This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 10/22/2020 at 08:02:40 (UTC).

PRINCESS CLAUDIA CHUNG VS FOOTHILL HOSPITAL MORRIS L JOHNSTO

Case Summary

On 06/07/2018 PRINCESS CLAUDIA CHUNG filed a Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury lawsuit against FOOTHILL HOSPITAL MORRIS L JOHNSTO. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Pomona Courthouse South located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are ELAINE LU and PETER A. HERNANDEZ. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****8707

  • Filing Date:

    06/07/2018

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Pomona Courthouse South

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

ELAINE LU

PETER A. HERNANDEZ

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner

CHUNG PRINCESS CLAUDIA

Defendants, Respondents and Not Classified By Court

RODRIGUEZ PETER OMAR

RODRIGUEZ PEDRO O.

FOOTHILL HOSPITAL-MORRIS L. JOHNSTON

DOES 1-150

FOOTHILL HOSPITAL-MORRIS L. JOHNSTON MEMO

CITRUS VALLEY HEALTH PARTNERS INC

FOOTHILL HOSPITAL-MORRIS L. JOHNSTON MEMORIAL

RODRIGUEZ PETER OMAR AKA PEDRO O RODRIGUEZ

FOOTHILL HOSPITAL_MORRIS L. JOHNSTON MEMORIAL A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION DBA FOOTHILL PRESBYTERIAN HOSPITAL

Other

FRASER WATSON & CROUTCH

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

WEISSMAN DONALD

WEISSMAN I DONALD

WEISSMAN IRVIN DONALD

Defendant Attorneys

FRASER WATSON & CROUTCH LLP

FRASER STEPHEN CLARK

DIK DANIEL KURT

LYNCH GREGORY G.

 

Court Documents

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE; HEARING ON MOTION TO COMPEL DISCO...)

7/30/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE; HEARING ON MOTION TO COMPEL DISCO...)

Motion re: - MOTION RE: FOR AN ORDER THAT REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS BE DEEMED ADMITTED

6/16/2020: Motion re: - MOTION RE: FOR AN ORDER THAT REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS BE DEEMED ADMITTED

Declaration - DECLARATION DECLARATION OF I.DONALD WEISSMAN IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF PRINCESS CLAUDIA CHUNGS OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT FOOTHILL PRESBYTERIAN HOSPITALS MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER RE: R

6/18/2020: Declaration - DECLARATION DECLARATION OF I.DONALD WEISSMAN IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF PRINCESS CLAUDIA CHUNGS OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT FOOTHILL PRESBYTERIAN HOSPITALS MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER RE: R

Notice - NOTICE OF COURT ASSIGNMENT OF HEARING DATES

6/25/2020: Notice - NOTICE OF COURT ASSIGNMENT OF HEARING DATES

Notice - NOTICE NOTICE OF RESCHEDULE MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER

4/22/2020: Notice - NOTICE NOTICE OF RESCHEDULE MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER

Motion for Protective Order

4/8/2020: Motion for Protective Order

Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (COURT ORDER;) OF 03/23/2020

3/23/2020: Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (COURT ORDER;) OF 03/23/2020

Notice of Ruling

12/5/2019: Notice of Ruling

Case Management Statement

9/17/2019: Case Management Statement

Objection - OBJECTION OBJECTIONS TO DECLARATION OF DANIEL K. DIK IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT CITRUS VALLEY HEALTH PARTNERS, INC. DBA FOOTHILL PRESBYTERIAN HOSPITAL'S DEMURRER TO

10/3/2019: Objection - OBJECTION OBJECTIONS TO DECLARATION OF DANIEL K. DIK IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT CITRUS VALLEY HEALTH PARTNERS, INC. DBA FOOTHILL PRESBYTERIAN HOSPITAL'S DEMURRER TO

Opposition - OPPOSITION PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT CITRUS VALLEY HEALTH PARTNERS, INC. DBA FOOTHILL PRESBYTERIAN HOSPITAL'S DEMURRER TO SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT; DECLARATION OF I.DONALD WE

10/3/2019: Opposition - OPPOSITION PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT CITRUS VALLEY HEALTH PARTNERS, INC. DBA FOOTHILL PRESBYTERIAN HOSPITAL'S DEMURRER TO SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT; DECLARATION OF I.DONALD WE

Demurrer - without Motion to Strike

5/21/2019: Demurrer - without Motion to Strike

Case Management Statement

5/14/2019: Case Management Statement

Minute Order - Minute Order (Case Management Conference;)

1/11/2019: Minute Order - Minute Order (Case Management Conference;)

Order - Order Ruling on the court's Tentative

11/15/2018: Order - Order Ruling on the court's Tentative

Notice of Case Reassignment and Order for Plaintiff to Give Notice -

10/2/2018: Notice of Case Reassignment and Order for Plaintiff to Give Notice -

Notice -

9/21/2018: Notice -

DEFENDANT HOSPITAL'S REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO DEMURRER

8/28/2018: DEFENDANT HOSPITAL'S REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO DEMURRER

93 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 02/05/2021
  • Hearing02/05/2021 at 08:30 AM in Department O at 400 Civic Center Plaza, Pomona, CA 91766; Trial Setting Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/14/2020
  • DocketRETURNED MAIL

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/30/2020
  • Docketat 10:30 AM in Department O, Peter A. Hernandez, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Compel Discovery (not "Further Discovery") (- 1 moving party, 1 motion) - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/30/2020
  • Docketat 10:30 AM in Department O, Peter A. Hernandez, Presiding; Case Management Conference - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/30/2020
  • Docketat 10:30 AM in Department O, Peter A. Hernandez, Presiding; Hearing on Motion for Protective Order - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/30/2020
  • Docketat 10:30 AM in Department O, Peter A. Hernandez, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Deem Request for Admissions Admitted - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/30/2020
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department O, Peter A. Hernandez, Presiding; Case Management Conference - Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/30/2020
  • DocketOrder (on the Court's Modified Tentative Ruling); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/30/2020
  • DocketCertificate of Mailing for ((Case Management Conference; Hearing on Motion to Compel Disco...) of 07/30/2020, Court's Modified Tentative Ruling); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/30/2020
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Case Management Conference; Hearing on Motion to Compel Disco...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
141 More Docket Entries
  • 07/16/2018
  • DocketDeclaration; Filed by Foothill Hospital-Morris L. Johnston (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/16/2018
  • DocketDECLARATION OF DANIEL K. DIK IN COMPLIANCE WITH CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 430.41(A)(2) AND 435.5(A)(2) IN SUPPORT OF STATUTORY EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO OPERATIVE COMPLAINT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/25/2018
  • DocketPROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/25/2018
  • DocketPROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/25/2018
  • DocketProof-Service/Summons; Filed by Princess Claudia Chung (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/25/2018
  • DocketProof-Service/Summons; Filed by Princess Claudia Chung (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/07/2018
  • DocketSUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/07/2018
  • DocketComplaint Filed

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/07/2018
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Princess Claudia Chung (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/07/2018
  • DocketCOMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES: 1. NEGLIGENCE, ETC

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC708707    Hearing Date: July 30, 2020    Dept: O

ANALYSIS

1. Plaintiff Princess Claudia Chung’s motion to compel responses to form interrogatories is MOOT. No sanctions.

Plaintiff Princess Claudia Chung (“Plaintiff”) moves the court for an order requiring Defendant Peter Omar Rodriguez to (“Defendant”) provide verified responses to her form interrogatories (set 1), and special interrogatories (set 1). Plaintiff also seeks monetary sanctions of $3,373.70 against defendant and his counsel.

CCP §§ 2030.290(b) and 2031.300(b) allow the propounding party to file a motion to compel responses to interrogatories and document demands if a response has not been received. If responses are untimely, responding party waives objections. (CCP §§ 2030.290(a) and 2031.300(a).) CCP §§ 2023.010(d), 2030.290(c) and 2031.300(c) authorize the court to impose sanctions for failure to respond to discovery without substantial justification.

On March 5, 2020, Plaintiff served her Form Interrogatories, Set One on Defendant. (Weissman Decl., ¶ 2, Ex. 1.) Defendant neither requested additional time in which to provide responses nor served Plaintiff with any responses to the subject discovery. (Id. at ¶¶ 3-4.) Thus, Plaintiff filed this present motion on June 16, 2020.

Defendant contends that he through his counsel have already served verified responses to Plaintiff on July 9, 2020. However, the Court notes that Defendant’s responses contains general and specific objections. The Court finds that because Defendant’s response were untimely, Defendant waived his objections.

Subject to this change, this motion is MOOT.

If Plaintiff still has issues with the responses, parties are asked to further meet and confer.

Sanctions

There is no showing whatsoever that Defendant himself has done anything wrong. As the parties indicated, Defendant was in pro per at the time Plaintiff served her discovery requests. While Plaintiff’s counsel isn’t required to, a meet and confer letter to Defendant to see if he received the discovery requests would have furthered the matter, especially knowing that the responding party to the discovery requests was in pro per. It is unclear from the papers whether Defendant had knowledge of Plaintiff’s discovery, as the declaration in support of the Opposition does not indicate Defendant’s lack of notice.[1]

The court is inclined to not award sanctions, since the notice of motion did not clearly “identify” the person(s) against whom sanctions were sought. (CCP § 2023.040.) However, the Court will hear from the parties regarding whether Defendant had notice of the discovery requests (i.e., how Defendant’s counsel was able to get a hold of the discovery requests).

2. Plaintiff Princess Claudia Chung’s motion to deem requests for admissions as admitted is MOOT. Sanctions are awarded in the reduced reasonable amount of $1,500.00.

Plaintiff Princess Claudia Chung (“Plaintiff”) moves the court for an order deeming Defendant Peter Omar Rodriguez (“Defendant”) admitted to Plaintiff’s requests for admissions. Plaintiff also seeks monetary sanctions of $2,823.70 against Defendant and his counsel.

CCP § 2033.280, subds. (b) and (c) allow the propounding party to file a motion requesting that the truth of any matters specified in the request for admissions be deemed admitted unless the party to whom the requests have been directed has served before the hearing a proposed response that is in substantial compliance. CCP § 2023.010(d) authorizes the court to impose sanctions for failure to respond to discovery without substantial justification. CCP § 2033.280 makes the imposition of sanctions mandatory if a party fails to serve a timely response to requests for admission.

On March 5, 2020, Plaintiff served her Requests for Admission, Set One on Defendant. (Weissman Decl., ¶ 2, Ex. 1.) Defendant neither requested additional time in which to provide responses nor served Plaintiff with any responses to the subject discovery. (Id., ¶ 3.) Thus, Plaintiff filed this present motion on June 16, 2020.

Defendant contends that he through his counsel have already served verified responses to Plaintiff on July 9, 2020.

This motion, then, is MOOT.

If Plaintiff still has issues with the responses, parties are asked to further meet and confer.

Sanctions

CCP § 2033.280(c) mandates that the court impose monetary sanction on the party or attorney, or both, whose failure to serve a timely response to requests for admission necessitated this motion.

Thus, sanctions are awarded, but reduced to a reasonable amount of $1,500.00.

3. Defendant Citrus Valley Health Partners, Inc.’s motion for protective order is MOOT.

Defendant Citrus Valley Health Partners, Inc. (“Defendant”) moves the court for an protective order preventing co-defendant Peter Omar Rodriguez (“Co-Defendant”) from responding to the requests for admission from Plaintiff Princess Claudia Chung (“Plaintiff”). As discussed above, however, Co-Defendant has already provided responses to the request for admissions.

This motion, then, is MOOT.


[1] In fact, the Court notes in the motion for protective order of Defendant Citrus Valley Health Partners, Inc. (“Hospital”), Hospital indicates that the whereabouts of Defendant Rodriguez are unknown. However, Hospital also provides no evidence to support this statement. (See Motion for Protective Order, 4:10-11.)

Case Number: BC708707    Hearing Date: November 15, 2019    Dept: O

Defendant Citrus Valley Health Partners, Inc.’s Demurrer to Plaintiff’s to the Second and Seventh Causes of Action in the Second Amended Complaint are SUSTAINED without leave to amend.

Judicial Notice

Judicial notice is taken of Plaintiff’s Exhibit 1. (Evid. Code § 452.)

Objections

Defendant’s evidentiary objections to the Declaration of Daniel Dik are sustained.

Merits

A demurrer for sufficiency tests whether the complaint states a cause of action. (Hahn v. Mirda (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 740, 747.) When considering demurrers, courts read the allegations liberally and in context. (Taylor v. City of Los Angeles Dept. of Water and Power (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 1216, 1228.) In a demurrer proceeding, the defects must be apparent on the face of the pleading or via proper judicial notice. (Donabedian v. Mercury Ins. Co. (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 968, 994.) “A demurrer tests the pleadings alone and not the evidence or other extrinsic matters. Therefore, it lies only where the defects appear on the face of the pleading or are judicially noticed.” (SKF Farms v. Superior Court (1984) 153 Cal.App.3d 902, 905.) “The only issue involved in a demurrer hearing is whether the complaint, as it stands, unconnected with extraneous matters, states a cause of action.” (Hahn, supra, 147 Cal.App.4th at 747.)

Defendant Citrus Valley Heath Partners, Inc., dba Foothill Presbyterian Hospital (erroneously sued and served as Foothill Hospital-Morris L. Johnston Memorial and referred to as “Defendant”) demurs to the second and seventh causes of action in the Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) claiming that they fail to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.

Premise Liability (Second Cause of Action)

A landowner or possessor owes a duty of care to persons who come on his property as well as to persons off the property for injuries due to the landowner's lack of due care in the management of his property. (Swanberg v. O'Mectin (1984) 157 Cal.App.3d 325, 331-332.) Landowners only have a duty to take reasonable steps to secure common areas against criminal acts of third parties that are foreseeable. (Ann M. v. Pacific Shopping Center (1993) 6 Cal. 4th 666, 679.) The requisite degree of foreseeability, rarely if ever, can be proven in the absence of prior similar incidents of violent crime on the landowner’s premises. (Ibid.) To hold otherwise would be to impose an unfair burden upon landlords to become the insurers of public safety, contrary to well-established policy in this state. (See Riley v. Marcus (1981) 125 Cal.App.3d 103, 109.)

The Court had twice previously sustained the demurrer to this cause of action for failing to allege that Defendant was vicariously liable for the torts of Defendant Peter Omar Rodriguez (“Rodriguez”) as the torts he committed were foreseeable as a result of Rodriguez’s employment at Defendant. The SAC fails to correct this deficiency. Plaintiff still has not plead facts demonstrating that Defendant had notice of prior incidents of sexual assault. While Plaintiff attempts to plead around this by alleging in a conclusory manner that the sexual assault was foreseeable, this bald assertion of foreseeability is not sufficient under the Code of Civil Procedure section 425.10 “fact pleading” standard. Without such allegations of prior incidents, there can be no element of foreseeability.

Thus, demurer to this cause of action is SUSTAINED.

Statutory Violations of Welf. & Inst. Code § 15610.07 (7th Cause of Action)

The elements of a cause of action under the Elder Abuse and Dependent Adults Act, codified in Welfare and Institutions Code section 15600, et seq. (the “Act”) are statutory, and reflect the legislature’s intent to provide enhanced remedies to encourage private, civil enforcement of laws against dependent adult abuse and neglect. (Intrieri v. Superior Court (2004) 117 Cal.App.4th 72, 82.) To state a cause of action for dependent adult or elder abuse under the Act and obtain the heightened remedies provided under the Act, the plaintiff must plead facts showing two elements: (1) the defendant has subjected dependent adult or elder to statutorily-defined physical abuse, neglect or financial abuse; and (2) the defendant acted with recklessness, malice, oppression, or fraud in the commission of the abuse. (Welf. & Inst. Code § 15657.) Under the Act, abuse of an elder or a dependent adult entails either of the following: (a) physical abuse, neglect, financial abuse, abandonment, isolation, abduction, or other treatment with resulting physical harm or pain or mental suffering; (b) the deprivation by a care custodian of goods or services that are necessary to avoid physical harm or mental suffering. (Welf. & Inst. Code § 15610.07; Covenant Care, Inc. v. Superior Court (2004) 32 Cal.4th 771, 779, fn. 3.) A claim must be pled with particularity. (Covenant Care, Inc. v. Superior Court (2004) 32 Cal.4th 771, 790.)

A plaintiff must prove conduct essentially equivalent to that which would support recovery of punitive damages, in order to obtain the Act’s heightened remedies. (Covenant Care, Inc. v. Superior Court (2004) 32 Cal.4th 771, 789 (compare Welf. & Inst. Code § 15657, requiring “clear and convincing evidence that a defendant is liable for” elder/dependent adult abuse and “has been guilty of recklessness, oppression, fraud, or malice in the commission of the abuse,” with Civ. Code § 3294(a), requiring “clear and convincing evidence” that the defendant has been guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice).) Recklessness involves deliberate disregard of the high degree of probability that an injury will occur and rises to the level of a conscious choice of a course of action with knowledge of the serious danger to others involved in it. (Alexander v. Scripps Memorial Hospital La Jolla (2018) 23 Cal.App.5th 206, 223.)

When a dependent adult abuse claim is brought against a corporate defendant, the plaintiff must further show that an officer, director or managing agent authorized or ratified the abuse or neglect. (Welf. & Inst. Code § 15657(c); Civ. Code § 3294.)

It is uncontested in this demurrer that Plaintiff was alleged to be a dependent adult, and therefore would be subject to the provisions under Welfare and Institutions Code section 15600 et seq. However, Defendant contends that Plaintiff failed to demonstrate Defendant ratified Rodriguez’s sexual assault that would amount to a willful misconduct by Defendant.

The Court had twice previously sustained the demurrer to this cause of action for not alleging these very facts that showed Defendant acted with a level of disregard beyond normal negligence. Again, Plaintiff did not allege that Defendants had notice that Rodriguez would sexually assault Plaintiff. Furthermore, nothing in the SAC’s allegations indicate that Defendant withheld medical care from Plaintiff or engaged in reckless conduct in providing medical care toward Plaintiff. The facts alleged in the SAC only indicate that Plaintiff brings this cause of action because Defendant failed to protect her from Rodriguez’s criminal conduct. This is insufficient to allege a cause of action against Defendant under the Welfare and Institutions Code.

Thus, demurer to this cause of action is SUSTAINED.