This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 05/30/2019 at 05:44:45 (UTC).

SHEILA JANETH OSORIO LOPEZ VS BELLWOOD MEDICALL CENTER ET AL

Case Summary

On 03/30/2017 SHEILA JANETH OSORIO LOPEZ filed a Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury lawsuit against BELLWOOD MEDICALL CENTER. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is CHRISTOPHER K. LUI. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****5758

  • Filing Date:

    03/30/2017

  • 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 Judge

CHRISTOPHER K. LUI

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner

LOPEZ SHEILA JANETH OSORIO

Defendants and Respondents

GUANGZHOU GOOD PROPERTY MANAGEMENT

ZHANG ZHEJIAN

HYUK LEE MEDICAL DOCTOR

GOOD PROPERTY MANAGEMENT GROUP LLC

BELLWOOD MEDICAL CENTER

DOES 1 TO 100

NEW GOOD INVESTMENT LLC

GOOD PROPERTY MANAGEMENT GROUP

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

NALBANDYAN HARRY ESQ.

MARZBAN MICHAEL M. ESQ.

MARZBAN MICHAEL M.

NALBANDYAN ARUTYUN HARRY ESQ.

Defendant and Respondent Attorneys

MICHAEL F. KLEIN ESQ.

ELDER BRAD M. ESQ.

KLEIN MICHAEL FREDERICK

HICKMAN MICHAEL J.

 

Court Documents

NOTICE OF CHANGE OF HANDLING ATTORNEY

2/2/2018: NOTICE OF CHANGE OF HANDLING ATTORNEY

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

3/14/2018: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT

3/29/2018: AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT

AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT

4/3/2018: AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT

DEFENDANT MID-CITIES IPA?S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF LOPEZ?S COMPLAINT

4/12/2018: DEFENDANT MID-CITIES IPA?S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF LOPEZ?S COMPLAINT

REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL

4/23/2018: REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL

NOTICE OF ENTRY ORDER ON STIPULATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL FSC AND RELATED MOTION DISCOVERY DATES

8/3/2018: NOTICE OF ENTRY ORDER ON STIPULATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL FSC AND RELATED MOTION DISCOVERY DATES

Minute Order

2/15/2019: Minute Order

Minute Order

4/5/2019: Minute Order

Notice

5/9/2019: Notice

NOTICE OF CHANGE OF HANDLING ATTORNEY

1/30/2018: NOTICE OF CHANGE OF HANDLING ATTORNEY

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

6/16/2017: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

SUMMONS CROSS-COMPLAINT

7/24/2017: SUMMONS CROSS-COMPLAINT

HYUK LEE, M.D. A MEDICAL CORPORATIONS' CROSS- COMPLAINT FOR: (1) IMPLIED INDEMNITY (2) EQUITABLE INDEMNITY (3) DECLARATORY RELIEF

7/24/2017: HYUK LEE, M.D. A MEDICAL CORPORATIONS' CROSS- COMPLAINT FOR: (1) IMPLIED INDEMNITY (2) EQUITABLE INDEMNITY (3) DECLARATORY RELIEF

Unknown

8/30/2017: Unknown

CROSS-COMPLAINT FOR 1. IMPLIED INDEMNITY; ETC.

8/30/2017: CROSS-COMPLAINT FOR 1. IMPLIED INDEMNITY; ETC.

ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

8/30/2017: ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

NOTICE OF CHANGE OF ATTORNEY

9/8/2017: NOTICE OF CHANGE OF ATTORNEY

22 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 05/09/2019
  • Complaint (1st); Filed by Sheila Janeth Osorio Lopez (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/09/2019
  • Notice (of Change of Attorney); Filed by Sheila Janeth Osorio Lopez (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/09/2019
  • Amended Complaint (First); Filed by Sheila Janeth Osorio Lopez (Plaintiff); Sheila Janeth Osorio Lopez (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/09/2019
  • Summons (First Amended); Filed by Sheila Janeth Osorio Lopez (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/09/2019
  • Notice of Ruling; Filed by Sheila Janeth Osorio Lopez (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/05/2019
  • at 1:30 PM in Department 4A, Christopher K. Lui, Presiding; Hearing on Motion for Leave to Amend (Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint) - Held - Motion Granted

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/05/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Hearing on Motion for Leave to Amend Motion for Leave to Amen...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/04/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 4A, Christopher K. Lui, Presiding; Jury Trial - Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/22/2019
  • at 10:00 AM in Department 4A, Christopher K. Lui, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/13/2019
  • Motion for Leave to Amend Plaintiff's Complaint; Filed by Sheila Janeth Osorio Lopez (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
45 More Docket Entries
  • 07/24/2017
  • Answer; Filed by Hyuk, Lee, Medical Doctor (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/24/2017
  • Cross-Complaint; Filed by Hyuk, Lee, Medical Doctor (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/24/2017
  • ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/24/2017
  • SUMMONS CROSS-COMPLAINT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/16/2017
  • Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by Sheila Janeth Osorio Lopez (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/16/2017
  • PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/04/2017
  • Summons; Filed by Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/04/2017
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/30/2017
  • COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1. GENERAL NEGLIGENCE 2. PREMISES LIABILITY

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/30/2017
  • Complaint; Filed by Sheila Janeth Osorio Lopez (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC655758    Hearing Date: March 13, 2020    Dept: 28

The court considered the moving papers

BACKGROUND

On March 30, 2017, Plaintiff Sheila Janeth Osorio Lopez (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Bellwood Medical Center, New Good Investment LLC, Zhejian Zhang, Guangzhou Good Property Management Co., Ltd., Good Property Management Group, LLC, Good Property Management Group, and Hyuk Lee, M.D., a Medical Corporation, asserting causes of action for general negligence and premises liability. 

On July 24, 2017, Defendant Hyuk Lee, M.D., a Medical Corporation (“Lee Corp.”) filed an answer to the complaint, as well as, a cross-complaint against New Good Investment LLC and Good Property Management Group, LLC for implied indemnity, equitable indemnity, and declaratory relief. 

On August 30, 2017, Defendants New Good Investments, LLC (“NGI”), Good Property Management Group LLC (“GPMG”), Guangzhou Good Property Management Co., Ltd. (“GGPM”), and Zhejian Zhang (“Zhang”) filed an answer to the complaint, as well as, a cross-complaint against Mid Cities IPA, Inc., Lee Corp., and Hyuk Lee, M.D. (“Lee”) for implied indemnity, express indemnity, failure to defend, contribution, and declaratory relief. NGI and GPMG also filed an answer to Lee Corp.’s cross-complaint.

On October 5, 2017, Lee Corp. filed an answer to NGI, GPMG, GGPM, and Zhang’s cross-complaint.

On March 20, 2018, Lee Corp. and Mid-Cities IPA (“MCI”) filed an answer to NGI, GPMG, GGPM, and Zhang’s cross-complaint.

On March 29, 2018, Plaintiff filed an Amendment to Complaint, naming MCI as DOE 1.

On April 23, 2018, NGI, GPMG, GGPM, and Zhang filed a Request for Dismissal, dismissing the express indemnity and duty to defend causes of action as to Lee. 

On May 23, 2018, Lee filed an answer to the cross-complaint of NGI, GPMG, GGPM, and Zhang.

On May 9, 2019, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint, asserting causes of action for general negligence and premises liability. 

On June 10, 2019, Lee Corp. filed an answer to the first amended complaint.

On June 11, 2019, NGI, GPMG, GGPM, and Zhang filed an answer to the first amended complaint.

REQUESTS

Lee, Lee Corp., and MCI request summary adjudication of the 2nd (express indemnity) cause of action in the cross-complaint of NGI, GPMG, GGPM, and Zhang. 

LEGAL STANDARD

C.C.P. §437c(f) provides, as follows: 

(1)¿A party may move for summary adjudication as to one or more causes of action within an action, one or more affirmative defenses, one or more claims for damages, or one or more issues of duty, if the party contends that the cause of action has no merit, that there is no affirmative defense to the cause of action, that there is no merit to an affirmative defense as to any cause of action, that there is no merit to a claim for damages, as specified in¿Section 3294 of the Civil Code, or that one or more defendants either owed or did not owe a duty to the plaintiff or plaintiffs. A motion for summary adjudication shall be granted only if it completely disposes of a cause of action, an affirmative defense, a claim for damages, or an issue of duty.

(2)¿A motion for summary adjudication may be made by itself or as an alternative to a motion for summary judgment and shall proceed in all procedural respects as a motion for summary judgment. A party shall not move for summary judgment based on issues asserted in a prior motion for summary adjudication and denied by the court unless that party establishes, to the satisfaction of the court, newly discovered facts or circumstances or a change of law supporting the issues reasserted in the summary judgment motion.

C.C.P. §437c(p)(2) provides, as follows:

A defendant or cross-defendant has met his or her burden of showing that a cause of action has no merit if the party has shown that one or more elements of the cause of action, even if not separately pleaded, cannot be established, or that there is a complete defense to the cause of action. Once the defendant or cross-defendant has met that burden, the burden shifts to the plaintiff or cross-complainant to show that a triable issue of one or more material facts exists as to the cause of action or a defense thereto. The plaintiff or cross-complainant shall not rely upon the allegations or denials of its pleadings to show that a triable issue of material fact exists but, instead, shall set forth the specific facts showing that a triable issue of material fact exists as to the cause of action or a defense thereto.

DISCUSSION

Lee Corp., Lee, and MCI move for summary adjudication of the 2nd (express indemnity) cause of action in the cross-complaint of NGI, GPMG, GGPM, and Zhang. 

Indemnity may be defined as the obligation resting on one party to make good a loss or damage another party has incurred. [Citation]¿This obligation may be expressly provided for by contract [Citation], it may be implied from a contract not specifically mentioning indemnity [Citation], or it may arise from the equities of particular circumstances [Citations]. Wherethe parties have expressly contracted with respect to the duty to indemnify, the extent of that duty must be determined from the contract and not by reliance on the independent doctrine of equitable indemnity. [Citation]” (Rossmoor Sanitation, Inc. v. Pylon, Inc. (1975) 13 Cal.3d 622, 628.)

Past cases have held that¿an indemnity agreement may provide for indemnification against an indemnitees own negligence, but such an agreement must be clear and explicit and is strictly construed against the indemnitee.¿[Citation] If an indemnity clause does not address itself to the issue of an indemnitees negligence, it is referred to as a generalindemnity clause.¿[Citation] While such clauses may be construed to provide indemnity for a loss resulting in part from an indemnitees¿passive¿negligence, they will not be interpreted to provide indemnity if an indemnitee has been¿actively¿negligent. [Citations]” (Id.)

Provisions purporting to hold an owner harmless in any suit at law’ [Citation], ‘from all claims for damages to¿persons’ [Citation], and ‘from any cause whatsoever’ [Citation], without expressly mentioning an indemnitees negligence, have been deemed to be general clauses.” (Id. at 628-629.) 

As set forth below, Lee Corp., Lee, and MCI (collectively “Moving Party”) submitted evidence showing they did not have a written agreement with NGI, GPMG, GGPM, and Zhang, which contained an indemnity provision, as of December 18, 2015 (the day of Plaintiff’s alleged accident)(FAC ¶¶10, 20-36, 38-47.) (See Lockheed Missiles & Space Co. v. Gilmore Industries, Inc. (1982) 135 Cal.App.3d 556, 559 (“[A]n indemnity agreement must be in writing and signed by the parties.”).) 

Moving Party submitted evidence showing NGI, GPMG, GGPM, and Zhang cannot establish the existence of an indemnity agreement with Moving Party based on the Medical Office Lease Agreement for Suite 110.  Moving Party submitted evidence MCI entered into a Medical Office Lease Agreement with Alta Bellwood Hospitals, Inc. dba Bellwood General Hospital for Suite 110 of the subject office building, located at 10230 Artesia Boulevard, Bellflower, California. Moving Party submitted evidence Lee signed the lease on behalf of MCI, the lease was entered into and made effective on November 1, 1999, and the lease was for a one-year term. (Declaration of Lee ¶2; Exhibit 1.)  The lease states, in pertinent part, as follows:

If Tenant should hold over and remain in possession of the Premises after the expiration of this Lease without the written consent of the Landlord, such possession shall continue as a month-to-month tenancy…All other terms and conditions of this Lease shall continue in full force and effect during such tenancy, which shall terminate by either party upon the delivery of Fifteen (15) days’ prior written notice.

(Declaration of Lee ¶2; Exhibit 1.)  The lease also contains the indemnity provisions cited in the cross-complaint. (X-C ¶11.)  (Declaration of Lee ¶2; Exhibit 1.)  Moving Party submitted evidence MCI remained in possession of Suite 110 after the term of the lease expired, and continued to pay rent until MCI terminated the tenancy.  Moving Party submitted evidence MCI gave notice and, thereafter, vacated Suite 110 in or about November 2007, before Plaintiff’s alleged accident. Moving Party also submitted evidence that Lee and Lee Corp. were never tenants of Suite 110. (Declaration of Lee ¶8; Exhibit 7.) 

Additionally, Moving Party submitted evidence showing NGI, GPMG, GGPM, and Zhang cannot establish the existence of an indemnity agreement with Moving Party based on the lease agreements for Suite 111 and Suite 103. Moving Party submitted evidence Lee entered into a Medical Office Lease Agreement, dated January 1, 1998, with Paracelsus Medical Building Corporation for the lease of Suite 111 of the subject office building. Moving Party submitted evidence the Medical Office Lease Agreement has a three year term, commencing January 1, 1998 and expiring on December 31, 2001. The Medical Office Lease Agreement does not contain indemnity provisions. (Declaration of Lee ¶3; Exhibit 2.) Moving Party submitted evidence Lee signed a First Amendment to Medical Office Lease Agreement (Suite 111) (“First Amendment”). The First Amendment is between Alta Healthcare Building Corporation and Lee, President of Lee Corp.  The First Amendment extends the expiration date of the Medical Office Lease Agreement to November 30, 2005. The First Amendment does not contain any indemnity provisions. (Declaration of Lee ¶4; Exhibit 3.) Moving Party submitted evidence Lee signed Amendment 1 to the Medical Office Lease Agreement (Suite 111). Amendment 1 has a thirty-six month term and does not contain any indemnity provisions. (Declaration of Lee ¶5; Exhibit 4.) Moving Party submitted evidence Lee signed Amendment Number Two To Lease (“Amendment 2”), as President and CEO of MCI. Amendment 2 states Lessee agrees to vacate Suite 111 and take possession of Suite 303. Amendment 2 also extends the lease for six years, from December 1, 2008 to November 30, 2013. Lee declared that he, under Amendment 2, moved his offices out of Suite 111 and into Suite 303, where his offices have remained since. (Declaration of Lee ¶6; Exhibit 5.) Amendment 2 does not contain indemnity provisions. (Declaration of Lee ¶6; Exhibit 5.) Finally, Moving Party submitted evidence Lee signed Amendment Number Three to Lease (“Amendment 3”) on behalf of MCI, extending the term of the lease for an additional five years (from December 1, 2013 to November 30, 2018). Amendment 3 does not contain any indemnity provisions. (Declaration of Lee ¶7; Exhibit 6.) 

Based on the forgoing, Moving Party met its burden on summary adjudication.  Therefore, the burden shifts to NGI, GPMG, GGPM, and Zhang to create a triable issue of material fact.  NGI, GPMG, GGPM, and Zhang failed to meet their burden. In fact, they did not file opposition to the instant motion. Consequently, the motion for summary adjudication is granted. 

CONCLUSION

Lee, Lee Corp., and MCI’s unopposed motion for summary adjudication of the 2nd (express indemnity) cause of action in the cross-complaint of NGI, GPMG, GGPM, and Zhang is GRANTED.