This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 07/20/2019 at 01:51:16 (UTC).

TINA L GOLDHAMMER VS LOS ROBLES HOSPITAL VOLUNTEERS INC ET A

Case Summary

On 03/28/2018 a Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury case was filed by TINA L GOLDHAMMER against LOS ROBLES HOSPITAL VOLUNTEERS INC ET A in the jurisdiction of Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****9946

  • Filing Date:

    03/28/2018

  • 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

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner

GOLDHAMMER TINA L.

Defendants and Respondents

LOS ROBLES HOSPITAL VOLUNTEERS INC.

LOS ROBLES REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER

 

Court Documents

DEFENDANTS LOS ROBLES HOSPITAL VOLUNTEERS, INC. AND LOS ROBLES REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER DRA LOS ROBLES HOSPITAL AND MEDICAL CENTER'S ANSWER

5/10/2018: DEFENDANTS LOS ROBLES HOSPITAL VOLUNTEERS, INC. AND LOS ROBLES REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER DRA LOS ROBLES HOSPITAL AND MEDICAL CENTER'S ANSWER

Declaration

6/14/2019: Declaration

Separate Statement

6/14/2019: Separate Statement

Motion for Summary Judgment

6/14/2019: Motion for Summary Judgment

Notice of Lodging

6/14/2019: Notice of Lodging

Declaration

6/14/2019: Declaration

CIVIL DEPOSIT

4/16/2018: CIVIL DEPOSIT

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

4/19/2018: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

4/23/2018: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

SUMMONS

3/28/2018: SUMMONS

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1. NEGLIGENCE 2. PREMISE LIABILITY

3/28/2018: COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1. NEGLIGENCE 2. PREMISE LIABILITY

 

Docket Entries

  • 06/14/2019
  • Notice of Lodging (in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment); Filed by Los Robles Hospital Volunteers, Inc. (Defendant); Los Robles Regional Medical Center (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/14/2019
  • Separate Statement; Filed by Los Robles Hospital Volunteers, Inc. (Defendant); Los Robles Regional Medical Center (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/14/2019
  • Declaration (of Jeffery Brown); Filed by Los Robles Hospital Volunteers, Inc. (Defendant); Los Robles Regional Medical Center (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/14/2019
  • Declaration (of Steven F Calderwood); Filed by Los Robles Hospital Volunteers, Inc. (Defendant); Los Robles Regional Medical Center (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/14/2019
  • Motion for Summary Judgment; Filed by Los Robles Hospital Volunteers, Inc. (Defendant); Los Robles Regional Medical Center (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/10/2018
  • DEFENDANTS LOS ROBLES HOSPITAL VOLUNTEERS, INC. AND LOS ROBLES REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER DRA LOS ROBLES HOSPITAL AND MEDICAL CENTER'S ANSWER

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/10/2018
  • Answer; Filed by Los Robles Hospital Volunteers, Inc. (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/23/2018
  • Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by Tina L. Goldhammer (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/23/2018
  • PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/19/2018
  • Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by Tina L. Goldhammer (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/19/2018
  • PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/16/2018
  • Receipt; Filed by Tina L. Goldhammer (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/16/2018
  • CIVIL DEPOSIT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/28/2018
  • COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1. NEGLIGENCE 2. PREMISE LIABILITY

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/28/2018
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/28/2018
  • Complaint; Filed by Tina L. Goldhammer (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC699946    Hearing Date: March 17, 2020    Dept: 28

Motion to Continue Trial Date and All Related Dates

Having considered the moving papers, the Court rules as follows.

BACKGROUND

On March 28, 2018, Plaintiff Tina L. Goldhammer filed a complaint against Defendants Los Robles Hospital Volunteers, Inc. and Los Robles Regional Medical Center for negligence and premises liability.

On August 19, 2019, pursuant to the parties’ stipulation, the Court ordered the trial continued from September 30, 2019 to March 30, 2020.

On February 6, 2020, Defendants filed the instant motion to continue trial.

Trial is set for March 30, 2020.

PARTYS REQUEST

Defendants request an order continuing the trial to June 2020.  Defendants also request all related dates be based on the new trial date.

LEGAL STANDARD

Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1332, subdivision (a), “[t]o ensure the prompt disposition of civil cases, the dates assigned for a trial are firm.  All parties and their counsel must regard the date set for trial as certain.”  Under California Rules of Court, rule 3.1332, subdivision (b), “[a] party seeking a continuance of the date set for trial, whether contested or uncontested or stipulated to by the parties, must make the request for a continuance by a noticed motion or an ex parte application under the rules in chapter 4 of this division, with supporting declarations.  The party must make the motion or application as soon as reasonably practical once the necessity for the continuance is discovered.”

California Rules of Court, rule 3.1332, subdivision (c) states that “[a]lthough continuances of trials are disfavored, each request for a continuance must be considered on its own merits.  The court may grant a continuance only on an affirmative showing of good cause requiring the continuance.”  California Rules of Court, rule 3.1332, subdivision (d) sets forth factors that are relevant in determining whether to grant a continuance.

California Code of Civil Procedure section 2024.050 allows a court to grant leave to complete discovery proceedings.  In doing so, a court shall consider matters relevant to the leave requested, including, but not limited to: (1) the necessity of the discovery, (2) the diligence in seeking the discovery or discovery motion, (3) the likelihood of interference with the trial calendar or prejudice to a party, and (4) the length of time that has elapsed between previous trial dates.  (Code Civ. Proc. § 2024.050.)

DISCUSSION

Defendants seek to continue the trial date from March 30, 2020 to a date in June 2020 or another mutually convenient date.  Defendants argue there is good cause to continue the trial because the parties have a mediation currently set for April 6, 2020.  Defense counsel explains that the mediation was previously scheduled to take place prior to the trial date, but the parties were notified that the mediator would be unable to mediate on that date.  (Maxwell Decl., ¶ 3.)  Defense counsel states the mediation was rescheduled to April 6, 2020, the first available date.  (Id.)

The Court finds good cause to continue the trial and all related dates.  Plaintiff’s counsel has stipulated to the requested continuance.

Therefore, the motion is GRANTED. 

The Court orders trial continued from March 30, 2020 to June 30, 2020 at 8:30 a.m., in Department 28.  The Final Status Conference is continued from March 18, 2020 to June 16, 2020, at 10:00 a.m., in Department 28.  Discovery cut-off (including expert witness exchange) and motion cut-off dates shall be based on the new trial date.

Defendants are ordered to give notice of this ruling.

THE PARTIES ARE ADVISED THAT IF THEY SUBMIT ON THIS TENTATIVE, IT WILL BECOME THE ORDER OF THE COURT. 

IF THE PARTIES DO NOT STIPULATE TO THIS TENTATIVE, THEY SHOULD ARRANGE FOR COURT CALL TO MAKE ARGUMENTS. 

IF THE PARTIES ARE UNWILLING TO APPEAR BY COURT-CALL, THE COURT WILL CONTINUE THE MOTION TO A DATE TO BE DETERMINED.  

Case Number: BC699946    Hearing Date: October 25, 2019    Dept: 4A

Motion for Summary Judgment

Having considered the moving, opposition, and reply papers, the Court rules as follows.

BACKGROUND

On March 28, 2018, Plaintiff Tina L. Goldhammer (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendants Los Robles Hospital Volunteers, Inc. and Los Robles Regional Medical Center for negligence and premises liability.

On June 14, 2019, Defendant Los Robles Regional Medical Center (“Defendant”) filed the instant motion for summary judgment.  Plaintiff filed opposition papers on August 16, 2019.  Defendant filed reply papers on October 18, 2019.

Trial is set on March 30, 2020.

PARTY’S REQUEST

Defendant requests that this Court enter summary judgment against Plaintiff pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 437c on the grounds that Defendant did not breach any duties owed to Plaintiff, did not know of the alleged adhesive substance on the ground, and exercised ordinary and reasonable care to obtain such knowledge.

LEGAL STANDARD

The purpose of a motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication “is to provide courts with a mechanism to cut through the parties’ pleadings in order to determine whether, despite their allegations, trial is in fact necessary to resolve their dispute.”  (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 843.)  “Code of Civil Procedure section 437c, subdivision (c), requires the trial judge to grant summary judgment if all the evidence submitted, and ‘all inferences reasonably deducible from the evidence’ and uncontradicted by other inferences or evidence, show that there is no triable issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”  (Adler v. Manor Healthcare Corp. (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1110, 1119.)

“On a motion for summary judgment, the initial burden is always on the moving party to make a prima facia showing that there are no triable issues of material fact.”  (Scalf v. D. B. Log Homes, Inc. (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 1510, 1519.)  A defendant moving for summary judgment or summary adjudication “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 . . . cannot be established, or that there is a complete defense to the cause of action.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c(p)(2).)  “Once the defendant . . . has met that burden, the burden shifts to the plaintiff . . . to show that a triable issue of one or more material facts exists as to the cause of action or a defense thereto.” (Id.) “If the plaintiff cannot do so, summary judgment should be granted.”  (Avivi v. Centro Medico Urgente Medical Center (2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 463, 467.)

“When deciding whether to grant summary judgment, the court must consider all of the evidence set forth in the papers (except evidence to which the court has sustained an objection), as well as all reasonable inferences that may be drawn from that evidence, in the light most favorable to the party opposing summary judgment.”  (Avivi, 159 Cal.App.4th at 467; Code Civ. Proc., §437c(c).)

EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS

Plaintiff submits six evidentiary objections to the declarations of Jeffrey Brown and Steven F. Calderwood. OVERRULED, with the exception of Objection 5 to the Calderwood Declaration.  The Court sustains the objections to paragraph 5 and Exhibit D on the grounds that Mr. Calderwood has not established that he has any personal knowledge about the attached exhibit or its substance and that the attached document is hearsay.  The Court also notes that Exhibit D is irrelevant to the issues before the Court as it is dated August 15, 2018, and if that was the date of its issuance, the work standards in it were promulgated nearly two years after the fall suffered by Plaintiff on September 11, 2016.   

DISCUSSION

The elements for negligence are: (1) a legal duty owed to the plaintiff to use due care; (2) breach of duty; (3) causation; and (4) damage to the plaintiff. (County of Santa Clara v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2006) 137 Cal.App.4th 292, 318.) The elements of a cause of action for premises liability are the same as those for negligence: duty, breach, causation, and damages.” (Castellon v. U.S. Bancorp (2013) 220 Cal.App.4th 994, 998 (citing Ortega v. Kmart Corp. (2001) 26 Cal.4th 1200, 1205; Civil Code § 1714(a)).) In order to impose liability on a property owner for a dangerous condition, the owner must have either actual or constructive knowledge of the dangerous condition or have been able to discover the condition by the exercise of ordinary care. (See Ortega, supra, 26 Cal.4th at 1206.) “[W]here the plaintiff relies on the failure to correct a dangerous condition to prove the owner’s negligence, the plaintiff has the burden of showing that the owner had notice of the defect in sufficient time to correct it.” (See id. at 1206.)  An owner is charged with constructive knowledge of the existence of a dangerous condition if the condition was present for a sufficient period of time. (See id. at 1206-07.) “Whether a dangerous condition has existed long enough for a reasonably prudent person to have discovered it is a question of fact for the jury.” (See id. at 1207.) “The owner must inspect the premises or take other proper action to ascertain their condition, and if, by the exercise of reasonable care, the owner would have discovered the condition, he is liable for failing to correct it.” (See id.) “A store owner exercises ordinary care by making reasonable inspections of the portions of the premises open to customers . . . .” (See id. at 1205.) 

Defendant argues it had no notice of the purported substance on the floor. elies on a declaration from Jeffery Brown, Defendant’s Director of Support Services, to support this argument.  According to Brown, there were no calls about a spill or any other individuals slipping on a substance on the floor on the date of the incident.  (Brown Decl., ¶ 5.)  Brown declares that, had there been notice of a substance on the floor, steps would have been taken to clean the substance, place cones over the substance until someone was notified, or notify department leadership.  (Id., ¶ 6.)  Brown declares that per Defendant’s “Letter or Expectation-Department Work Standards,” EVS technicians must be alert to small details needing attention, debris on floors, spots on walls and carpets, and report any identified cleaning needs to their supervisor.  (Id., ¶ 7.)  Brown states that it is custom and practice that the area by the elevator is inspected by EVS employees once per hour during the course of performing their duties.  (Id., ¶ 8.)  Brown states that it is also custom and practice for other hospital employees that may pass through the area to inspect the area.  (Id.)

Defendant’s evidence is insufficient to demonstrate that it lacked notice of the purported substance.  While Brown sets forth the general custom and practice for inspection, Defendant fails to provide any evidence demonstrating that the custom and practice was indeed followed or that any inspections took place on the date of the incident. Defendant has failed to show that it did not have constructive notice of the substance and that it exercised reasonable care in inspecting the area.  Defendant has thus failed to meet its burden of demonstrating that Plaintiff cannot establish her negligence and premises liability causes of action against Defendant.

As Defendant has failed to meet its burden, the burden did not shift to Plaintiff to demonstrate triable issues of material fact exist.

Accordingly, Defendant is not entitled to summary judgment.

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, Defendant Los Robles Regional Medical Center’s Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED.

Defendant is ordered to give notice of this ruling.