This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 06/05/2019 at 01:45:28 (UTC).

WILLIAM DUNCAN VS GLENDALE ADVENTIST MEDICAL CENTER ET AL

Case Summary

On 09/27/2017 WILLIAM DUNCAN filed a Personal Injury - Medical Malpractice lawsuit against GLENDALE ADVENTIST MEDICAL 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:

    ****7540

  • Filing Date:

    09/27/2017

  • 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 Judge

CHRISTOPHER K. LUI

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner

DUNCAN WILLIAM

Defendants and Respondents

LE TIFFANY M. DR. PA-C M.D.

AYVAZYAN SERGEY M.D.

GLENDALE ADVENTIST MEDICAL CENTER

DOES 1 TO 10

LIU JUDY S. M.D.

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorney

YEAGER KENNETH CHARLES ESQ.

Defendant Attorneys

VAZQUEZ ANDREA DAWN

DATOMI CHRISTOPHER

 

Court Documents

Declaration

1/28/2019: Declaration

Answer

1/28/2019: Answer

Unknown

1/28/2019: Unknown

Request

1/28/2019: Request

Demand for Jury Trial

1/28/2019: Demand for Jury Trial

Request

1/28/2019: Request

Answer

2/11/2019: Answer

Demand for Jury Trial

2/11/2019: Demand for Jury Trial

Proof of Personal Service

2/14/2019: Proof of Personal Service

Proof of Personal Service

2/14/2019: Proof of Personal Service

Proof of Personal Service

2/14/2019: Proof of Personal Service

Proof of Personal Service

2/14/2019: Proof of Personal Service

Notice of Ruling

3/13/2019: Notice of Ruling

Ex Parte Application

3/13/2019: Ex Parte Application

Minute Order

3/13/2019: Minute Order

Unknown

4/2/2019: Unknown

SUMMONS

9/27/2017: SUMMONS

PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES CAUSE OF ACTION MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE

9/27/2017: PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES CAUSE OF ACTION MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE

7 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 04/02/2019
  • Notice of Deposit - Jury; Filed by TIFFANY M. DR. PA-C M.D. LE (Defendant); SERGEY, M.D. AYVAZYAN (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/27/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 4A, Christopher K. Lui, Presiding; Jury Trial - Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/13/2019
  • 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
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 4A, Christopher K. Lui, Presiding; Hearing on Ex Parte Application (and order to continue trial and all trial related dates) - Held - Motion Granted

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/13/2019
  • Notice of Ruling (RE DEFENDANTS TIFFANY M. LE, P.A., AND SERGEY AYV AZYAN, M.D.'S EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL AND ALL TRIAL RELATED DATES); Filed by TIFFANY M. DR. PA-C M.D. LE (Defendant); SERGEY, M.D. AYVAZYAN (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/13/2019
  • Ex Parte Application (Defendants Tiffany M. Le, P.A. and Sergey Ayvazyan, M.D.'s Ex Parte Application and Order to Continue Trial); Filed by TIFFANY M. DR. PA-C M.D. LE (Defendant); SERGEY, M.D. AYVAZYAN (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/13/2019
  • Minute Order ((Final Status Conference; Defendants Tiffany M. Le, P.A. and S...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/14/2019
  • Proof of Personal Service; Filed by WILLIAM DUNCAN (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/14/2019
  • Proof of Personal Service; Filed by WILLIAM DUNCAN (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/14/2019
  • Proof of Personal Service; Filed by WILLIAM DUNCAN (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
3 More Docket Entries
  • 02/11/2019
  • Declaration (Declaration of Trial Attorney for Defendants tiffany M. Le, PA, and Sergey Ayvazyan, M.D.); Filed by TIFFANY M. DR. PA-C M.D. LE (Defendant); SERGEY, M.D. AYVAZYAN (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/28/2019
  • Request (Defendant Adventist Health Glendale's Request for Statement of Damages); Filed by GLENDALE ADVENTIST MEDICAL CENTER (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/28/2019
  • Request (Defendant Adventist Health Glendale's Request for Compliance with Rule 3.254 California Rules of Court); Filed by GLENDALE ADVENTIST MEDICAL CENTER (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/28/2019
  • Notice of Deposit - Jury; Filed by GLENDALE ADVENTIST MEDICAL CENTER (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/28/2019
  • Declaration (Declaration of Trial Attorney Pursuant to Section 9 of the California Rules of Court, Judicial Administrations Standards); Filed by GLENDALE ADVENTIST MEDICAL CENTER (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/28/2019
  • Answer; Filed by GLENDALE ADVENTIST MEDICAL CENTER (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/28/2019
  • Demand for Jury Trial; Filed by GLENDALE ADVENTIST MEDICAL CENTER (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/27/2017
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/27/2017
  • PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES CAUSE OF ACTION MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/27/2017
  • Complaint; Filed by WILLIAM DUNCAN (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC677540    Hearing Date: January 10, 2020    Dept: 4A

DISCLOSURE

The Honorable Daniel M. Crowley was sworn in as a judge in December 2018. Carroll, Kelly, Trotter, Franzen & McBride are counsel for defendants in this matter. Approximately 6-8 years ago, he and John Kelly, Esq. of Carroll, Kelly, Trotter, Franzen & McBride, traveled with their sons, who were high school classmates, along with approximately 20 other fathers and sons, to Tijuana, Mexico to build a house as part of a service project sponsored by the boys’ high school. Their sons were friends and spent time together, although they no longer socialized to that extent. While if Judge Crowley and Mr. Kelly see each other at, say, a bar association event or event associated with their and their sons’ high school, they will typically converse, they do not, and have not, otherwise socialized. Judge Crowley does not have a close, personal relationship with Mr. Kelly that would require recusal under the California Code of Judicial Ethics and believes that he can be fair and impartial in all matters handled by Carroll, Kelly, Trotter, Franzen & McBride.

Motion for an Order Requiring Plaintiff to File an Undertaking

Having , opposing, and replying papers, the Court rules as follows.

BACKGROUND

On September 27, 2017, Plaintiff William Duncan (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendants Glendale Adventist Medical Center, Dr. Tiffany M. Le, PA-C, M.D., Dr. Judy S. Liu, M.D., and Dr. Sergey Ayvazyan, M.D.  The complaint alleges medical malpractice for a failure to diagnose a potential for Plaintiff’s spleen to rupture.

On December 12, 2019, Defendants Tiffany M. Le, PA and Sergey Ayvazyan, M.D.

Trial is set for April 30, 2020.

PARTIES

Defendants Tiffany M. Le, PA and Sergey Ayvazyan, M.D. (“Moving Defendants”) ask the Court to order Plaintiff to file an undertaking in the amount of $50,000.

LEGAL STANDARD

Under California Code of Civil Procedure section 1030, subdivision (a), the defendant may at any time apply to the court by noticed motion for an order requiring the plaintiff to file an undertaking to secure an award of costs which may be awarded in the action or special proceeding when the plaintiff in an action resides out of the state motion shall be made on the grounds that

The motion shall be accompanied by an affidavit in support of the grounds for the motion and by a memorandum of points and authorities.

The moving defendant is required to show that it is reasonably possible that the moving defendant will win at trial, not that Plaintiff has no possibility to win.  (Baltayan v. Estate of Getemyan

A court may waive a Plaintiff’s requirement to file an undertaking when the Plaintiff is indigent.  (Baltayan v. Estate of Getemyan deficiencies, if any, and give the plaintiff the opportunity to supply additional information that may be necessary to establish his or her entitlement to a waiver under the circumstances of the particular case.  (Alshafie v. Lallande (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 421, 435.)  “Only by taking such a proactive role can the trial court properly balance the respective rights of the parties while minimizing the circumstances in which a potentially meritorious case is dismissed solely because the plaintiff cannot post an undertaking.”  (Id.

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff resides Scottsdale, Arizona. Vazquez 3ExhB.)  Moving Defendants Moving Defendants obtain a favorable judgment based on an expert’s opinion.  (Vazquez Decl.,  at all times Ibid.)  Moving Defendants anticipate recoverable costs through trial will approximate between $52,139.39 and $101,988.39 for filing pleadings, motions, court reporter fees, jury fees, experts’ fees, depositions, and subpoenas.  (Vazquez Decl., 

Plaintiff argues Moving Defendants’ estimated costs are unreasonable.  Plaintiff argues the court reporter’s and jury fees should be split among the five parties, reducing this cost by approximately $8,500.  (Opposition, pp. 3:26-4:2.)  Plaintiff also argues that only four to six witnesses are required for this action.  (Opposition, p. 4:4-4:7.)  This would have trial last about three to four days at a cost of $4,400 split among the five parties, resulting in a $880 cost.  (Ibid.)  Plaintiff further argues that he would only be responsible for expert witness fees for two of the Defendants.  (Opposition, p. 4:10-4:18.)  Plaintiff further argues that the range of $5,000-$10,000 Ibid.)

Plaintiff also argues that he is indigent.  Namely, Plaintiff makes a net annual salary of approximately $40,000.  (Opposition, p. 5:7-5:8.)  Plaintiff has less than $300 in dispensable income a month.  (Ibid.)

The Court finds Moving Defendants have met their burden in showing it is reasonably possible that they will obtain a favorable judgment at trial.  Plaintiff does not dispute this.  As such, the Court must decide the proper amount of the bond to be posted.

The Court agrees partially agrees with Plaintiff that Moving Defendants’ calculation of its costs at trial may be 30,000.

Plaintiff has not submitted evidence showing Plaintiff’s salary, such as tax returns, paystubs, and similar documentation .  Plaintiff has not submitted evidence of how much it would cost Plaintiff to secure a $30,000 bond.  As such, the Court finds it is in the interest of justice to continue the hearing on this motion for Plaintiff to submit such evidence.

The Court takes note of Moving Defendants’ reply objecting to Plaintiff’s late opposition.  As such, the Court affords Moving Defendants the opportunity to file a supplemental response as detailed below.

CONCLUSION

The hearing on this motion is therefore CONTINUED to February 3, 2020

Plaintiff is ordered to file a supplemental declaration and evidence showing Plaintiff’s inability to post a bond for $30,000 by January 21, 2020

Moving Defendants file a reply to Plaintiff’s opposition, supplemental declarationand evidence by January 28, 2019 at 1:30 p.m.

Moving Defendants are ordered to give notice