MIKHAIL GOLDMAN VS ORION WEST GROUP LLC, ET AL.

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: *******0797    Hearing Date: March 05, 2021    Dept: A

Case Number: *******0797    Hearing Date: March 12, 2021    Dept: A

Case Number: *******0797    Hearing Date: March 19, 2021    Dept: A

The Superior Court is open under “Here for You | Safe for You” Conditions and Orders

Counsel are urged to use remote appearance technology LACourtConnect

If it is indispensable for counsel to be present in court, face masks (without a valve) are mandated (unless a court orders otherwise) and social distancing rules are in force. Also, no eating or drinking is permitted in any public area of any courthouse.

Dept. A Burbank protocol for LACourtConnect Appearances.

Video Appearances: Since these are the functional equivalent of a personal appearance in court, no special protocols are in place at this time.

Audio Only Appearances.

1. Argument is limited to three minutes, unless the court grants a request for additional time.

2. The reading of argument is feckless and nugatory.

3. State your name at the beginning of all statements.

4. Do not speak directly to other counsel without permission of court.

5. Do not interrupt or attempt to speak over another speaker.

6. Do not announce your presence until called by your name or case name.

7. Take a deep breath frequently so that the court may interrupt your presentation, if necessary. (The system does not default to the court unless you are placed on mute by the court or go silent or mute on you own.)

8. Maintain silence in your surroundings – no keyboarding, dogs barking, children crying, etc.

FURTHER, the court makes available its Remote Audio Appearance Program (RAAP) service which enables any person with commonly available devices to listen to court proceedings which are otherwise open to the public. There is no cost for this service and no recording of any kind is permitted – such would be a violation of court rules and punishable as such.

Information is available at: http: www.lacourt.org/newsmedia/ui/CourtroomSeating.aspx

Goldman v Orion West Group

Motion to Quash

ALLEGATIONS:

Mikhail Goldman ("Plaintiff") filed suit against Playa Advance Surgical Institute, LLC ("PASI"); Silicon Beach Surgery Center, Inc. ("SBSC"); Silicon Beach Medical Center, Inc. ("SBMC"); Guven Uzen ("Uzen", and together with PASI and SBSC, "Playa Defendants"); Orion West Group LLC ("Orion"); Playa Medical Management, LLC ("PMM"); Playa Advance Urgent Care, Inc. ("PAUC"); Gladys Anne Happer ("Happer"); Grace Khalifa a.k.a. Grace Day ("Khalifa"); Casper Glenn ("Glenn"); Young S. Yi ("Yi"); Bettina Limjoco ("Limjoco"); and Adnan Qureshi ("Qureshi", and collectively, "Defendants"), alleging that Defendants breached an agreement between the parties for Plaintiff to provide services and subsequently failed to pay for such services.

Plaintiffs filed a Complaint on November 09, 2020 alleging two (2) causes of action sounding in (1) Breach of Contract and (2) Fraud.

SBSC, SBMC, and Orion ("Silicon Defendants") filed a Cross-Complaint on December 28, 2020 against Plaintiff, alleging two (2) causes of action sounding in (1) Breach of Contract and (2) Fraud.

PRESENTATION:

The Court received the instant motion filed by Playa Defendants on February 18, 2021; the opposition filed by Plaintiff on March 15, 2021; and the reply filed by Playa Defendants on March 16, 2021.

RELIEF REQUESTED:

Playa Defendants move to quash Plaintiff's four deposition subpoenas served on Cigna Health and Life Insurance Company, Aetna Health and Life Insurance Company, United Health Care, and Optum. Alternatively, Playa Defendants move to impose a protective order regarding the same four deposition subpoenas.

DISCUSSION:

Standard of Review – Motion to Quash – CCP ; 1987.1 grants the trial court authority to quash a subpoena when necessary. CCP ; 1987.1 provides: “If a subpoena requires the attendance of a witness or the production of books, documents, or other things before a court, or at the trial of an issue therein, or at the taking of a deposition, the court, upon motion reasonably made by any person described in subdivision (b), or upon the court’s own motion after giving counsel notice and an opportunity to be heard, may make an order quashing the subpoena entirely, modifying it, or directing compliance with it upon those terms or conditions as the court shall declare, including protective orders. In addition, the court may make any other order as may be appropriate to protect the person from unreasonable or oppressive demands, including unreasonable violations of the right of privacy of the person.”

Untimely Opposition – Plaintiff's opposition, filed on March 15, 2021, is untimely pursuant to CCP ; 1005. The opposition brief should have been filed on March 08, 2021. Nonetheless, as Playa Defendants successfully submitted a reply brief on March 16, 2021, and as the substantive issues in the instant motion have become moot, the Court finds that such delay is de minimis.

Merits – Both parties agree that the instant motion is moot, as Plaintiff withdrew the four deposition subpoenas at issue.

Plaintiff additionally requests the Court order Playa Defendants to submit a protective order as part of future meet and confers, and Playa Defendants request sanctions as to the matter.

As to Plaintiff's request, an opposition briefing is an inappropriate forum in which to request relief in the form of a protective order, and the Court will decline to do so.

As to Playa Defendants' sanction request, the Court finds that the original moving papers do not request any monetary sanctions in the notice section of the motion; further, Playa Defendants do not provide a declaration detailing the reasons and breakdown for the sanctions request. In light of these omissions, the Court will not grant sanctions.

The Court will thus order the motion off calendar as moot.

---

RULING:

In the event the parties submit on this tentative ruling, or a party requests a signed order or the court in its discretion elects to sign a formal order, the following form will be either electronically signed or signed in hard copy and entered into the court’s records.

ORDER

Defendants Playa Advance Surgical Institute, LLC; Silicon Beach Surgery Center, Inc.; and Guven Uzen's Motion to Quash came on regularly for hearing on March 19, 2021, with appearances/submissions as noted in the minute order for said hearing, and the court, being fully advised in the premises, did then and there rule as follows:

THE MOTION TO QUASH IS MOOT AND ORDERED OFF CALENDAR.

DATE: _______________ _______________________________

JUDGE

Case Number: *******0797    Hearing Date: May 7, 2021    Dept: A

The Superior Court is open under “Here for You | Safe for You” Conditions and Orders

Counsel are urged to use remote appearance technology LACourtConnect

If it is indispensable for counsel to be present in court, face masks (without a valve) are mandated (unless a court orders otherwise) and social distancing rules are in force.

Dept. A Burbank protocol for LACourtConnect Appearances.

Video Appearances: Since these are the functional equivalent of a personal appearance in court, no special protocols are in place at this time.

Audio Only Appearances.

1. Argument is limited to three minutes, unless the court grants a request for additional time.

2. The reading of argument is feckless and nugatory.

3. State your name at the beginning of all statements.

4. Do not speak directly to other counsel without permission of court.

5. Do not interrupt or attempt to speak over another speaker.

6. Do not announce your presence until called by your name or case name.

7. Take a deep breath frequently so that the court may interrupt your presentation, if necessary. (The system does not default to the court unless you are placed on mute by the court or go silent or mute on you own.)

8. Maintain silence in your surroundings – no keyboarding, dogs barking, children crying, etc.

FURTHER, the court makes available its Remote Audio Appearance Program (RAAP) service which enables any person with commonly available devices to listen to court proceedings which are otherwise open to the public. There is no cost for this service and no recording of any kind is permitted – such would be a violation of court rules and punishable as such.

Information is available at: http: www.lacourt.org/newsmedia/ui/CourtroomSeating.aspx

Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses

ALLEGATIONS:

Mikhail Goldman ("Plaintiff") filed suit against Playa Advance Surgical Institute, LLC ("PASI"); Silicon Beach Surgery Center, Inc. ("SBSC"); Silicon Beach Medical Center, Inc. ("SBMC"); Guven Uzen ("Uzen", and together with PASI and SBSC, "Playa Defendants"); Orion West Group LLC ("Orion"); Playa Medical Management, LLC ("PMM"); Playa Advance Urgent Care, Inc. ("PAUC"); Gladys Anne Happer ("Happer"); Grace Khalifa a.k.a. Grace Day ("Khalifa"); Casper Glenn ("Glenn"); Young S. Yi ("Yi"); Bettina Limjoco ("Limjoco"); and Adnan Qureshi ("Qureshi", and collectively, "Defendants"), alleging that Defendants breached an agreement between the parties for Plaintiff to provide services and subsequently failed to pay for such services.

Plaintiffs filed a Complaint on November 09, 2020 alleging two (2) causes of action sounding in (1) Breach of Contract and (2) Fraud.

SBSC, SBMC, and Orion ("Silicon Defendants") filed a Cross-Complaint on December 28, 2020 against Plaintiff, alleging two (2) causes of action sounding in (1) Breach of Contract and (2) Fraud.

PRESENTATION:

The Court received the instant motion filed by Playa Defendants on April 09, 2021; the opposition filed by Plaintiff on April 29, 2021; and a reply filed by Playa Defendants on April 29, 2021. The Court also received a supplemental opposition filed by Plaintiff on May 03, 2021.

RELIEF REQUESTED:

Playa Defendants move for an order compelling Plaintiff to serve further responses to Playa Defendants' Requests for Admission, Set One, Form Interrogatories, Set One, Special Interrogatories, Set One, and Requests For Production, Set One. Playa Defendants further move for associated monetary sanctions in the amount of $4,936.25.

ANALYSIS:

Untimely Opposition – Although the opposition is untimely pursuant to CCP ; 1005, Plaintiff asserts that the parties stipulated to the late filing of the opposition. (Decl. Goldman, ¶ 2.) The Court thus finds that the opposition is subject to consideration. .

Separate Filings – Playa Defendants assert that Plaintiff provided only objections and no responses to the Requests for Admission, Set One, Special Interrogatories, Set One, and Requests For Production, Set One; and that Plaintiff provided incomplete and evasive responses to a number of the interrogatories to the Form Interrogatories, Set One.

Parties are required to file separate filings for each motion to compel further responses to any discovery device at issue, not a gang motion. As Playa Defendants improperly combined four motions into one, only one motion filing fee was paid instead of four. "[P]ayment of filing fees is both mandatory and jurisdictional." (Hu v. Silgan Containers Corp. (1999) 70 Cal.App.4th 1261, 1269.) Further, CRC Rule 8.25(c) provides: "Unless otherwise provided by law, any document for which a filing fee is required under Government Code sections 68926 or 68927 must be accompanied at the time of filing by the required fee or an application for a waiver of court fees under rule 8.26." The Court will thus deny the instant motion. Where a party has not responded at all to multiple discovery sets, a single motion is permitted upon the theory that the party against whom the motion is made is actually refusing to participate in discovery at all. But since a motion is a request for an order (CCP Section 116.130[h]), each request for an order compelling a further responses to a discovery device is a separate motion, requiring separate statements, declaration, etc.

---

RULING:

In the event the parties submit on this tentative ruling, or a party requests a signed order or the court in its discretion elects to sign a formal order, the following form will be either electronically signed or signed in hard copy and entered into the court’s records.

ORDER

Defendants Playa Advance Surgical Institute, LLC; Silicon Beach Surgery Center, Inc.; and Guven Uzen's Motion to Compel Further Discovery came on regularly for hearing on May 07, 2021, with appearances/submissions as noted in the minute order for said hearing, and the court, being fully advised in the premises, did then and there rule as follows:

THE MOTION IS DENIED.

DATE: _______________ _______________________________

JUDGE

Case Number: *******0797    Hearing Date: May 14, 2021    Dept: A

Demurrer

ALLEGATIONS:

Mikhail Goldman ("Plaintiff") filed suit against Playa Advance Surgical Institute, LLC ("PASI"); Silicon Beach Surgery Center, Inc. ("SBSC"); Silicon Beach Medical Center, Inc. ("SBMC"); Guven Uzen ("Uzen", and together with PASI and SBSC, "Playa Defendants"); Orion West Group LLC ("Orion"); Playa Medical Management, LLC ("PMM"); Playa Advance Urgent Care, Inc. ("PAUC"); Gladys Anne Happer ("Happer"); Grace Khalifa a.k.a. Grace Day ("Khalifa"); Casper Glenn ("Glenn"); Young S. Yi ("Yi"); Bettina Limjoco ("Limjoco"); and Adnan Qureshi ("Qureshi", and collectively, "Defendants"), alleging that Defendants breached an agreement between the parties for Plaintiff to provide services and subsequently failed to pay for such services.

Plaintiffs filed a Complaint on November 09, 2020 alleging two (2) causes of action sounding in (1) Breach of Contract and (2) Fraud.

SBSC, SBMC, and Orion ("Silicon Defendants") filed a Cross-Complaint on December 28, 2020, and a First Amended Cross-Complaint ("FXC") on May 03, 2021 (the last date to do so in accordance with CCP Section 472.) against Plaintiff, alleging two (2) causes of action sounding in (1) Breach of Contract and (2) Fraud.

PRESENTATION:

The Court received the instant demurrer filed by Plaintiff on January 26, 2021. No opposition or reply has been received by the Court.

RELIEF REQUESTED:

Plaintiff demurs to the original Cross-Complaint in its entirety.

DISCUSSION:

Merits – The operative FXC was filed on May 03, 2021, making the instant demurrer moot.

---

RULING:

In the event the parties submit on this tentative ruling, or a party requests a signed order or the court in its discretion elects to sign a formal order, the following form will be either electronically signed or signed in hard copy and entered into the court’s records.

ORDER

Plaintiff Mikhail Goldman's Demurrer came on regularly for hearing on May 14, 2021, with appearances/submissions as noted in the minute order for said hearing, and the court, being fully advised in the premises, did then and there rule as follows:

THE DEMURRER IS OFF CALENDAR AS MOOT.

DATE: _______________ _______________________________

JUDGE