Ex Parte Application

Minute Order

2/21/2019: Minute Order

Declaration

3/29/2019: Declaration

Declaration

3/29/2019: Declaration

Motion for Summary Judgment

3/29/2019: Motion for Summary Judgment

Notice of Lodging

3/29/2019: Notice of Lodging

Request for Judicial Notice

3/29/2019: Request for Judicial Notice

Notice

6/13/2019: Notice

Ex Parte Application

6/17/2019: Ex Parte Application

Minute Order

6/17/2019: Minute Order

Unknown

6/27/2018: Unknown

Summons

6/28/2017: Summons

Complaint

6/28/2017: Complaint

CoverSheet

6/28/2017: CoverSheet

DECLARATION OF TRIAL ATTORNEY

8/4/2017: DECLARATION OF TRIAL ATTORNEY

ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

8/4/2017: ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

8 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 06/17/2019
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 3, Jon R. Takasugi, Presiding; Hearing on Ex Parte Application (to Continue Trial) - Held - Motion Granted

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 06/17/2019
  • Docketat 1:30 PM in Department 3, Jon R. Takasugi, Presiding; Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment - Not Held - Rescheduled by Party

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 06/17/2019
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Hearing on Ex Parte Application to Continue Trial)); Filed by Clerk

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 06/17/2019
  • DocketJoint Stipulation to Continue Trial and Related Dates; Order; Filed by MARVYN GORDON (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 06/17/2019
  • DocketEx Parte Application (to Continue Trial); Filed by MARVYN GORDON (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 06/13/2019
  • DocketNotice (NOTICE OF CONTINUANCE OF DEFENDANTS CEDARS-SINAI MEDICAL CENTER and ANDREW F. IPPOLITI, M.D. MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT); Filed by CEDARS-SINAI MEDICAL CENTER (Defendant); M.D., ANDREW F. IPPOLITI (Defendant)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 04/22/2019
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 3, Jon R. Takasugi, Presiding; Jury Trial - Not Held - Continued - Party's Motion

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 04/22/2019
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 3, Jon R. Takasugi, Presiding; Jury Trial - Not Held - Vacated by Court

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 04/10/2019
  • Docketat 10:00 AM in Department 3, Jon R. Takasugi, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Continued - Ex Parte Motion

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 04/10/2019
  • Docketat 10:00 AM in Department 3, Jon R. Takasugi, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Continued - Party's Motion

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
16 More Docket Entries
  • 08/10/2017
  • DocketProof-Service/Summons; Filed by MARVYN GORDON (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 08/10/2017
  • DocketProof of Service of Summons and Complaint

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 08/10/2017
  • DocketProof-Service/Summons; Filed by MARVYN GORDON (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 08/04/2017
  • DocketDeclaration; Filed by CEDARS-SINAI MEDICAL CENTER (Defendant); M.D., ANDREW F. IPPOLITI (Defendant)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 08/04/2017
  • DocketAnswer; Filed by CEDARS-SINAI MEDICAL CENTER (Defendant); M.D., ANDREW F. IPPOLITI (Defendant)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 08/04/2017
  • DocketDECLARATION OF TRIAL ATTORNEY

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 08/04/2017
  • DocketANSWER TO COMPLAINT

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 06/28/2017
  • DocketComplaint

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 06/28/2017
  • DocketSummons; Filed by MARVYN GORDON (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 06/28/2017
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by MARVYN GORDON (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: ****6118    Hearing Date: December 24, 2020    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

MARVYN GORDON,

Plaintiff(s),

vs.

CEDARS-SINAI MEDICAL CENTER, ET AL.,

Defendant(s).

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CASE NO: ****6118

[TENTATIVE] ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO REOPEN EXPERT DISCOVERY

Dept. 31

1:30 p.m.

December 24, 2020

 

  1. Background

    Plaintiff, Marvyn Gordon (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants, Andrew F. Ippoliti, M.D. and Cedars-Sinai Medical Center (collectively, “Defendants”) for wrongful death/medical malpractice. Plaintiff alleges Defendants were negligent in providing medical care to Plaintiff’s wife, Molly Cope, and the negligence resulted in her death. During discovery, Plaintiff made clear that he alleges Defendants failed to recommend a follow-up colonoscopy, which colonoscopy would have led to an earlier diagnosis of her cancer; she ultimately died of the undiagnosed cancer.

    On 1/22/20, the court granted Plaintiff’s ex parte application to continue trial by continuing the then scheduled trial date of 2/24/20 to 3/30/20. (Min. Order 1/22/20.) The court expressly stated that all discovery and motion cut-off dates would not be extended. (Ibid.) Based on current conditions, including, but not limited to, the spread of COVID-19, the 3/30/30 jury trial date was advanced and vacated, and a Trial Setting Conference (“TSC”) was set for 4/13/20. (Min. Order 3/16/20.) The TSC was then continued to 12/31/20. (Min. Orders 3/23/20 and 7/23/20.)

    Plaintiff now moves to reopen expert discovery.

  2. Motion to Reopen Expert Discovery

  1. Parties’ Positions

Plaintiff provides that his prior counsel allowed deadlines to expire while seeking to relieved as counsel and failed to comply with Defendants’ deposition notice for Plaintiff’s expert witness, which was set for 1/24/20. Plaintiff argues his prior counsel created a potentially fatal risk that Plaintiff’s expert will be excluded from trial, as Defendants have filed a motion in limine to exclude expert testimony not given at deposition. Further, Plaintiff asserts his prior counsel never noticed the depositions of any of Defendants’ experts, and Plaintiff only received his case file in late March 2020. Plaintiff argues good cause exists to reopen expert discovery and motion cut-off dates because (1) expert testimony is critical to achieving a trial on the merits, (2) it would not delay trial or prejudice Defendants, and (3) Plaintiff should not be prejudiced by his prior counsel’s actions.

In opposition, Defendants argue Plaintiff himself created his current situation, not his previous counsel. Defendants assert that Plaintiff is a practicing attorney who was capable of representing himself in this action after his prior counsel withdrew. Defendants argue that instead, Plaintiff ignored all efforts by Defendants to contact him and all of Plaintiff’s responsibilities in this action. Defendants contend Plaintiff does not offer any reason for failing to make Plaintiff’s expert available for deposition before all expert discovery was closed on 2/9/20, and that Plaintiff failed to satisfy the requirements of CCP ; 2024.050 to reopen discovery because Plaintiff has done nothing to prosecute this case since 1/31/20, when Plaintiff’s prior counsel was relieved as his attorney of record, and 6/16/20 when a substitution of attorney for Plaintiff’s current counsel was filed. Defendants aver Plaintiff abused the discovery process by failing to make his expert available, despite being an attorney who understands his discovery obligations. Moreover, even if Plaintiff’s motion is granted, Defendants contend Plaintiff should not be allowed to depose Defendants’ experts because Plaintiff to date has not noticed any of Defendants’ experts depositions.

Plaintiff, in reply, asserts he is a 75-year-old widower, suffers emotionally and psychologically, and has trouble functioning at times. Plaintiff asserts he did not set out to represent himself in this matter as he hired counsel, and Plaintiff’s conduct was not gamesmanship. Further, Plaintiff provides that his current counsel requested dates to depose Defendants’ experts on 6/24/20 in their first correspondence. In addition, Plaintiff contends Defendants do not identify any prejudice they would suffer if expert discovery is reopened.

  1. Analysis

CCP ; 2024.050 states:

(a) On motion of any party, the court may grant leave to complete discovery proceedings, or to have a motion concerning discovery heard, closer to the initial trial date, or to reopen discovery after a new trial date has been set. This motion shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040.

(b) In exercising its discretion to grant or deny this motion, the court shall take into consideration any matter relevant to the leave requested, including, but not limited to, the following:

(1) The necessity and the reasons for the discovery.

(2) The diligence or lack of diligence of the party seeking the discovery or the hearing of a discovery motion, and the reasons that the discovery was not completed or that the discovery motion was not heard earlier.

(3) Any likelihood that permitting the discovery or hearing the discovery motion will prevent the case from going to trial on the date set, or otherwise interfere with the trial calendar, or result in prejudice to any other party.

(4) The length of time that has elapsed between any date previously set, and the date presently set, for the trial of the action.

First, as to the necessity and reasons for the discovery, as Plaintiff asserts, medical malpractice claims generally rely on expert witnesses because expert testimony is necessary to establish the applicable standard of care, whether the standard was breach and whether any breach caused Plaintiff’s injuries.

Second, as to Plaintiff’s diligence in seeking the requested discovery, Plaintiff provides only that while Defendants noticed Plaintiff’s expert’s deposition for 1/24/20, Plaintiff’s prior attorney’s motion to be relieved as counsel was granted on 1/31/20 without prior counsel completing any depositions.

The court’s records then show a substitution of attorney form was filed by Plaintiff on 6/16/20. Thereafter, on 6/24/20, Plaintiff corresponded with Defendant and offered to make Plaintiff’s expert available for deposition, but Defendants declined because the expert discovery cut-off previously ran with the 2/24/20 trial date. Plaintiff provides he is 75 years old and has not actively practiced law since his wife’s death, has difficulty functioning, and did not receive his client file from his previous counsel until about 3/25/20. Further, Plaintiff provides his prior counsel did not inform him that Defendants noticed Plaintiff’s expert’s deposition.

Defendants, in opposition, submit evidence showing an action Plaintiff litigated in pro per from about 2017 to 2019. However, this does not establish that Plaintiff was aware of Defendants’ notice of deposition for Plaintiff’s expert, or that Plaintiff otherwise knowingly refused to comply with his discovery obligations. Furthermore, Defendants do not dispute that when Plaintiff offered to make his expert available on 6/24/20 Defendants refused because the expert discovery cut-off had run. There is no reason to think Defendants would have agreed to proceed with the expert deposition even if Plaintiff contacted Defendants prior to 6/24/20.

Third, trial is not currently set in this matter; the TSC is set for 12/31/20. Consequently, reopening discovery will not delay the trial date. Moreover, while Defendants assert granting the motion will prejudice Defendants because it will cause this action to be relitigated, Defendants do not explain why the entire action will need to be relitigated. Plaintiff’s expert has been disclosed and there is no evidence of any other outstanding discovery still to be completed aside from discovery concerning the parties’ experts. Fourth, the case was previously set for trial on 3/30/20 before this date was vacated and a TSC set for 12/31/20. There is no evidence Plaintiff delayed in seeking to reopen expert discovery after obtaining new counsel.

Finally, while Defendants aver Plaintiff should not be allowed to depose Defendants’ experts if Plaintiff’s motion is granted, Defendants do not identify or articulate any actual prejudice they would suffer by allowing Plaintiff to depose Defendants’ experts.

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff has demonstrated expert discovery is necessary to fully prepare for trial. Given trial is not currently set, there is no apparent prejudice to Defendants in allowing discovery to be reopened.

Plaintiff’s motion to reopen expert discovery is granted. Expert discovery and motion cut-off dates are to run with the future trial date.

Plaintiff is ordered to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at sscdept31@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  If the department does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on the tentative and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion may be placed off calendar. If a party submits on the tentative, the party’s email must include the case number and must identify the party submitting on the tentative. If the parties do not submit on the tentative, they should arrange to appear remotely.

 

Dated this 24th day of December, 2020

Hon. Thomas D. Long

Judge of the Superior Court



Case Number: ****6118    Hearing Date: January 31, 2020    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

MARVYN GORDON,

Plaintiff(s),

vs.

CEDARS-SINAI MEDICAL CENTER, ET AL.,

Defendant(s).

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CASE NO: ****6118

[TENTATIVE] ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL

Dept. 31

1:30 p.m.

January 31, 2020

Plaintiff, Marvyn Gordon’s attorney of record, Thomas V. Girardi, moves to be relieved as counsel. Counsel declares he served the moving papers on his client via personal service. Counsel has filed proof of service on his client and on all other parties who have appeared in the action.

The motion is unopposed and granted; the ruling is effective upon filing proof of service of the final order. The Court notes that trial is scheduled on 3/30/20; the Court encourages Plaintiff to act expediently if he wishes to protect his interests in this litigation.

Counsel is ordered to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at sscdept31@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  If the department does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on the tentative and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion may be placed off calendar. If a party submits on the tentative, the party’s email must include the case number and must identify the party submitting on the tentative.

Dated this 31st day of January, 2020

Hon. Jon Takasugi

Judge of the Superior Court



related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where CEDARS-SINAI MEDICAL CENTER is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer O'CALLAHAN JAMES GAUGHAN