On 11/08/2017 TYLER WESTBROOK filed a Personal Injury - Medical Malpractice lawsuit against CHRISTINE KOHLER EKSTRAND, M D. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is JON R. TAKASUGI. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.
Pending - Other Pending
Los Angeles County Superior Courts
Stanley Mosk Courthouse
Los Angeles, California
JON R. TAKASUGI
EKSTRAND CHRISTINE KOHLER M.D.
DOES 1 TO 10
LUCERO LINDA ESQ.
LAMB MICHAEL V. ESQ.
11/21/2017: DECLARATION OF DILIGENCE
11/21/2017: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS
11/21/2017: PROOF OF SERVICE BY MAIL
11/8/2017: COMPLAINT FOR: PROFESSIONAL NEGLIGENCE BY A HEALTHCARE PROVIDER
at 1:30 PM in Department 3, Jon R. Takasugi, Presiding; Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment - Not Held - Rescheduled by PartyRead MoreRead Less
at 08:30 AM in Department 3, Jon R. Takasugi, Presiding; Jury Trial - Not Held - Continued - StipulationRead MoreRead Less
Separate Statement; Filed by Christine Kohler M.D. Ekstrand (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
Motion for Summary Judgment; Filed by Christine Kohler M.D. Ekstrand (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
at 10:00 AM in Department 3, Jon R. Takasugi, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Continued - StipulationRead MoreRead Less
Notice (Of Order Re Stipulation to Continue Trial); Filed by Christine Kohler M.D. Ekstrand (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
Stipulation and Order (To Continue Trial); Filed by Christine Kohler M.D. Ekstrand (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
NOTICE OF RULING ON MOTIONS OF DEFENDANT CHRISTINE A. KOHLEREKSTRAND. M.D. TO COMPEL PLAINTIFFS 1) RESPONSES TO DEMAND FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET NO. ONE. WITHOUT OBJECTION AND 2) ANSWERS, WITHOUT OBJECTION, TO FORM AND SPECIAL INTERROGATORES, SETSRead MoreRead Less
Notice of Ruling; Filed by Christine Kohler M.D. Ekstrand (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
at 1:30 PM in Department 3; Unknown Event Type - Held - Motion GrantedRead MoreRead Less
DECLARATION OF DILIGENCERead MoreRead Less
PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONSRead MoreRead Less
Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by Tyler Westbrook (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
Declaration re: Due Diligence; Filed by Tyler Westbrook (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by Tyler Westbrook (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
PROOF OF SERVICE BY MAILRead MoreRead Less
ORDER ON COURT FEE WAIVERRead MoreRead Less
SUMMONSRead MoreRead Less
COMPLAINT FOR: PROFESSIONAL NEGLIGENCE BY A HEALTHCARE PROVIDERRead MoreRead Less
Complaint; Filed by Tyler Westbrook (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
Case Number: BC682785 Hearing Date: October 25, 2019 Dept: 3
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT
CHRISTINE KOHLER EKSTRAND, M.D., ET AL.,
CASE NO: BC682785
[TENTATIVE] ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
October 25, 2019
1. Background Facts
Plaintiff, Tyler Westbrook filed this action against Defendant, Christine Kohler Ekstrand, M.D. for damages arising out of medical malpractice.
2. Motion for Summary Judgment
a. Moving Argument
At this time, Defendant moves for summary judgment, contending she complied with the standard of care at all times, and nothing she did caused or contributed to Plaintiff’s claimed damages.
b. Prior Hearing
The Court was originally scheduled to hear this motion on 7/26/19. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Court determined Defendant met her moving burden to show she was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The Court continued the hearing on the motion to permit Plaintiff to present evidence in support of his theory, posited for the first time at the hearing on 7/26/19, that he was mentally incompetent to understand the informed consent documents he signed.
Any supplemental opposition to the motion was due on or before 10/11/19. The Court did not receive a timely supplemental opposition to the motion. Indeed, on 10/18/19, Defendant filed a supplemental reply wherein she correctly notes that Plaintiff has not filed supplemental opposition to the motion.
Prior to 10/21/19, the Court prepared a tentative ruling granting the motion for summary judgment due to the lack of supplemental opposition. On 10/21/19, Plaintiff submitted an untimely supplemental opposition to the motion. To the extent the Court has considered the supplemental opposition, the Court finds it does not raise triable issues of material fact. Plaintiff purports to provide the “Declaration of Sar Ahmed, M.D. and Karl Epstein, M.D.” with the opposition (see proof of service of opposition papers, dated 10/18/19). There is no declaration of Ahmed or Epstein with the opposition. There is a letter from Ahmed to Plaintiff’s attorney, but it is not signed under penalty of perjury. There is nothing from Epstein with the opposition papers. Defendant’s objections, filed on 10/22/19, are sustained.
The opposition also argues that, to the extent the Court is inclined to grant the motion, the Court should continue the hearing on the motion. Continuances of summary judgment motions are governed by CCP §437c(h). A threshold requirement for a continuance is a declaration from an attorney setting forth grounds for the requested continuance. There is no declaration of Plaintiff’s attorney in support of the request for a continuance, and it is denied.
As a final note, Plaintiff submitted a new separate statement with the opposition. In the Court’s original tentative ruling concerning this matter, dated 7/26/19, the Court indicated, “Plaintiff’s separate statement in opposition to the motion fails to comply with CRC 3.1350(h). Plaintiff failed to state the facts in her separate statement, which rendered review of the statement virtually impossible.” Despite this prior admonishment, Plaintiff provided a substantially identical separate statement with the supplemental papers. The separate statement remains impossible to review and does not provide the Court with meaningful guidance.
The Court previously found Defendant met her moving burden to show she is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The Court permitted Plaintiff to submit additional papers to raise a triable issue of material fact. Plaintiff failed to file any timely papers. Plaintiff’s untimely papers fail to include any admissible evidence, either to raise a triable issue of material fact or to support a request for a continuance. Additionally, Plaintiff’s separate statement remains fatally defective. The motion for summary judgment is therefore granted at this time. Defendant is ordered to give notice.
Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at email@example.com indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org. If the department does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on the tentative and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion may be placed off calendar. If a party submits on the tentative, the party’s email must include the case number and must identify the party submitting on the tentative.