This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 07/06/2019 at 01:32:05 (UTC).

NORMA ARIAS ET AL VS KHOA CONG LUONG D O ET AL

Case Summary

On 05/31/2018 NORMA ARIAS filed a Personal Injury - Medical Malpractice lawsuit against KHOA CONG LUONG D O. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****8150

  • Filing Date:

    05/31/2018

  • 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

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs, Petitioners and Guardian Ad Litems

ARIAS MOISES

ARIAS NORMA

ARIAS ISAAC

ARIAS ADRIEN

ARIAS GILBERT RAY

Defendants and Respondents

HOUSSIERE DANIEL DAVID D.O.

LUONG KHOA CONG D.O.

BRAR M.D. SOMJOT SINGH

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA PERMANENTE MEDICAL

KAISER FOUNDATION HOSPITALS

LAM M.D. CUONG

CHEN M.D. RAYMOND HSIN-CHIH

KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN INC.

Minor

ARIAS SAMANTHA

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Minor, Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorney

WESTPHAL WESLEY B.

Defendant Attorney

LYNCH GREGORY G. ESQ.

 

Court Documents

APPLICATION AND ORDER FOR APPOINTMENT OF GUARDIAN AD LITEM?CIVIL

6/7/2018: APPLICATION AND ORDER FOR APPOINTMENT OF GUARDIAN AD LITEM?CIVIL

SUMMONS

7/3/2018: SUMMONS

PROOF OF SERWCE SUMMONS & COMPLAINT

8/7/2018: PROOF OF SERWCE SUMMONS & COMPLAINT

PROOF OF SERWCE SUMMONS & COMPLAINT

8/7/2018: PROOF OF SERWCE SUMMONS & COMPLAINT

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

8/14/2018: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

8/14/2018: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

8/14/2018: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

Proof of Personal Service

8/14/2018: Proof of Personal Service

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

8/14/2018: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

8/14/2018: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

8/14/2018: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

DEFENDANTS KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN INC.;KAISER FOUNDATION HOSPITALS;AND ETC.

9/7/2018: DEFENDANTS KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN INC.;KAISER FOUNDATION HOSPITALS;AND ETC.

CIVIL DEPOSIT

9/7/2018: CIVIL DEPOSIT

DEFENDANTS KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN INC.;KAISER FOUNDATION HOSPITALS SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA;AND ETC.

9/7/2018: DEFENDANTS KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN INC.;KAISER FOUNDATION HOSPITALS SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA;AND ETC.

DEFENDANTS KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN INC.KAISER FOUNDATION HOSPITALS;SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA PERMANENTE MEDICAL GROUP SOMJOT SINGH BRAR M.D.;AND ETC.

9/7/2018: DEFENDANTS KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN INC.KAISER FOUNDATION HOSPITALS;SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA PERMANENTE MEDICAL GROUP SOMJOT SINGH BRAR M.D.;AND ETC.

COMPLAINT FOR WRONGFUL DEATH AS A RESULT OF PROFESSIONAL NEGLIGENCE - MEDICAL MALPRACTICE

5/31/2018: COMPLAINT FOR WRONGFUL DEATH AS A RESULT OF PROFESSIONAL NEGLIGENCE - MEDICAL MALPRACTICE

4 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 09/07/2018
  • CIVIL DEPOSIT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/07/2018
  • Notice; Filed by Khoa Cong D.O. Luong (Defendant); Daniel David D.O. Houssiere (Defendant); M.D., Somjot Singh Brar (Defendant) et al.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/07/2018
  • DEFENDANTS KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN INC.KAISER FOUNDATION HOSPITALS;SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA PERMANENTE MEDICAL GROUP SOMJOT SINGH BRAR M.D.;AND ETC.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/07/2018
  • DEFENDANTS KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN INC.;KAISER FOUNDATION HOSPITALS SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA;AND ETC.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/07/2018
  • Demand for Jury Trial; Filed by Khoa Cong D.O. Luong (Defendant); Daniel David D.O. Houssiere (Defendant); M.D., Somjot Singh Brar (Defendant) et al.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/07/2018
  • DEFENDANTS KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN INC.;KAISER FOUNDATION HOSPITALS;AND ETC.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/07/2018
  • Answer; Filed by Khoa Cong D.O. Luong (Defendant); Daniel David D.O. Houssiere (Defendant); M.D., Somjot Singh Brar (Defendant) et al.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/14/2018
  • PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/14/2018
  • Proof of Personal Service; Filed by Norma Arias (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/14/2018
  • PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
7 More Docket Entries
  • 08/07/2018
  • PROOF OF SERWCE SUMMONS & COMPLAINT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/07/2018
  • Proof of Personal Service; Filed by Norma Arias (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/07/2018
  • Proof of Personal Service; Filed by Norma Arias (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/03/2018
  • Summons; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/03/2018
  • Summons Issued; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/03/2018
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/07/2018
  • Application ; Filed by Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/07/2018
  • APPLICATION AND ORDER FOR APPOINTMENT OF GUARDIAN AD LITEM CIVIL

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/31/2018
  • Complaint; Filed by Norma Arias (Plaintiff); MOises Arias (Plaintiff); Isaac Arias (Plaintiff) et al.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/31/2018
  • COMPLAINT FOR WRONGFUL DEATH AS A RESULT OF PROFESSIONAL NEGLIGENCE - MEDICAL MALPRACTICE

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC708150    Hearing Date: November 20, 2019    Dept: 2

Arias, et al. v. Luong, D.O., et al.

Plaintiff’s Motion to Change Venue to San Bernardino County filed on 10/15/2019 is DENIED.

Under Code of Civil Procedure section 397, the Court may, on motion, change the place of trial when, among other grounds, (a) “the court designated in the complaint is not the proper court”; or (b) “the convenience of witnesses and the ends of justice would be promoted by the change.” Plaintiff bases its motion on each of these grounds.

I. WHETHER ACTION WAS FILED IN THE WRONG COURT

In an action for personal injury or wrongful death, venue is proper “in either the county where the injury occurs or the injury causing death occurs or the county where the defendants, or some of them reside at the commencement of the action.” CCP § 395. Venue is determined at the outset of the action from the original complaint. Ferguson v. Koerber (1924) 69 Cal. App. 47, 49; Brown v. Sup.Ct. (C.C. Myers, Inc.) (1984) 37 Cal. 3d 477, 482; Armstrong Petroleum Corp. v. Sup.Ct. (Oil Leases) (1981) 114 Cal. App. 3d 732, 737-738.

Venue is determined at the outset of the action based on the allegations in the original complaint. Ferguson v. Koerber (1924) 69 Cal. App. 47, 49. Here, the Complaint alleges that “the injuries upon which this action is based occurred as the result of the actions of defendants and each of them which took place at the Kaiser facilities located at 4867 W. Sunset Boulevard, Los Angeles, California and 9961 Sierra Avenue, Fontana, California.” Complaint 11. Plaintiff alleges that on 6/5/2017, decedent died of a thoracic aortic aneurysm that he suffered in the City of Industry in Los Angeles County. Complaint 22. Plaintiffs allege that the death was caused by negligently performed surgery on 3/16/2017 in Los Angeles County and negligent treatment in the emergency room in city of Fontana in San Bernardino County on 6/4/2017.

Based on those allegations, venue was proper in Los Angeles County. The negligent care and treatment that allegedly caused the death occurred in both Los Angeles and San Bernardino County. Thus, the action was properly filed in Los Angeles County.

Finally, venue in Los Angeles County was proper because the Complaint alleges that one of the Kaiser entity defendants has its principal place of business in Pasadena. Venue is proper on that basis as well. Rosas v. Sup.Ct. (Mercury Cas. Co.) (1994) 25 CA4th 671, 677, 30 CR2d 609, 613]

II. WHETHER PLAINTIFF HAS SHOWN THAT THE CASE SHOULD BE TRANSFERRED FOR THE CONVENIENCE OF WITNESSES

Even if an action is filed in an appropriate county, the court has the discretionary power to transfer the case if the trial would seriously inconvenience witnesses and defeat the ends of justice. It is generally only the convenience of nonparty witnesses that is considered in a motion to transfer on this ground. Rios v. Lacey Trucking Co. (1954) 123 Cal. App. 2d 865, 868; Rothschild v. Superior Court of San Francisco (1963) 216 Cal. App. 2d 778, 780. Absent extraordinary circumstances, the convenience of a party or the employees of a party is not to be considered. Id.

A moving party is required to make a factual showing based on admissible evidence for motions on this ground. Declarations must show, among other things, the names of each witness expected to testify on both sides; the reasons it would be inconvenient for the witnesses to appear locally; and the reasons why the ends of justice would be promoted to a different county. See, e.g., Juneau v. Juneau (1941) 45 Cal. App. 2d 14, 16. The motion cannot be based on hearsay declarations of counsel; rather, declarations from the witnesses themselves must be submitted. Lieppman v. Lieber (1986) 180 Cal. App. 3d 914, 919; Tutor-Saliba-Perini Joint Venture v. Sup.Ct. (San Diego Unified Port Dist.) (1991) 233 Cal. App. 3d 736, 744; Union Trust Life Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1968) 259 Cal. App. 2d 23, 25.

Here, no declarations of witnesses have been provided. Rather, the motion is based on the conclusory statements of counsel regarding the convenience of the parties in the case. There has been no showing of extraordinary circumstances that would allow for consideration of the parties’ convenience. Further, counsel’s assertions regarding the convenience of the parties are conclusory and not compelling.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.

Case Number: BC708150    Hearing Date: November 12, 2019    Dept: 2

Arias, et al. v. Luong, et al.

Plaintiffs’ Motion to Change Venue to San Bernardino County filed on 10/15/19 is GRANTED. The court orders this case transferred to the Superior Court for the County of San Bernardino. Plaintiffs are ordered to pay transfer fees. Cal Code Civil Procedure § 399.

The court may change venue if the action was not brought in the proper court. Cal Code Civil Procedure § 397(a). Plaintiffs did not file the action in the proper county. The proper venue for actions for injury to person from wrongful act or negligence is the county where the injury occurred or the county in which any defendant resides. Cal Code Civil Procedure § 395(a). The action arose from the alleged negligence of Defendants, who treated Plaintiffs’ decedent in Fontana, CA. Declaration of Derek S. Raynes, ¶ 2. There has been no showing that any defendant resides in Los Angeles County. There is no opposition to the request to change venue. The Court thus grants the motion.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.