This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 09/17/2020 at 10:39:50 (UTC).

TALINE KASPARIAN VS DENIZ J GOCKEN M D ET AL

Case Summary

On 05/18/2018 TALINE KASPARIAN filed a Personal Injury - Medical Malpractice lawsuit against DENIZ J GOCKEN M D. 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. SEIGLE, AMY D. HOGUE and EDWARD B. MORETON. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****7058

  • Filing Date:

    05/18/2018

  • 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

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

LAURA A. SEIGLE

AMY D. HOGUE

EDWARD B. MORETON

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner

KASPARIAN TALINE

Defendants and Respondents

DENIZ J. GOCKEN M.D. INC.

BRAND SURGICAL INSTITUTE MEDICAL CENTER

GOCKEN DENIZ J. M.D.

DOES 1-100

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

RUNGAITIS MATTHEW R.

RUNGAITIS MATTHEW RAY

Defendant Attorneys

REINHOLTZ JACK R. ESQ.

REINHOLTZ JACK RUSSELL ESQ.

 

Court Documents

Notice - NOTICE OF COURT CONTINUANCE OF MOTION HEARING

4/29/2020: Notice - NOTICE OF COURT CONTINUANCE OF MOTION HEARING

Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (FINAL STATUS CONFERENCE) OF 03/11/2020

3/11/2020: Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (FINAL STATUS CONFERENCE) OF 03/11/2020

Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (COURT ORDER) OF 03/17/2020

3/17/2020: Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (COURT ORDER) OF 03/17/2020

Notice of Ruling

10/7/2019: Notice of Ruling

Ex Parte Application - EX PARTE APPLICATION DEFENDANT BRAND SURGICAL INSTITUTE MEDICAL CENTER, INC.'S EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL, FSC, AND RELATED DATES; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITI

10/7/2019: Ex Parte Application - EX PARTE APPLICATION DEFENDANT BRAND SURGICAL INSTITUTE MEDICAL CENTER, INC.'S EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL, FSC, AND RELATED DATES; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITI

Motion re: - MOTION RE: DEFENDANT BRAND SURGICAL INSTITUTE MEDICAL CENTER, INC.'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR TERMINATING SANCTIONS FOR FAILURE TO OBEY DISCOVERY ORDER OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, ISSU

10/7/2019: Motion re: - MOTION RE: DEFENDANT BRAND SURGICAL INSTITUTE MEDICAL CENTER, INC.'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR TERMINATING SANCTIONS FOR FAILURE TO OBEY DISCOVERY ORDER OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, ISSU

Motion re: - MOTION RE: DEFENDANT BRAND SURGICAL INSTITUTE MEDICAL CENTER, INC.'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR TERMINATING SANCTIONS FOR FAILURE TO OBEY DISCOVERY ORDERS OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, ISS

10/7/2019: Motion re: - MOTION RE: DEFENDANT BRAND SURGICAL INSTITUTE MEDICAL CENTER, INC.'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR TERMINATING SANCTIONS FOR FAILURE TO OBEY DISCOVERY ORDERS OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, ISS

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL, FSC AND AL...)

10/7/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL, FSC AND AL...)

Notice of Change of Address or Other Contact Information

9/4/2019: Notice of Change of Address or Other Contact Information

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY (NOT "FURTHER DISCOVERY"))

8/16/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY (NOT "FURTHER DISCOVERY"))

Notice of Continuance - Notice of continuance of hearing of defendant Brand Surgical Institute Medical Center, Inc.'s motion to compel further responses to form interrogatories, set one

12/27/2018: Notice of Continuance - Notice of continuance of hearing of defendant Brand Surgical Institute Medical Center, Inc.'s motion to compel further responses to form interrogatories, set one

Notice - NOTICE NOTICE OF TAKING MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE, OFF CALENDAR

4/18/2019: Notice - NOTICE NOTICE OF TAKING MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE, OFF CALENDAR

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION TO BIFURCATE)

5/8/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION TO BIFURCATE)

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS -

6/25/2018: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS -

Proof of Service by 1st Class Mail -

6/25/2018: Proof of Service by 1st Class Mail -

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS -

7/5/2018: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS -

SUMMONS -

5/18/2018: SUMMONS -

COMPLAINT OF TALINE KASPARIAN FOR CAUSES OF ACTION FOR: 1. MEDICAL MALPRACTCE 2. MEDICAL BATTERY

5/18/2018: COMPLAINT OF TALINE KASPARIAN FOR CAUSES OF ACTION FOR: 1. MEDICAL MALPRACTCE 2. MEDICAL BATTERY

27 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 01/05/2021
  • Hearing01/05/2021 at 08:30 AM in Department 27 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Trial Setting Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/13/2020
  • DocketNotice of Ruling (on Motion to Set Aside Dismissal); Filed by Taline Kasparian (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/30/2020
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 27, Edward B. Moreton, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Dismissal (CCP 473) - Held - Motion Granted

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/30/2020
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 27, Edward B. Moreton, Presiding; Trial Setting Conference - Not Held - Continued - Court's Motion

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/30/2020
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Trial Setting Conference; Hearing on Motion to Set Aside/Vaca...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/22/2020
  • DocketNotice (of non-opposition); Filed by Taline Kasparian (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/03/2020
  • Docketat 1:30 PM in Department 27, Edward B. Moreton, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Dismissal (CCP 473) - Not Held - Continued - Court's Motion

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/29/2020
  • DocketNotice (of Court Continuance of motion hearing); Filed by Taline Kasparian (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/17/2020
  • Docketat 11:10 AM in Department 27, Edward B. Moreton, Presiding; Court Order

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/17/2020
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Court Order re: COVID-19)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
49 More Docket Entries
  • 07/05/2018
  • DocketPROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/05/2018
  • DocketPROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/05/2018
  • DocketProof-Service/Summons; Filed by Taline Kasparian (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/25/2018
  • DocketProof of Service by 1st Class Mail

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/25/2018
  • DocketProof of Service by Mail; Filed by Taline Kasparian (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/25/2018
  • DocketProof-Service/Summons; Filed by Taline Kasparian (Plaintiff)

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

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/18/2018
  • DocketSUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/18/2018
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Taline Kasparian (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/18/2018
  • DocketCOMPLAINT OF TALINE KASPARIAN FOR CAUSES OF ACTION FOR: 1. MEDICAL MALPRACTCE 2. MEDICAL BATTERY

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC707058    Hearing Date: June 30, 2020    Dept: 27

The parties are strongly encouraged to appear telephonically based on the spread of COVID-19, the states of emergency having been declared by Governor Gavin Newsom and President Donald Trump, the General Orders issued by the Presiding Judge, and the Statewide Orders issued by the Chief Justice.

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

TALINE KASPARIAN,

Plaintiff,

vs.

DENIZ J. GOCKEN, M.D., et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

BC707058

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: MOTION TO SET ASIDE DISMISSAL 

Dept. 27

1:30 p.m.

June 30, 2020

On May 18, 2018, plaintiff Taline Kasparian (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against defendant Brand Surgical Institute Medical Center, Inc. (“Defendant”), among others for medical malpractice.  On August 16, 2019, Plaintiff was ordered to respond to Defendant’s Requests for Production, Set Two within 20 days and to pay $220 in sanctions.  Plaintiff did not do so.  On December 4, 2019, the Court granted Defendant’s motion for terminating sanctions and dismissed the case. Plaintiff now contends that the action was improperly dismissed because she served responses on October 7, 2019 and Defendant had served a notice taking the motion for terminating sanctions off calendar on December 3, 2019.   

“The court may, upon any terms as may be just, relieve a party or his or her legal representative from a judgment, dismissal, order, or other proceeding taken against him or her through his or her mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 473, subd. (b).)  Application for this relief shall be made within a reasonable time, in no case exceeding six months, after judgment, dismissal, order, or proceeding was taken.  (Ibid.)  “[T]he court shall, whenever an application for relief is made no more than six months after entry of judgment, is in proper form, and is accompanied by an attorney’s sworn affidavit attesting to his or her mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or neglect, vacate any (1) resulting default entered by the clerk against his or her client, and which will result in entry of a default judgment, or (2) resulting default judgment or dismissal entered against his or her client, unless the court finds that the default or dismissal was not in fact caused by the attorney’s mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or neglect.”  (Ibid.)

This Motion to set aside dismissal was timely filed within six months of dismissal and the Court finds dismissal was due to counsel’s excusable neglect and surprise.  The Motion to set aside the December 4, 2019 dismissal is GRANTED and the action is reinstated.  A trial date will be set at the Trial Setting Conference scheduled for June 30, 2020 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 27.

Moving party to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SSCDEPT27@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  

30th day of June 2020

Hon. Edward B. Moreton, Jr.

Judge of the Superior Court

Case Number: BC707058    Hearing Date: December 04, 2019    Dept: 4B

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: MOTION FOR TERMINATING SANCTIONS

On May 18, 2018, plaintiff Taline Kasparian (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Brand Surgical Institute Medical Center (“Defendant”), among others. On July 11, 2019, Defendant filed a motion to compel responses to Defendant’s Requests for Production, Set Two. Plaintiff did not oppose the motion, and the Court granted the motion on August 16, 2019, and ordering Plaintiff to respond to Defendant’s Requests for Production, Set Two within 20 days and to pay $220 in sanctions. Defendant served a Notice of Ruling on Plaintiff’s counsel on August 19, 2019, informing Plaintiff of the August 16 order. Plaintiff did not respond to the discovery. Defendant seeks terminating sanctions against Plaintiff for failing to obey the August 16, 2019 order.

Where a party fails to obey an order compelling answers to discovery, “the court may make those orders that are just, including the imposition of an issue sanction, an evidence sanction, or a terminating sanction.” (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, subd. (c), 2023.010, subd. (c); R.S. Creative, Inc. v. Creative Cotton, Ltd. (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 486, 495.) The Court may impose a terminating sanction against anyone engaging in conduct that is a misuse of the discovery process. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.030, subd. (d).) Misuse of the discovery process includes failure to respond to an authorized method of discovery or disobeying a court order to provide discovery. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.010, subds. (d), (g).) A terminating sanction may be imposed by an order dismissing part or all of the action. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.030, subd. (d)(3).)

The court should consider the totality of the circumstances, including conduct of the party to determine if the actions were willful, the determent to the propounding party, and the number of formal and informal attempts to obtain discovery. (Lang v. Hochman (2000) 77 Cal.App.4th 1225, 1246.) If a lesser sanction fails to curb abuse, a greater sanction is warranted. (Van Sickle v. Gilbert (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 1495, 1516.) However, “the unsuccessful imposition of a lesser sanction is not an absolute prerequisite to the utilization of the ultimate sanction.” (Deyo v. Killbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771, 787.) Terminating sanctions should not be ordered lightly, but are justified where a violation is willful, preceded by a history of abuse, and there is evidence that less severe sanctions would not produce compliance with the discovery rules. (Doppes v. Bentley Motors, Inc. (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 967, 992.)

Before any sanctions may be imposed the court must make an express finding that there has been a willful failure of the party to serve the required answers. (Fairfield v. Superior Court for Los Angeles County (1966) 246 Cal.App.2d 113, 118.) Lack of diligence may be deemed willful where the party understood its obligation, had the ability to comply, and failed to comply. (Deyo, supra, 84 Cal.App.3d at p. 787; Fred Howland Co. v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County (1966) 244 Cal.App.2d 605, 610-611.) The party who failed to comply with discovery obligations has the burden of showing that the failure was not willful. (Deyo, supra, 84 Cal.App.3d at p. 788; Cornwall v. Santa Monica Dairy Co. (1977) 66 Cal.App.3d 250; Evid. Code, §§ 500, 605.)

Plaintiff filed no opposition to this motion, did not serve responses to the discovery, and disobeyed a court order to do so. Defendant served a notice of ruling on Plaintiff, and therefore, the Court concludes Plaintiff knew of her discovery obligations, knew of the court order compelling her compliance, and willfully failed to comply. Given Plaintiff’s apparent disinterest in prosecuting this action, the Court finds lesser sanctions would not curb the abuse.

Accordingly, Defendant’s motion for terminating sanctions is GRANTED and Plaintiff’s action is hereby dismissed. As the Court is granting terminating sanctions it declines to also impose monetary sanctions.

Moving party to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SSCDEPT4B@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative.