Search

Attributes

This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 06/10/2019 at 07:48:51 (UTC).

VALLEY SURGICAL CENTER, LLC VS MARTIN E. FLYNN

Case Summary

On 04/12/2017 VALLEY SURGICAL CENTER, LLC filed a Contract - Other Contract lawsuit against MARTIN E FLYNN. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are LISA HART COLE, BOBBI TILLMON and GERALD ROSENBERG. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****7372

  • Filing Date:

    04/12/2017

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Contract - Other Contract

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

LISA HART COLE

BOBBI TILLMON

GERALD ROSENBERG

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs

VALLEY SURGICAL CENTER LLC

INDEPENDENT MEDICAL SERVICES INC.

Defendant

FLYNN MARTIN E.

Not Classified By Court

TEST PARTY FOR TRUST CONVERSION

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorneys

JUBLET MARK

FLYNN FRANCIS J.

Defendant Attorney

GOLDSOBEL STEVEN M.

 

Court Documents

Summons

4/12/2017: Summons

Notice of Related Case

8/30/2017: Notice of Related Case

Minute Order

9/5/2017: Minute Order

Unknown

10/23/2017: Unknown

Notice of Change of Address or Other Contact Information

10/30/2017: Notice of Change of Address or Other Contact Information

Minute Order

11/1/2017: Minute Order

Answer

11/30/2017: Answer

Case Management Statement

12/22/2017: Case Management Statement

Request for Judicial Notice

1/9/2018: Request for Judicial Notice

Unknown

1/26/2018: Unknown

Order Appointing Court Approved Reporter as Official Reporter Pro Tempore

2/2/2018: Order Appointing Court Approved Reporter as Official Reporter Pro Tempore

Unknown

2/14/2018: Unknown

Minute Order

2/28/2018: Minute Order

Brief

4/4/2018: Brief

Minute Order

6/21/2018: Minute Order

Notice of Ruling

12/14/2018: Notice of Ruling

Order

12/20/2018: Order

Notice of Ruling

3/18/2019: Notice of Ruling

74 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 06/03/2019
  • Appeal - Remittitur - Appeal Dismissed (B291001); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/15/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department O; Hearing on Motion for Reconsideration

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/02/2019
  • Other - (CLERK OF COURT NOTICE OF CLERICAL ERROR AND CORRECTION); Filed by INDEPENDENT MEDICAL SERVICES, INC. (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/22/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department O; Case Management Conference - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/22/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department O; Hearing on Motion to be Relieved as Counsel - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/22/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department O; Trial Setting Conference - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/22/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department O; Order to Show Cause Re: (Sanctions for Attorney Mark Jubelt for Failure to Appear on 3/14/19) - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/22/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Hearing on Motion to be Relieved as Counsel; Case Management ...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/21/2019
  • Case Management Statement; Filed by MARTIN E. FLYNN (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/19/2019
  • Substitution of Attorney; Filed by VALLEY SURGICAL CENTER, LLC (Plaintiff); INDEPENDENT MEDICAL SERVICES, INC. (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
179 More Docket Entries
  • 08/17/2017
  • Statement-Case Management; Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/17/2017
  • Case Management Statement; Filed by VALLEY SURGICAL CENTER, LLC (Plaintiff); INDEPENDENT MEDICAL SERVICES, INC. (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/11/2017
  • at 08:30 AM in Department O; Case Management Conference (Conference-Case Management; Advanced to this date & continued) -

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/13/2017
  • Notice of Continuance (Case management conf. cont. to 8/22/17 ); Filed by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/13/2017
  • Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order; Filed by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/12/2017
  • Summons Filed; Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/12/2017
  • Complaint; Filed by VALLEY SURGICAL CENTER, LLC (Plaintiff); INDEPENDENT MEDICAL SERVICES, INC. (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/12/2017
  • Civil Case Cover Sheet

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/12/2017
  • Summons; Filed by Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/12/2017
  • Complaint Filed

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: SC127372    Hearing Date: April 22, 2021    Dept: O

VALLEY SURGICAL V FLYNN - DEFENDANT’S MOTION IN LIMINE #1

This Court did not rule on the anti-slapp motion. But from the Court’s review of that February 28, 2018 order, it seems clear that any claim for damages that were caused by the protected and stricken conduct of Defendant’s  testimony in other proceedings and his dissemination of the contents of the recorded conversation cannot be recovered in this action.  Given that conclusion, Plaintiff has not shown how evidence of the Defendant’s disclosure of this information to law enforcement agencies, governmental agencies, and in connection with civil litigation is relevant.  In that context the admissibility of this evidence could properly be addressed in a motion in limine.

What remains unclear to the Court is just what damages Plaintiff seeks that flow from his breach of contract, his illegal recording, or his other breach of any duty, and not from the protected dissemination of that information.  It may be necessary for the Court to hold a Evidence Code §402 hearing to bring more clarity to the issues presented by this motion.  In addition, it may be appropriate to give the jury special instructions regarding causation and damages to clarify that Plaintiff is not seeking damages that flow from Defendant’s protected dissemination of information.

Valley Surgical v Flynn Plaintiff’s motion in limine #1

Plaintiff’s motion in limine No. One is GRANTED, without prejudice.

BRIAN OXMAN:

Plaintiff seeks to exclude evidence of Brian Oxman’s disbarment from the practice of law. Specifically the State Bar Orders issued in 2012.  Defendant would offer this evidence to “call into question Mr. Oxman’s character for honesty or veracity.” Generally, evidence of specific instances of a witness’ conduct that is relevant only to prove a trait of the witness' character is inadmissible to attack or support the credibility of a witness. Evid. Code, § 787.  However, specific misconduct may be relevant to prove something other than bad (or good) character. For example, evidence of past misconduct may tend to show the witness has some motive, bias, or interest that might induce false testimony. [Evid. Code § 780(f); Piscitelli v. Salesian Soc. (2008) 166 CA4th 1, 7.] Even then, under Evidence Code §352, the Court may exclude evidence if “its probative value is substantially outweighed by the probability that its admission will (a) necessitate undue consumption of time or (b) create substantial danger of undue prejudice, of confusing the issues, or of misleading the jury.”

There is no evidence the misconduct of Mr. Oxman that led to his disbarment has any relation to the issues in the case.  The only purpose of offering the evidence of this conduct would be to attack the credibility of Mr. Oxman’s testimony.  Even if the court could find this evidence is admissible, its probative value is substantially outweighed by the the time the admission of this evidence and Mr. Oxman’s  expected explanations as well as the substantial danger of undue prejudice, confusing the issues and misleading the jury from their proper focus on the evidence that tends to prove or disprove the elements of Plaintiff’s claims and the Defendant’s denials and affirmative defenses.

Julian Omidi

Plaintiff seeks to exclude the evidence of the federal indictment of Mr. Omidi and all evidence of the bad acts alleged in that indictment. Defendant apparently wants to have the federal indictment admitted into evidence and question Mr. Omedi regarding those bad acts.  It’s not known, what if any, part of Mr. Omedi’s testimony could have some bearing on the issues or other evidence in this case.  So, this Court’s preliminary ruling could be subject to change based on what testimony Mr. Omedi may have to offer.  But neither the fact Mr. Omidi has been indicted, nor the facts of the bad acts alleged in the indictment, appear to be relevant to show Mr. Omidi’s bias or motive to lie in this case.  With that caveat, the Court finds, under Evidence Code §352, its probative value is substantially outweighed by the the time the admission of this evidence and Mr. Omidi’s explanations as well as the substantial danger of undue prejudice, confusing the issues and misleading the jury from their proper focus on the evidence that tends to prove or disprove the elements of Plaintiff’s claims and the Defendant’s denials and affirmative defenses.

Valley Surgical v Flynn - Plaintiff’s motion in limine No. 2

Valley Surgical’s MIL 2 to preclude undesignated experts is GRANTED, without prejudice to defendant pursuing, if appropriate, a Motion to Submit Tardy Expert Witness Information under CCP §2034.710 or a motion Motion for Leave to Augment List or Amend Declaration complying with CCP § 2034.610.

Under the circumstances of this case, the Court finds that it was unreasonable for Cefendant to serve a "Designation of Expert Witness Information Pursuant to CCP§2034.260" that did not identify any expert; but simply “reserves its right to name or call any experts it retains as the need arises during the course of discovery and investigation or preparation for the arbitration hearing in this action, or as rebuttal experts to the experts identified by other parties to this action.”  There is no authority that grants a party the right to evade the statutory procedure for the timely exchange of the expert information by unilaterally asserting a non-statutory “reservation of rights...” Defendant has not made any supplemental designation under CCP §20345.280. Nor did Defendant pursue a motion to compel Plaintiff to provide a more informative designation.

Case Number: SC127372    Hearing Date: January 26, 2021    Dept: O

Case Name: Valley Surgical Center, LLC, et al. v. Flynn

Case No.: SC127372

Hearing: 1-26-21

Calendar #: 8

Notice: OK

Complaint Filed: 8/24/17

Motion C/O: 2-23-21

Discovery C/O: 2-8-21

Trial Date: 3-8-21

______________________________________________________________________________

SUBJECT: MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 3 AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 62; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

MOVING PARTY: Defendant Martin Flynn

RESP. PARTY: Plaintiffs Valley Surgical Center, LLC., Michael Omidi, MD, Julian Omidi, MD and Independent Medical Services, Inc.

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendant Flynn’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatory No. 3 is GRANTED and RFP No. 62 is DENIED. Plaintiff IMS is ordered to serve further response to SI No. 3 within 10 days. Defendant’s request for sanctions is DENIED.

Flynn argues IMS’s ownership is relevant to a potential defense based on IMS’s ownership by someone other than a licensed medical professional. Moreover, IMS’s corporate status and whether it is legally owned is relevant to the action for purposes of standing, background information and potential witnesses. IMS alleges in the SAC that it is “a medical group health care provider and professional medical corporation.” See SAC, ¶2. Flynn is entitled to conduct discovery to test the truth of this complaint allegation, including the identity of the shareholders.

Plaintiff IMS claims it has amended its articles of incorporation and is now a general corporation, not a medical corporation. However, the amended articles have not yet been accepted by the Secretary of State (See Motion, Ex. 2), and even if they have, Defendant Flynn is not required to accept Plaintiff’s position that its corporate status has successfully been converted from a medical corporation to a general corporation, or that its corporate status as a medical corporation would not have been grounds for any defense.

Plaintiff IMS fails to justify its refusal to respond to SI No. 3 with objections. IMS fails to establish that the privacy rights of its shareholders in their status as shareholders outweighs the relevance of the discovery, or that responding to SI No. 3 is a serious invasion of privacy. See Williams v. Supr. Ct. (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 552.

However, Defendant Flynn fails to establish good cause for the entire production of documents requested in RFP No. 62. Flynn has only justified discovery into IMS’s corporate status, whether it is a medical corporation and whether it is owned by a medical professional, as is required of a medical corporation. Flynn fails to establish the relevance of each shareholder’s percentage of ownership or the other broad categories of documents sought in RFP No. 62. Based on these facts, the privacy rights of the shareholders in their financial affairs outweigh the information sought by the RFP.

Flynn requests sanctions is DENIED. IMS acted with substantial justification in opposing the motion to the RFP and the imposition of sanctions would, under the circumstances, be unjust.

Case Number: SC127372    Hearing Date: October 01, 2020    Dept: O

Case Name: Valley Surgical Center, LLC, et al. v. Flynn

Case No.: SC127372

Hearing: 10-1-20

Calendar #: 9

Trial Date: 3-8-21

______________________________________________________________________________

SUBJECT: DEMURRER TO SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

MOVING PARTY: Defendant Martin Flynn

RESP. PARTY: Plaintiffs Valley Surgical Center, LLC., Michael Omidi, MD, Julian Omidi, MD and Independent Medical Services, Inc.

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendant Flynn’s Demurrer to the Second Amended Complaint (SAC) is OVERRULED. Defendant to answer in 20 days.

3rd cause of action for breach of contract—The 3rd cause of action sufficiently alleges breach of contract and the Court finds the cause of action does not impermissibly include allegations of liability based on disclosure to LAPD and in the whistleblower litigation. Such allegations were stricken per CCP §425.16 and Plaintiffs are not entitled to reallege them. Plaintiffs allege breach of three separate agreements Flynn signed in connection with his employment: (1) a 1-17-11 Confidentiality Agreement wherein he agreed to maintain strict confidentiality of all business related, employee related and patient related information and that any “unauthorized disclosure, discussion or utilization of knowledge or date for the benefit of anyone other than the Medical Director” could result in “disciplinary action up to and including termination”; (2) a 2-8-11 agreement to abide by the Policy and Procedures Manual which states “all health care providers must treat patient related information in a confidential manner and guard against indiscriminate and/or unauthorized release of such information; and (3) a 2-1-11 Contractor Agreement and 6-1-11 Contractor Agreement that prohibited disclosure of any confidential information, which included any business, patient and work related information. See SAC, ¶¶18-27, 34-35.

Plaintiffs allege Defendant Flynn is liable for recording the peer review meeting that occurred on 9-8-11, for using the recording to produce an illegal, fraudulent and deceptive Peer Review Report and for restitutionary damages in the amount of all wages, salary and payments made to Defendant Flynn following his fraudulent misconduct. Id. at ¶¶26-27. Again, Defendant Flynn was not just prohibited from unauthorized disclosure but also discussion or utilization of the confidential knowledge for the benefit of anyone other than the Medical Director.

In addition, Plaintiffs are seeking permanent injunctive relief, which the 2-1-11 Contractor Agreement and 6-1-11 Contractor Agreement specifically provide for at ¶5.5 in the event Defendant breached his confidentiality obligation. Plaintiffs seeks to enjoin Defendant from ever using or attempting to use the confidential information he acquired during his employment with Plaintiff or using or attempting to use the recording he made on 9-8-11. As such, Plaintiffs need not establish monetary damages to sustain these causes of action. Plaintiffs may establish breach and the threat of future breach of the confidentiality agreements to obtain injunctive relief.

Plaintiffs have sufficiently pled the elements of a breach of contract cause of action that does not rely upon the disclosure of the unauthorized recording to LAPD, government entities or in the whistleblower action. See CACI 303; Richman v. Hartley (2014) 224 Cal.App.4th 1182, 1186. it “[I]t is well settled that a general demurrer admits the truth of all material factual allegations in the complaint; that the question of plaintiff's ability to prove these allegations, or the possible difficulty in making such proof does not concern the reviewing court; and that plaintiff need only plead facts showing that he may be entitled to some relief.” Alcorn v. Anbro Engineering, Inc. (1970) 2 Cal.3d 493, 496.

4th cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty—Plaintiffs allege a fiduciary duty as to Defendant Flynn based on his status as Plaintiffs’ agent and an independent contractor hired by Plaintiff to provide services for Plaintiffs. The 1-17-11 Agreement specifically refers to Defendant’s “employment” with Plaintiffs. See SAC, ¶18. Plaintiffs further allege Defendant Flynn voluntarily assumed fiduciary duties of confidentiality and loyalty by serving as a physician for Plaintiffs’ patients. “Our Supreme Court has acknowledged that it is difficult to enunciate the precise elements required to show the existence of a fiduciary relationship. But the high court has noted that before a person can be charged with a fiduciary obligation, he must either knowingly undertake to act on behalf and for the benefit of another, or must enter into a relationship which imposes that undertaking as a matter of law.” Oakland Raiders v. National Football League (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 621, 631–632. “A fiduciary duty undertaken by agreement arises when one person enters into a confidential relationship with another.” Das v. Bank of America, N.A. (2010) 186 Cal.App.4th 727, 742.

Based on the alleged contracts, Defendant Flynn voluntarily agreed to act on behalf and for the benefit of Plaintiffs, to keep the information identified in the agreements confidential and to only use the information for Plaintiffs’ benefit. See SAC, ¶¶18-27. Defendant Flynn fails to cite to any authority holding that a fiduciary duty does not exist under the specific facts alleged, i.e. independent contractor physician who signed multiple confidentiality agreements that obligated him to use information acquired during employment for benefit of hirer/employer.

5th cause of action for trespass— Trespass is sufficiently alleged. See CACI 2000; Civic Western Corp. v. Zila Industries, Inc. (1977) 66 Cal.App.3d 1, 16–17 (essence of cause of action for trespass is an ‘unauthorized entry’ onto the land of another, but where there is a consensual entry, there is no tort, because lack of consent is an element of the wrong). Plaintiffs allege they gave Defendant permission to attend the peer review meeting for purposes of conducting a good faith peer review and subject to Plaintiffs’ confidentiality agreements. Plaintiffs allege Defendant exceeded Plaintiffs’ permission to enter the meeting by attending the meeting and recording the participants. See SAC, ¶50. Trespass is established by demonstrating that Defendant either did not have permission for entry or that Defendant exceeded the permission granted them by Plaintiff. See CACI 2000, ¶3; Ralphs Grocery Co. v. Victory Consultants, Inc. (2017) 17 Cal.App.5th 245, 261-262 (“lack of permission or acts in excess of permission”).

Case Number: SC127372    Hearing Date: September 03, 2020    Dept: O

SC127372 VALLEY SURGICAL CENTER, LLC VS MARTIN E. FLYNN

Hearing on Defendant’s demurrer and motion to strike

TENTATIVE RULING:

The Court orders the hearing on the demurrer and motion to strike continued to October 1, 2020 at 8:30. Plaintiff may timely file substantive oppositions and Defendant may file substantive replies on or before the deadline calculated from the new hearing date.

All counsel are admonished to not file any untimely supplemental oppositions, declarations or other memorandum without first obtaining leave of court.    

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where Independent Medical Services, Inc. is a litigant

Latest cases where TEST PARTY FOR TRUST CONVERSION is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer FLYNN JR., FRANCIS J.