This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 08/25/2019 at 05:38:14 (UTC).

SARINE BAGHTCHEDJIAN VS HEALTHCARE PARTNERS INC ET AL

Case Summary

On 02/15/2018 SARINE BAGHTCHEDJIAN filed a Personal Injury - Medical Malpractice lawsuit against HEALTHCARE PARTNERS 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 LAURA A. MATZ, MARC D. GROSS and CURTIS A. KIN. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****4075

  • Filing Date:

    02/15/2018

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Medical Malpractice

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

LAURA A. MATZ

MARC D. GROSS

CURTIS A. KIN

 

Party Details

Petitioner and Plaintiff

BAGHTCHEDJIAN SARINE

Defendants and Respondents

DAVITA INC

GLENDALE MEMORIAL HOSPITAL

MALAKIAN LEYLA M.D.

HEALTH CARE PARTNERS I LLC

AVAKIAN ALEEN M.D.

HEALTHCARE PARTNERS INC

DIGNITY HEALTH

DAVITA HEALTH PLAN OF CALIFORNIA INC

RAPETTI M.D. EDWARD J.

DOES 1-50 INCLUSIVE

HEALTHCARE PARTNERS AFFILIATES MEDICIAL

MALAKIAN M.D. LEYLA

RAPETTI EDWARD J. M.D.

DAVITA HEALTH PLAN OF CALIFORNIA INC.

RAPETTI M.D. EDWARD J

DIGNITY HEALTH DBA GLENDALE MEMORIAL HOSPITAL AND HEALTH CENTER

HEALTH CARE PARTNERS LLC

HEALTHCARE PARTNERS INC.

DAVITA INC.

16 More Parties Available

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Petitioner and Plaintiff Attorneys

MCMURRAY RANDY H. ESQ.

MCMURRAY RANDY HUE

MCMURRAY HENRIKS LLP

Defendant and Respondent Attorneys

AITELLI JOHN ESQ.

PEABODY THOMAS MICHAEL ESQ.

PACKER ROBERT B. ESQ.

GONZALEZ MICHAEL D. ESQ.

DIK DANIEL KURT

PACKER O'LEARY & CORSON

AITELLI JOHN

PACKER ROBERT BRUCE ESQ.

PEABODY THOMAS M. ESQ.

PEABODY THOMAS MICHAEL

CARROLL KELLY TROTTER FRANZEN MCKENNA

CRONS ISRAELS & STARK

GONZALEZ MICHAEL DALE

STARK EDWARD CYRIL

FRASER WATSON & CROUTCH LLP

GONZALEZ MICHAEL DALE ESQ.

CRON ISRAELS & STARK

8 More Attorneys Available

 

Court Documents

NOTICE OF POSTING JURY FEES

5/17/2018: NOTICE OF POSTING JURY FEES

CIVIL DEPOSIT

5/17/2018: CIVIL DEPOSIT

Legacy Document

5/17/2018: Legacy Document

Legacy Document

6/20/2018: Legacy Document

CIVIL DEPOSIT

6/20/2018: CIVIL DEPOSIT

Motion to Strike (not initial pleading)

7/23/2018: Motion to Strike (not initial pleading)

Notice of Continuance

8/2/2018: Notice of Continuance

Stipulation - No Order

8/17/2018: Stipulation - No Order

Legacy Document

8/21/2018: Legacy Document

Legacy Document

8/31/2018: Legacy Document

Answer

9/6/2018: Answer

Demurrer - with Motion to Strike (CCP 430.10)

10/1/2018: Demurrer - with Motion to Strike (CCP 430.10)

Reply

11/5/2018: Reply

Case Management Statement

11/26/2018: Case Management Statement

Minute Order

12/19/2018: Minute Order

Order

4/2/2019: Order

Notice of Ruling

4/12/2019: Notice of Ruling

Notice of Entry of Judgment / Dismissal / Other Order

4/12/2019: Notice of Entry of Judgment / Dismissal / Other Order

259 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 12/03/2019
  • Hearingat 09:00 AM in Department E at 600 East Broadway, Glendale, CA 91206; Jury Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/19/2019
  • Hearingat 08:30 AM in Department E at 600 East Broadway, Glendale, CA 91206; Final Status Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/18/2019
  • Hearingat 08:30 AM in Department E at 600 East Broadway, Glendale, CA 91206; Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/20/2019
  • Hearingat 08:30 AM in Department E at 600 East Broadway, Glendale, CA 91206; Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/30/2019
  • DocketMotion for Summary Judgment; Filed by LEYLA MALAKIAN M.D. (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/30/2019
  • DocketSeparate Statement (of Undisputed Material Facts Filed in Support of the Motion filed in Support of the Motion for Summary Judgment of Defendant Leyla Malakian, D.C.); Filed by LEYLA MALAKIAN M.D. (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/30/2019
  • DocketEvidence Filed in Support of Defendant Leyla Malakian, D.C.'s Motion for Summary Judgment; Filed by LEYLA MALAKIAN M.D. (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/23/2019
  • DocketNotice of Change of Address or Other Contact Information; Filed by Randy Hue McMurray (Attorney)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/11/2019
  • DocketNotice (FILING OF ORIGINAL PROOF OF SERVICE FOR DOCUMENTS PERSONALLY SERVED); Filed by HEALTHCARE PARTNERS AFFILIATES MEDICIAL (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/03/2019
  • DocketSeparate Statement; Filed by Davita Health Plan of California, Inc (Defendant); Davita Inc (Defendant); Health Care Partners, I LLC (Defendant) et al.

    Read MoreRead Less
396 More Docket Entries
  • 04/27/2018
  • DocketProof-Service/Summons; Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/27/2018
  • DocketPROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/13/2018
  • DocketSummons Issued; Filed by Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/13/2018
  • DocketSummons Issued; Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/13/2018
  • DocketSUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/15/2018
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by SARINE BAGHTCHEDJIAN (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/15/2018
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/15/2018
  • DocketComplaint

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/15/2018
  • DocketCOMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/01/1900
  • Docketat 08:32 AM in Department Legacy; Unknown event

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC694075    Hearing Date: October 09, 2020    Dept: E

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONES TO REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION, SET ONE

(CCP §2033.290)

Date: 10/9/20 (10:00 AM)

Case: Sarine Baghtchedjian v. Healthcare Partners, Inc., et al. (BC694075)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff Sarine Baghtchedjian’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Admission, Set One is GRANTED IN PART.

I. Request for Admission Nos. 2, 5, 7, 12, 16, 19, 22, 27, and 28

The request to take judicial notice of the Fictitious Business Statement filed with the Los Angeles County Registrar by Family Practice of Glendale, Inc. is GRANTED, pursuant to Evidence Code § 452(c).

With respect to Request for Admission (“RFA”) No. 2, plaintiff contends that defendant Family Medical Center’s response is inconsistent because defendant states that Dr. Adina Cappell saw plaintiff at Family Medical Center, but that Dr. Cappell was employed by Adventist-Health Glendale. It is possible that a doctor could see a patient in a building that is owned or leased by someone other than the doctor’s employer. No further response to RFA No. 2 is required.

With respect to RFA Nos. 5, 7, 12, 16, 19, 22, 27, and 28, defendant Family Medical Center’s response that specified doctors were employed by Family Practice of Glendale, not Family Medical Center, are evasive. Family Practice of Glendale does business as Family Medical Center and has done so since January 1990. (Request for Judicial Notice, Ex. A.) “Use of a fictitious business name does not create a separate legal entity” (Pinkerton's, Inc. v. Superior Court (1996) 49 Cal.App.4th 1342, 1348). Even though Family Practice of Glendale is the legal entity and Family Medical Center is a fictitious business name, “there is no ‘distinction . . . between the legal corporation and its fictitious business name.’” (Savea v. YRC Inc. (2019) 34 Cal.App.5th 173, 179.) Accordingly, defendant must admit that Dr. Avakian, Dr. Hyun, and Dr. Cunningham are employed by Family Medical Center.

The motion is GRANTED as to RFA Nos. 5, 7, 12, 16, 19, 22, 27, and 28 and DENIED as to RFA No. 2.

II. Request for Admission Nos. 10, 15 (second #15), 23, 24, 26, 32, 33, 35, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 48, 58, 59, 60, and 75

With respect RFA No. 10 and the second No. 15, defendant responded that it could neither admit nor deny the matter set forth therein. (With respect to the first RFA No. 15, defendant’s response of “Deny” is sufficient under CCP § 2033.220(b)(2).) Plaintiff contends that defendant’s responses to RFA No. 10 and the second No. 15 are defective because defendant does not set forth reasons that substantiate defendant’s inability to admit or deny. While CCP § 2033.220(a) states that each response to a request for admission “shall be as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party permits,” this does not mean that defendant is required to substantiate or justify its inability to admit or deny.

Plaintiff does correctly contend, however, that defendant’s responses do not comply with CCP § 2033.220(c) because defendant did not state that it made “a reasonable inquiry” and that “the information known or readily obtainable is insufficient to enable that party to admit the matter.” While defendant did not state that it lacked sufficient information or knowledge, it does state that plaintiff was not seen at Family Medical Center on the specified dates. These responses indicate that defendant cannot admit or deny not because the requests were unintelligible, as argued in the opposition, but because plaintiff was not seen at Family Medical Center on the specified dates. Further responses to RFA No. 10 and the second No. 15 are required.

RFA Nos. 23, 32, and 41 ask defendant to admit that Dr. Hyun, Dr. Cunningham, and Dr. Cappell “were not engaged in a distinct occupation or Business.” The phrase “distinct occupation or business” is vague and ambiguous because plaintiff does not define this phrase. Plaintiff does not state from what are the doctors’ “occupation[s] or Business[es]” distinct. The request is also overbroad because a time period is not specified. No further responses to RFA Nos. 23, 32, and 41 are required.

RFA Nos. 24, 33, and 42 ask defendant to admit that the “kind of work” performed by Dr. Hyun, Dr. Cunningham, or Dr. Cappell “is usually done under the direction of a supervisor rather than by a specialist working without supervision.” The phrase “kind of work” is vague and ambiguous. RFA No. 40 asks defendant to admit that the “work being done” by Dr. Cappell was part of the regular busines of Family Medical Center. The phrase “work being done” is vague and ambiguous. As the propounding party, plaintiff is required to delineate the job duties performed by Dr. Hyun, Dr. Cunningham, and Dr. Cappell so that defendant is able to respond whether the specified duties are usually performed under the direction of a supervisor rather than by a specialist working without supervision or were part of the regular business of Family Medical Center. No further responses to RFA Nos. 24, 33, 40, and 42 are required.

In RFA Nos. 25 and 43, which ask defendant to admit that the kind of work performed by Dr. Hyun or Dr. Cappell does not require specialized or professional skill, defendant responded “Deny. Any doctor, M.D. or D.O., is a professional by definition.” This response is sufficient under CCP § 2033.220(b)(2). No further responses to RFA Nos. 25 and 43 are required.

RFA Nos. 26, 35, and 44 ask defendant to admit that Dr. Hyun, Dr. Cunningham, or Dr. Cappell and Family Medical Center believed they had an employer-employee relationship. Defendant cannot speculate what the doctors believed. The request is also vague and ambiguous because it calls for defendant, a business entity, to have a belief. No further responses to RFA Nos. 26, 35, and 44 are required.

RFA No. 45 asks defendant to admit it is vicariously liable for the actions of its employees that are within the scope of their employment. RFA No. 48 asks defendant to admit it has no witnesses or knowledge of any facts in support of its First Affirmative Defense asserted in the Answer to the Third Amended Complaint. Although the phrase “YOU are vicarious liability” in RFA No. 45 is poorly worded and ambiguous, when the request is read as a whole, it is clear plaintiff requests that defendant admit that it is vicariously liable for the actions of its employees that are within the scope of their employment. Although the phrase “WITNESSES who information” in RFA No. 48 is also sloppily crafted and incomprehensible, when the request is read as a whole, it is clear plaintiff requests that defendant admit it has no facts to support its First Affirmative Defense. Defendant is required to provide substantive responses because the “nature of the information sought” is apparent from the requests. (Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771, 783.) To the extent that a time period is not specified in RFA No. 45, defendant may reasonably and clearly qualify any admission under CCP § 2033.220(b)(1). Further responses to RFA Nos. 45 and 48 are required.

RFA Nos. 58, 59, 60, and 75 ask defendant to admit that it has no facts or documents to support its Fifth Affirmative Defense or Tenth Affirmative Defense. Defendant responded that it is unable to respond because these defenses pertain to legal assertions at trial and not facts. The statute of limitations asserted under the Fifth Affirmative Defense and limitations on joint and several liability asserted under the Tenth Affirmative Defense do not exist in a vacuum. Their application to this litigation necessarily depends on the existence of underlying facts in support thereof. Plaintiff is thus entitled to inquire into the applicability of the Fifth and Tenth Affirmative Defendants. (Burke v. Superior Court of Sacramento County (1969) 71 Cal.2d 276, 281 [“Discovery necessarily serves the function of ‘testing the pleadings,’ i.e., enabling a party to determine what his opponent's contentions are and what facts he relies upon to support his contentions”].) Further responses to RFA Nos. 58, 59, 60, and 75 are required.

In sum, the motion is GRANTED as to RFA No. 10, the second No. 15, 45, 48, 58, 59, 60, and 75 and DENIED as to RFA Nos. 23, 24, 25, 26, 32, 33, 35, 40, 41, 42, 43 and 44. Further verified responses are to be provided within ten (10) days hereof.

Given the mixed result, all requests for sanctions are DENIED.

Case Number: BC694075    Hearing Date: September 04, 2020    Dept: E

MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION

(CCP § 2025.450)

Date: 9/4/20 (8:30 AM)

Case: Sarine Baghtchedjian v. Healthcare Partners, Inc., et al. (BC694075)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff Sarine Baghtchedjian’s Motion to Compel Deposition Attendance of Family Practice of Glendale dba Family Medicine Center’s Person Most Knowledgeable is GRANTED.

In the deposition notice, dated February 7, 2020, plaintiff asks for the Person Most Knowledgeable (“PMK”) of defendant Family Medicine Center (“FMC”) regarding the policies and procedures as it relates to (i) ordering of Magnetic Resonance Imaging ("MRI") testing by treating physicians or doctors of FMC, (ii) insurance approval of MRI imaging/testing ordered by physicians or doctors, and (iii) treatment and care of patients of FMC for the time period of January 2016. (Henriks Decl. ¶ 4 & Ex. A.)

Defendant FMC argues that plaintiff cannot compel the deposition of FMC’s PMK because FMC is a building and not a medical group or medical practice. According to defendant, the deposition notice was required to have been directed to Family Practice of Glendale. But FMC is a “dba” of the Family Practice of Glendale. In fact, it is hard to overlook the fact that defendant’s Objection to plaintiff’s 2/7/20 deposition notice is made in the name of “Defendant FAMILY PRACTICE OF GLENDALE dba FAMILY MEDICINE CENTER.” (See Henriks Decl. Ex. B at p.1.) Likewise, in its opposition to the instant motion, defendant identifies itself as “Defendant, FAMILY PRACTICE OF GLENDALE dba FAMILY MEDICINE CENTER.” (Opp. at p.1.) “Use of a fictitious business name does not create a separate legal entity.” (Pinkerton's, Inc. v. Superior Court (1996) 49 Cal.App.4th 1342, 1348.) Thus, a deposition notice to FMC is enforceable against Family Practice of Glendale, because Family Practice of Glendale and FMC are the same entity.

Defendant also argues that it cannot produce a PMK for the third topic listed in the deposition notice concerning the care of patients of FMC during January 2016 because defendant Avakian did not treat plaintiff at FMC until September 12, 2016. (O’Leary Decl. ¶ 5 & Ex. 5 [Third Amend. Compl. ¶¶ 25, 28 (alleging Dr. Avakian’s treatment did not begin until September 12, 2016)].) Even if it is true that Dr. Avakian did not treat plaintiff until September 2016, plaintiff also alleges that she presented at FMC as early as February 23, 2016 and complained of sciatica and shooting pain down the back of her right leg, which may be symptoms of cauda equine syndrome. (Third Amend. Compl. ¶ 26.) Accordingly, the care available at FMC in January 2016, one month before plaintiff complained of symptoms, is probative of the care available to plaintiff. Accordingly, the third topic listed in the deposition notice is reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence. (CCP § 2017.010.) Further, plaintiff’s notice contained two other topics – the ordering of MRI testing by Family Medical Center physicians and insurance approval of MRI imaging and testing ordered by physicians – about which defendant did not object. Defendant could have at least agreed to produce a PMK regarding these two topics.

Defendant also argues that plaintiff failed to meet and confer, as is required by CCP § 2025.450(a)(2). Defendant attempted to meet and confer on July 13, 2020, only after plaintiff filed and served the motion on July 9, 2020. (O’Leary Decl. ¶ 2 & Ex. B.) Prior to the filing of the motion, defendant not meaningfully engage plaintiff in plaintiff’s efforts to meet and confer. On March 9, 2020 and July 2, 2020, plaintiff attempted to obtain dates for the deposition from defendant’s counsel by email. (Henriks Decl. ¶¶ 6, 8 & Exs. C, D.) On July 6, 2020, defendant’s counsel finally responded by email, stating: “We need a deposition notice and will then consider same and contact whatever PMK[s] there might be. However, I caution you to please put a little more thought into your notice. Please do not simply serve us with a copy of the last one with a different date or the reaction will be the same and you will have gotten nowhere.” (Henriks Decl. ¶ 9 & Ex. E.) In the July 6 response, defendant asks for a deposition notice when plaintiff already served one and fails to explain why serving an amended deposition notice with a new date would not suffice. Notably, in the July 6 response, defendant did not raise the issue of whether a notice directed to the PMK for FMC (as opposed to Family Practice of Glendale) was defective. Nor did the July 6 email provide any discussion of defendant’s assertion that plaintiff was not treated by defendant Avakian at FMC in January 2016. Because defendant failed to sufficiently explain its objections to the deposition notice prior to plaintiff filing the motion, plaintiff was entitled to move to compel the deposition of FMC’s PMK.

Pursuant to CCP § 2025.450, the motion is GRANTED. Defendant Family Practice of Glendale dba Family Medicine Center is ordered to produce its Person Most Knowledgeable concerning the three topics listed in in the 2/7/20 deposition notice on _______, 2020, at 10:00 a.m., for a remote deposition pursuant to Emergency Rule of Court 11(a). Such deposition shall go forward as ordered, unless the parties can agree in writing upon a mutually agreeable date and time. In all events, such deposition shall be completed by no later than October 30, 2020.

For failing to comply with discovery obligations and thereby forcing plaintiff to file this motion, the Court imposes monetary sanctions of $1,960.75 on defendant Family Practice of Glendale dba Family Medicine Center (four hours at $450 per hour + $66.75 filing fee + $94.00 telephonic/video appearance fee), payable to plaintiff’s counsel within 30 days hereof.

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where DAVITA HEALTH PLAN OF CALIFORNIA INC is a litigant

Latest cases where HEALTH CARE PARTNERS LLC is a litigant

Latest cases where HEALTHCARE PARTNERS AFFILIATES is a litigant

Latest cases where HEALTHCARE PARTNERS is a litigant