This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 10/22/2020 at 09:52:29 (UTC).

PAUL MARTIGNETTI VS PROSPECT MEDICAL HOLDINGS INC

Case Summary

On 04/21/2017 PAUL MARTIGNETTI filed a Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury lawsuit against PROSPECT MEDICAL HOLDINGS 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 PATRICIA D. NIETO, LISA K SEPE-WIESENFELD, GEORGINA T. RIZK, KRISTIN S. ESCALANTE and MARK A. BORENSTEIN. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****8958

  • Filing Date:

    04/21/2017

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

PATRICIA D. NIETO

LISA K SEPE-WIESENFELD

GEORGINA T. RIZK

KRISTIN S. ESCALANTE

MARK A. BORENSTEIN

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner

MARTIGNETTI PAUL

Defendants, Respondents and Not Classified By Court

DOE ELEVATOR MANUFACTURER

DOES 1 TO 100

PROSPECT MEDICAL HOLDINGS INC

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA HEALTHCARE SYSTEMS

LIFTECH ELEVATOR SERVICE INC. (DOE 2)

LIFTECH ELEVATOR SERVICE INC. DOE 2

KONE INC.

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA HEALTHCARE SYSTEMS INC. [DOE 1]

KONE INC. [DOE 3]

SCHINDLER ELEVATOR CORPORATION

Defendants and Respondents

DOE ELEVATOR MANUFACTURER

DOES 1 TO 100

PROSPECT MEDICAL HOLDINGS INC

LIFTECH ELEVATOR SERVICE INC. (DOE 2)

Defendants, Cross Plaintiffs and Not Classified By Court

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA HEALTHCARE SYSTEMS

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA HEALTHCARE SYSTEMS INC. [DOE 1]

Defendants and Cross Defendants

LIFTECH ELEVATOR SERVICE INC. DOE 2

ROE ELEVATOR MANUFACTURER

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorney

AZIZI DAVID ESQ.

Defendant and Respondent Attorneys

HAUSER JOHN A. LAW OFFICES OF

WOOD SMITH HENNING & BERMAN LLP

DANNER MICHAEL JOHN

O'DAY DALLAS JOHN ESQ.

DANNER MICHAEL JOHN ESQ.

HOFFMAN BRIAN LEE ESQ.

RAMSEY LARRY R.

RAMSEY LAWRENCE ROBERT ESQ.

Defendant and Cross Plaintiff Attorneys

WOOD SMITH HENNING & BERMAN LLP

HOFFMAN BRIAN LEE ESQ.

Defendant and Cross Defendant Attorney

O'DAY DALLAS JOHN ESQ.

 

Court Documents

Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (COURT ORDER RE: CONTINUING THE 06/22/2020 HEARING ON DEFENDA...) OF 06/15/2020

6/15/2020: Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (COURT ORDER RE: CONTINUING THE 06/22/2020 HEARING ON DEFENDA...) OF 06/15/2020

Ex Parte Application - EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE THE TRIAL

3/6/2020: Ex Parte Application - EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE THE TRIAL

Separate Statement

4/3/2020: Separate Statement

Motion for Summary Judgment

4/3/2020: Motion for Summary Judgment

Declaration - DECLARATION OF DENIS DAVIS IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

4/9/2020: Declaration - DECLARATION OF DENIS DAVIS IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Answer

12/6/2019: Answer

Notice of Ruling - NOTICE OF RULING ON EX-PARTE APPLICATION FOR TRIAL AND FSC CONTINUANCE, AND ASSOCIATED PRE-TRIAL DATES

8/27/2019: Notice of Ruling - NOTICE OF RULING ON EX-PARTE APPLICATION FOR TRIAL AND FSC CONTINUANCE, AND ASSOCIATED PRE-TRIAL DATES

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON DEFENDANT KOE, INC.'S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR TRI...)

8/27/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON DEFENDANT KOE, INC.'S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR TRI...)

Ex Parte Application - EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR TRIAL AND FSC CONTINUANCE, AND ASSOCIATED DISCOVERY AND PRE-TRIAL DATES

8/27/2019: Ex Parte Application - EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR TRIAL AND FSC CONTINUANCE, AND ASSOCIATED DISCOVERY AND PRE-TRIAL DATES

Answer

8/14/2019: Answer

Ex Parte Application - EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE THE TRIAL;

3/19/2019: Ex Parte Application - EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE THE TRIAL;

Notice of Change of Address or Other Contact Information

2/4/2019: Notice of Change of Address or Other Contact Information

ORDER AND STIPULATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL FSC AND RELATED MOTION DISCOVERY DATES PERSONAL INJURY COURTS ONLY CENTRAL DISTRICT

8/24/2018: ORDER AND STIPULATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL FSC AND RELATED MOTION DISCOVERY DATES PERSONAL INJURY COURTS ONLY CENTRAL DISTRICT

AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT -

5/23/2017: AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT -

REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL -

6/2/2017: REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL -

CROSS-COMPLAINT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA HEALTHCARE SYSTEM, INC., DBA SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA HOSPITAL AT CULVER CITY FOR: 1. EQUITABLE INDEMNITY; ETC

6/6/2017: CROSS-COMPLAINT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA HEALTHCARE SYSTEM, INC., DBA SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA HOSPITAL AT CULVER CITY FOR: 1. EQUITABLE INDEMNITY; ETC

DEFENDANT, LIFTECH ELEVATOR SERVICES, INC.'S ANSWER TO UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT

8/16/2017: DEFENDANT, LIFTECH ELEVATOR SERVICES, INC.'S ANSWER TO UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT

CIVIL DEPOSIT

8/16/2017: CIVIL DEPOSIT

36 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 02/24/2021
  • Hearing02/24/2021 at 08:30 AM in Department 29 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Jury Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/10/2021
  • Hearing02/10/2021 at 10:00 AM in Department 29 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Final Status Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/14/2020
  • DocketNotice of Ruling; Filed by Kone, Inc. [Doe 3] (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/29/2020
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 29, Kristin S. Escalante, Presiding; Jury Trial - Not Held - Advanced and Vacated

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/14/2020
  • Docketat 10:00 AM in Department 29, Kristin S. Escalante, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Advanced and Vacated

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/25/2020
  • Docketat 1:30 PM in Department 29, Kristin S. Escalante, Presiding; Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment (Filed by Defendant Schindler Elevator Corporation (Doe 4) as to Plaintiff's Complaint) - Held - Motion Granted

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/25/2020
  • Docketat 1:30 PM in Department 29, Kristin S. Escalante, Presiding; Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment (, or i the alternative, Summary Adjudication Filed by Defendant Kone, Inc. (Doe 3) as to Plaintiff's Complaint) - Held - Motion Granted

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/25/2020
  • Docketat 1:30 PM in Department 29, Kristin S. Escalante, Presiding; Trial Setting Conference - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/25/2020
  • DocketMinute Order ( (- Hearing on Defendant Kone, Inc. (Doe 3)'s Motion for Summa...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/22/2020
  • Docketat 1:30 PM in Department 29, Kristin S. Escalante, Presiding; Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment (Filed by Defendant Schindler Elevator Corporation as to Plaintiff's Complaint) - Not Held - Continued - Court's Motion

    Read MoreRead Less
71 More Docket Entries
  • 06/02/2017
  • DocketRequest for Dismissal; Filed by Paul Martignetti (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/02/2017
  • DocketPartial Dismissal (w/o Prejudice); Filed by Paul Martignetti (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/02/2017
  • DocketREQUEST FOR DISMISSAL

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/23/2017
  • DocketAMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/23/2017
  • DocketAmendment to Complaint; Filed by Paul Martignetti (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/03/2017
  • DocketProof-Service/Summons; Filed by Paul Martignetti (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/03/2017
  • DocketPROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/21/2017
  • DocketSUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/21/2017
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Paul Martignetti (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/21/2017
  • DocketCOMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1. NEGLIGENCE 2. PREMISES LIABILITY 3. STRICT PRODUCT LIABILITY

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC658958    Hearing Date: June 26, 2020    Dept: 29

Martignetti v. Prospect Medical Holdings, Inc. et al.

Defendant Schindler Elevator Corporation’s (Doe 4) Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED. Defendant Kone Inc.’s (Doe 3) Motion for Summary Judgment, or, in the Alternative, for Summary Adjudication is also GRANTED. Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 437c(p)(2). Summary judgment is entered in favor of Defendants Schindler Elevator Corporation and Kone, Inc. and against Plaintiff Paul Martignetti.

In the complaint, Plaintiff alleges that on December 31, 2015, Plaintiff was exiting an elevator at his workplace when the elevator malfunctioned, causing severe injuries. Plaintiff asserts three causes of action against Defendants Schindler and Kone (along with other defendants): negligence; premises liability; and strict products liability. Schindler and Kone have moved for summary judgment. Plaintiff has not opposed the motions

SCHINDLER’S MOTION

Plaintiff contends that while he was exiting the elevator in question, the elevator’s sensors failed to detect the presence of his foot, and closed on his foot, crushing it. Schindler presents the declarations of Denis Davis, Schindler’s general manager, and John Donnelly, an elevator expert. Plaintiff has not objected to either declaration. The declarations recite the following facts. The elevator was originally manufactured and installed by Montgomery Elevator Company in approximately 1970. Since that time, the elevator has been modernized, including the replacement and updating of the components involved in this incident. According to Mr. Donnelly, those components include the GAL door operator assembly and CEDES light curtain device. Neither of those components were designed or manufactured by Schindler or any predecessor corporation and Schindler was not under any contractual duty to service, maintain or repair the elevators at the time of the incident. Schindler had not had a contract to service, maintain or repair the elevator for at least 14 years prior to the incident. Schindler does not own or control the property on which the incident occurred.

As to the negligence and premises liability claims, Schindler has met its initial burden of establishing that it did not owe any duty to Plaintiff to prevent the incident at issue here. To prove premises liability, the plaintiff must show that the defendant owned or controlled the premises in question. (Sprecher v. Adamson Companies (1981) 30 Cal.3d 358, 368.) Schindler did not own or control the building or elevator here and was not involved in the operation, maintenance or service of the elevator at the relevant time. The burden thus shifted to the Plaintiff, who has not responded and thus has not controverted any fact or raised any viable theory of duty. Schindler is thus entitled to judgment on these claims.

Schindler has also met its initial burden with respect to the products liability claim. Tort liability is imposed on “a manufacturer, distributor or retailer . . . if a defect in the manufacture or design of its product causes injury while the product is being used in a reasonably foreseeable way.” (Soule v. General Motors Corp. (1994) 8 Cal. 4th 548, 560.) A manufacturer, distributor or retailer can be held strictly liable for defects in the design, manufacture or warnings of its products. (Anderson v. Owens-Corning Fiberglass Corp. (1991) 53 Cal. 3d 987, 995. Here, Schindler presented evidence that Schindler did not manufacture, design or install the original elevator or the updated component parts that were involved in the incident. The burden thus shifted to Plaintiff to present controverting evidence (or to object to or otherwise respond to Plaintiff’s evidence). Plaintiff failed to respond. Schindler is thus entitled to judgment on the products liability claim as well.

In sum, the Court grants summary judgment in favor of Schindler and against Plaintiff.

KONE’S MOTION

Defendant Kone, Inc. moves for summary judgment on similar grounds. Kone relies on a declaration of its retained elevator expert Davis L. Turner. Plaintiff has not objected to this declaration and thus the Court does not consider whether the declaration is subject to objection pursuant to People v. Sanchez (2016) 63 Cal. 4th 665 or on any other grounds. Based on a review of relevant records and his inspection of the subject elevator, Mr. Turner recites the following facts and opinions: The elevator was manufactured and installed by Montgomery Elevator Company, the predecessor company to Kone, Inc. The components involved in this incident, however, had been changed since the original installation. Specifically, the original door operator, door reversal device and operational and motion controllers had been upgraded and replaced. These components were not designed, manufactured or installed by Kone. Kone had no control over the elevator for over twenty years prior to the date of the alleged incident.

For the reasons stated above in connection with Schindler’s motion, Kone has met is initial burden. Kone did not own or control the premises and had had no involvement with the elevator for more than two decades prior to the incident. Kone thus did not owe Plaintiff a duty under either a general negligence or premises liability theory.

With respect to the products liability claim, a plaintiff must prove that that the defect existed when it left the defendant’s possession. (CACI 1201; Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc. v. Superior Court (1992) 7 Cal. App. 4th 1384). A defendant is not liable for an injury caused by a defective product where the product has been altered and is no longer in the same condition as when it left the defendant’s possession. (Putensen v. Clay Adams, Inc. (1970) 12 Cal. App. 3d 1062, 1072.)

Here, Kone met its initial burden in establishing that the component parts involved in the incident had been changed since the elevator’s original installation and Plaintiff has not raised a triable issue of fact.

In sum, the Court GRANTS summary judgment in favor of Kone and against Plaintiff.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.