Search

Attributes

This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 07/26/2019 at 03:21:01 (UTC).

YASSY HOSSEINI ET AL VS CEDAR-SINAI MEDICAL CENTER ET AL

Case Summary

On 10/27/2017 YASSY HOSSEINI filed a Property - Other Property Fraud lawsuit against CEDAR-SINAI MEDICAL CENTER. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are BARBARA M. SCHEPER and JON R. TAKASUGI. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****1323

  • Filing Date:

    10/27/2017

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Property - Other Property Fraud

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

BARBARA M. SCHEPER

JON R. TAKASUGI

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs and Petitioners

ROSTAMI JALEH

HOSSEINI YASSY

HOSSEINI SAM

Defendants and Respondents

CEDAR-SINAI MEDICAL CENTER

CEDARS-SINAI SAMUEL OSCHIN COMPREHENSIVE

THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF

CEDARS-SINAI HOSPITAL

MITA ALAIN C. MD

MITA MONICA M. MD

COMPREHENSIVE CEDARS-SINAI SAMUEL OSCHIN

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

NAJILA K. BRENT APLC

BRENT NAJILA KORDROSTAM ESQ.

 

Court Documents

CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

2/22/2018: CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

NOTICE OF POSTING JURY FEES BY PLAINTIFFS

3/8/2018: NOTICE OF POSTING JURY FEES BY PLAINTIFFS

CIVIL DEPOSIT

3/8/2018: CIVIL DEPOSIT

Minute Order

3/9/2018: Minute Order

Minute Order

3/28/2018: Minute Order

Minute Order

4/24/2018: Minute Order

Minute Order

1/15/2019: Minute Order

Ex Parte Application

7/1/2019: Ex Parte Application

Minute Order

7/2/2019: Minute Order

Order

7/2/2019: Order

Certificate of Mailing for

7/2/2019: Certificate of Mailing for

Challenge To Judicial Officer - Peremptory (170.6)

7/5/2019: Challenge To Judicial Officer - Peremptory (170.6)

Certificate of Mailing for

7/8/2019: Certificate of Mailing for

Minute Order

7/8/2019: Minute Order

Notice of Case Reassignment/Vacate Hearings

7/12/2019: Notice of Case Reassignment/Vacate Hearings

NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

12/12/2017: NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

SUMMONS

10/27/2017: SUMMONS

COMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)

10/27/2017: COMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)

6 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 07/16/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 3, Jon R. Takasugi, Presiding; Jury Trial - Not Held - Vacated by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/12/2019
  • Notice of Case Reassignment/Vacate Hearings; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/08/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 30, Barbara M. Scheper, Presiding; Court Order

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/08/2019
  • Certificate of Mailing for (Minute Order (Court Order) of 07/08/2019); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/08/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Court Order)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/05/2019
  • Challenge To Judicial Officer - Peremptory (170.6)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/02/2019
  • at 10:00 AM in Department 3, Jon R. Takasugi, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/02/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 3, Jon R. Takasugi, Presiding; Hearing on Ex Parte Application (To Vacate or continue the trial dates, FSC and all Related Daes and Cut-Offs to allow plaintiffs to amend the complaint and serve the parties) - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/02/2019
  • Certificate of Mailing for (Minute Order (Final Status Conference; Hearing on Ex Parte Application To V...) of 07/02/2019); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/02/2019
  • Order (Transferring Complicated Personal Injury (PI) Case to an Independent Calendar (IC) Court); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
15 More Docket Entries
  • 03/08/2018
  • Notice; Filed by Yassy Hosseini (Plaintiff); Sam Hosseini (Plaintiff); Jaleh Rostami (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/08/2018
  • CIVIL DEPOSIT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/08/2018
  • NOTICE OF POSTING JURY FEES BY PLAINTIFFS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/22/2018
  • Case Management Statement; Filed by Yassy Hosseini (Plaintiff); Sam Hosseini (Plaintiff); Jaleh Rostami (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/22/2018
  • CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/12/2017
  • NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/12/2017
  • Notice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/27/2017
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/27/2017
  • Complaint; Filed by Yassy Hosseini (Plaintiff); Sam Hosseini (Plaintiff); Jaleh Rostami (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/27/2017
  • COMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC681323    Hearing Date: March 25, 2021    Dept: 24

Defendant Pharmacyclics LLC’s motion to dismiss is DENIED.

On October 27, 2017, Plaintiff Yassy Hosseini, through her successor in interest Jaleh Hosseini, Sam Hosseini, and Jaleh Hosseini filed the instant wrongful death/survival action against Cedar-Sinai Medical Center; the Regents of the University of California; Cedars-Sinai Hospital; Samuel Oschin Comprehensive Cancer Institute; Monica M. Mita MD; Alain C. Mita, MD; Phariviacyclics LLC; Jansen Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Healthsmart Pacific Inc; Ronald Reagan UCLA Medical Center; Ronald Reagan UCLA Hospital; Santa Monica-UCLA Medical Center and Orthopaedic Hospital; the Regents University Of California Health Sciences & Services; UC Regent Division Of Medicine/Hematology/Oncology; Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center; Trio Group; Trio-USA; Dennis Slamon, Md; John Glaspy, MD; and Madeline Kuiper, NP. The Complaint alleges that Defendants are medical professionals who undertook employment to treat Yassy Hosseini. Defendants were allegedly negligent in their care and treatment, causing Plaintiff to overdose on experimental drugs. The operative Complaint alleges causes of action for negligence and intentional tort.

On April 24, 2018, this case was transferred to Department 3 of the PI hub. There was little activity on the case until July 2, 2019, when Department 3 deemed the case complex and transferred it to Department 30. On July 5, 2019, Plaintiff filed a peremptory challenge and the case was reassigned to Department 24. It was not until October 2020 that Plaintiff began filing various proofs of service as to the Defendants, as well as various doe/fictious name corrections.

On January 8, 2021, Pharmacyclics filed the instant motion to dismiss the suit for delay in prosecution. On January 25, 2021, Plaintiffs filed an opposition. On February 9, 2021, Pharmacyclics filed a response. On February 17, 2021, Plaintiffs filed a reply.

Legal Standard

CCP section 583.410 provides that the court may, in its discretion, dismiss an action for delay in prosecution pursuant to this article on its own motion or on motion of the defendant if to do so appears to the court appropriate under the circumstances of the case. This discretion may not be exercised unless service is not made within two years after the action is commenced against the defendant, or that the action was not brought to trial within 3 years after the action is commenced. (CCP § 583.420(a).)

CCP section 583.240 provides, as follows:

In computing the time within which service must be made pursuant to this article, there shall be excluded the time during which any of the following conditions existed:

(a) The defendant was not amenable to the process of the court.

(b) The prosecution of the action or proceedings in the action was stayed and the stay affected service.

(c) The validity of service was the subject of litigation by the parties.

(d) Service, for any other reason, was impossible, impracticable, or futile due to causes beyond the plaintiff's control. Failure to discover relevant facts or evidence is not a cause beyond the plaintiff's control for the purpose of this subdivision.

In ruling on the motion, the court must consider all matters relevant to a proper determination of the motion, including: (1) The court's file in the case and the declarations and supporting data submitted by the parties and, where applicable, the availability of the moving party and other essential parties for service of process; (2) The diligence in seeking to effect service of process; (3) The extent to which the parties engaged in any settlement negotiations or discussions; (4) The diligence of the parties in pursuing discovery or other pretrial proceedings, including any extraordinary relief sought by either party; (5) The nature and complexity of the case; (6) The law applicable to the case, including the pendency of other litigation under a common set of facts or determinative of the legal or factual issues in the case; (7) The nature of any extensions of time or other delay attributable to either party; (8) The condition of the court's calendar and the availability of an earlier trial date if the matter was ready for trial; (9) Whether the interests of justice are best served by dismissal or trial of the case; and (10) Any other fact or circumstance relevant to a fair determination of the issue.

CCP section 583.130 provides that it “is the policy of the state that a plaintiff shall proceed with reasonable diligence in the prosecution of an action but that all parties shall cooperate in bringing the action to trial or other disposition. Except as otherwise provided by statute or by rule of court adopted pursuant to statute, the policy favoring the right of parties to make stipulations in their own interests and the policy favoring trial or other disposition of an action on the merits are generally to be preferred over the policy that requires dismissal for failure to proceed with reasonable diligence in the prosecution of an action in construing the provisions of this chapter.”

Request for Judicial Notice

Plaintiffs’ request for judicial notice is GRANTED.

Discussion

The Court agrees that Plaintiffs delayed more than two years, but less than three, in serving Defendants, including moving party Pharmacyclics. There is no evidence on the record that supports any of the CCP section 583.420 tolling provisions. Thus, the Court would find that it has the discretion to grant the motion to dismiss. However, the Court would not be inclined to dismiss due to the strong public policy in favor of disposition on the merits and the lack of apparent prejudice to Pharmacyclics.

Based on the above-noted factors, the Court is not inclined to use this discretion to dismiss the case at this stage. Reviewing the record and the parties’ evidence, the Court does find that Plaintiffs delayed in service and has not offered substantial excuses for the delay in service. For instance, Plaintiffs’ insistence that the various court transfers and COVID-19 pandemic caused delay in service simply does not make sense. The pandemic (and, indeed COVID-19 itself) did not exist until years after this case was filed. The court transfers would not prevent Plaintiff from serving Defendants. The PI Hub are a part of the same Superior Court as this department. Likewise, counsel’s ambiguous, on-going health issues would not justify the greater than two-year delay in service. Thus, Plaintiffs’ proffered excuses for the delay does not begin to explain why they could not serve the various corporate defendants here, including Pharmacyclics.

Pharmacyclics cites to general claims of lost evidence or faded memory, and notes that Plaintiffs have had time to gather discovery for themselves. Pharmacyclics insists that since they were not informed of the case, they did not have the opportunity to make discovery, interview witnesses and preserve evidence essential to its defense. While the Court agrees that this is a risk inherent in delay of service/prosecution (Lopez v. Larson (1979) 91 Cal.App.3d 383, 402-403), Pharmacyclics should at least suggest some evidence or category of evidence that has diminished in quality due to this delay. Pharmacyclics argues that the delay rendered “unquantifiable” amounts of material evidence inaccessible or unavailable but declines to give an example. What evidence is no longer available because of the delay, and how is that evidence material to the defense? Pharmacyclics does not even cite one category of evidence, let alone provide support that such evidence existed and has been lost due to the delay. The Court does not mean to hold Pharmacyclics to an impossible standard—but the Court requires some substantial basis to hold that they have been prejudiced through the loss of evidence as they claim.

Further, Pharmacyclics notes in its moving papers that Plaintiffs “did nothing to prosecute” for three years, which must also include discovery. Plaintiffs allege that Decedent overdosed on experimental drugs, manufactured and co-developed by Pharmacyclics. Since their liability is based on the manufacture/development of the experimental drug, Pharmacyclics presumably controls relevant material proving or disproving their liability here, not Plaintiffs. Thus, the Court cannot conclude that Plaintiffs have garnered any unjust evidentiary advantage from this delay.

Considering the lack of apparent prejudice, the Court does not find that the interests of justice would be served by dismissal. Accordingly, Pharmacyclics motions to dismiss is DENIED.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.

Case Number: BC681323    Hearing Date: January 19, 2021    Dept: 24

Defendants’ motion to dismiss is DENIED.

On October 27, 2017, Plaintiff Yassy Hosseini, through her successor in interest Jaleh Hosseini, Sam Hosseini, and Jaleh Hosseini filed the instant wrongful death/survival action against Cedar-Sinai Medical Center; the Regents of the University of California; Cedars-Sinai Hospital; Samuel Oschin Comprehensive Cancer Institute; Monica M. Mita MD; Alain C. Mita, MD; Phariviacyclics LLC; Jansen Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Healthsmart Pacific Inc; Ronald Reagan UCLA Medical Center; Ronald Reagan UCLA Hospital; Santa Monica-UCLA Medical Center and Orthopaedic Hospital; the Regents University Of California Health Sciences & Services; UC Regent Division Of Medicine/Hematology/Oncology; Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center; Trio Group; Trio-USA; Dennis Slamon, Md; John Glaspy, MD; and Madeline Kuiper, NP.The Complaint alleges that Defendants are medical professionals who undertook employment to treat Yassy Hosseini. Defendants were allegedly negligent in their care and treatment, causing Plaintiff to overdose on experimental drugs. The operative Complaint alleges causes of action for negligence and intentional tort.

On April 24, 2018, this case was transferred to Department 3 of the PI hub. There was little activity on the case until July 2, 2019, when Department 3 deemed the case complex and transferred it to Department 30. On July 5, 2019, Plaintiff filed a peremptory challenge and the case was reassigned to Department 24. It was not until October 2020 that Plaintiff began filing various proofs of service as to the Defendants, as well as various doe/fictious name corrections.

On November 6, 2020, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (“Janssen”) filed a motion to dismiss for delay in prosecution. On November 12, 2020, Cedar-Sinai Medical Center, Alain C. Mita and Monica M. Mita, MD, (“Cedars Defendants”) filed a similar motion to dismiss. On November 16, 2020, The Regents of the University of California, Ronald Reagan UCLA Medical Center, Santa Monica UCLA Medical Center and Orthopaedic Hospital, Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center, John Glaspy, MD, Dennis Slamon, MD, and Madeline Kuiper (“UCLA Defendants”), NP filed a joinder to the motions to dismiss. On November 30, 2020, Plaintiff filed an opposition to Janssen’s motion. On December 15, 2020, Janssen filed a response to the opposition. On December 21, 2020, Plaintiff filed an opposition to the Cedars motion. On December 28, 2020, Cedars filed a reply. On December 31, 2020, Plaintiff filed a reply to Janssen’s response. On January 13, 2021, Plaintiff filed a rely to Cedar’s reply.

Given the overlapping issues of the motions, the Court will consider the requests to dismiss together.

Legal Standard

CCP section 583.410 provides that the court may, in its discretion, dismiss an action for delay in prosecution pursuant to this article on its own motion or on motion of the defendant if to do so appears to the court appropriate under the circumstances of the case. This discretion may not be exercised unless service is not made within two years after the action is commenced against the defendant, or that the action was not brought to trial within 3 years after the action is commenced. (CCP § 583.420(a).)

CCP section 583.240 provides, as follows:

In computing the time within which service must be made pursuant to this article, there shall be excluded the time during which any of the following conditions existed:

(a) The defendant was not amenable to the process of the court.

(b) The prosecution of the action or proceedings in the action was stayed and the stay affected service.

(c) The validity of service was the subject of litigation by the parties.

(d) Service, for any other reason, was impossible, impracticable, or futile due to causes beyond the plaintiff's control. Failure to discover relevant facts or evidence is not a cause beyond the plaintiff's control for the purpose of this subdivision.

In ruling on the motion, the court must consider all matters relevant to a proper determination of the motion, including: (1) The court's file in the case and the declarations and supporting data submitted by the parties and, where applicable, the availability of the moving party and other essential parties for service of process; (2) The diligence in seeking to effect service of process; (3) The extent to which the parties engaged in any settlement negotiations or discussions; (4) The diligence of the parties in pursuing discovery or other pretrial proceedings, including any extraordinary relief sought by either party; (5) The nature and complexity of the case; (6) The law applicable to the case, including the pendency of other litigation under a common set of facts or determinative of the legal or factual issues in the case; (7) The nature of any extensions of time or other delay attributable to either party; (8) The condition of the court's calendar and the availability of an earlier trial date if the matter was ready for trial; (9) Whether the interests of justice are best served by dismissal or trial of the case; and (10) Any other fact or circumstance relevant to a fair determination of the issue.

CCP section 583.130 provides that it “is the policy of the state that a plaintiff shall proceed with reasonable diligence in the prosecution of an action but that all parties shall cooperate in bringing the action to trial or other disposition. Except as otherwise provided by statute or by rule of court adopted pursuant to statute, the policy favoring the right of parties to make stipulations in their own interests and the policy favoring trial or other disposition of an action on the merits are generally to be preferred over the policy that requires dismissal for failure to proceed with reasonable diligence in the prosecution of an action in construing the provisions of this chapter.”

Evidentiary Objections

Plaintiffs’ evidentiary objections are OVERRULED.

Request for Judicial Notice

Plaintiff’s request for judicial notice is GRANTED.

Discussion

First, the Court finds that Plaintiffs delayed more than two years, but less than three, in serving Defendants. There is no evidence on the record that supports any of the CCP § 583.420 tolling provisions. Thus, the Court would find that it has the discretion to grant the motion.

Based on the above-noted factors, the Court does not find enough cause to exercise its discretion to dismiss the case at this stage. Reviewing the record and the parties’ evidence, the Court does find that Plaintiffs did unreasonably delayed in service. Plaintiffs’ citations to the various court transfers and COVID-19 pandemic does not begin to explain why Plaintiffs could not serve the various corporate defendants here. Any personal issues cited would not justify the 2+ year delay in service. However, the Court would not be inclined to dismiss due to the strong public policy in favor of disposition on the merits and the lack of apparent prejudice to Defendants (aside from generic and conclusory claims of faded memory). While Defendants note that they do not have to demonstrate prejudice, this is a factor for the court to consider. Considering this, the Court does not find that the interests of justice would be served by dismissal.

Accordingly, Moving Defendants’ motions to dismiss are DENIED.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.

Case Number: BC681323    Hearing Date: January 07, 2021    Dept: 24

Defendant Phariviacyclics LLC’s motion to vacate is GRANTED.

On October 27, 2017, Yassy Hosseini, through her successor in interest Jaleh Rostami, Sam Hosseini, and Jaleh Rostami flied the instant Wrongful Death/Professional Negligence action against Defendants Cedar-Sinai Medical Center, The Regents of the University of California; Cedars-Sinai Hospital; Samuel Oschin Comprehensive Cancer Institute; Monica Mita, MD; Alain C. Mita, MD; Phariviacyclics LLC; Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Healthsmart Pacific Inc; Ronald Reagan UCLA Medical Center; Ronald Reagan UCLA Hospital; Santa Monica-UCLA Medical Center and Orthopaedic hospital; The Regents University of California Health Sciences & Services; UC Regent Division of Medicine/Hematology/Oncology; Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center; Trio Group; Trio-USA; Dennis Slamon, MD; John Glaspy, MD; Madeline Kuiper, NP, and does 1-100.

The Complaint states two causes of action for general negligence and intentional tort related to negligently rendered medical care. Defendants allegedly misdiagnosed and overdosed Decedent on experimental drugs, leading to her death, in the promotion of clinical research data over her health. Decedent additionally lost the opportunity to participate in other clinical trials at UCLA or to be treated by other approved FDA drugs and experienced more serious symptoms with more serious and extensive residual disabilities due to lack of proper care.

Relevant to this motion, the Court entered default against Pharmacyclics on November 13, 2020. On November 25, 2020, Pharmacyclics filed the instant motion to vacate the default. No opposition was submitted. On December 30, 2020, Pharmacyclics filed a reply/notice of non-opposition.

Legal Standard

Relief under section 473(b) is either discretionary or mandatory. Where a party cannot obtain an attorney affidavit of fault, the party may seek discretionary relief under section 473(b) due to “mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect.” (CCP § 473(b).) A motion for discretionary relief must be made “within a reasonable time but in no instance exceeding six months after the judgment, dismissal, order, or proceeding was taken.” (Id.) If discretionary relief is granted, the court may in its discretion order the moving party to pay the costs, including attorney fees, incurred in obtaining the default. (Rogalski v. Nabers Cadillac (1992) 11 Cal.App.4th 816, 823; Vanderkous v. Conley (2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 111, 118-119.) If the motion for discretionary relief is granted, the court may order the offending attorney to pay monetary sanctions up to $1,000 to opposing parties, or up to $1,000 to the State Bar Client Security Fund, or “[g]rant other relief as is appropriate.” (CCP § 473(c)(1)(A), (B), (C).)

A motion for relief under section 473(b) “shall be accompanied by a copy of the answer or other pleading proposed to be filed therein, otherwise the application shall not be granted. . .” (CCP § 473(b).) However, this requirement is not jurisdictional; substantial compliance may suffice. (Carmel, Ltd. v. Tavoussi hearing rather than serving it with moving papers].) 

Discussion

The Court finds good cause to vacate the default.

First, Pharmacyclics has been diligent in working to set aside the entry of default, making its motion only twelve days after entry of default.

Second, Pharmacyclics meets their burden to show mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect. Due to inadvertence by a paralegal supervisor and complications caused by COVID-19 restrictions imposed on the workplace, counsel’s complaint management system failed to identify and route this case as it normally otherwise would. (Brake Decl., ¶¶ 3-7.) On November 12, 2020, Pharmacyclics learned of the Complaint and began to search for outside counsel. (Id., ¶ 7.) On November 13, 2020, Pharmacyclics requested an extension to respond to the Complaint via email and telephone. (Id., ¶ 8.) On November 16, 2020, Plaintiffs' counsel informed Pharmacyclics that Plaintiffs already had filed a request for entry of default. (Id. ¶ 9.) Notably, Plaintiff filed for default only eight days after Pharmacyclics' answer was due. Outside counsel was retained thereafter to help defend this action and prepare this Motion. (Id. ¶ 11.)

Third, Pharmacyclics has provided a copy of its proposed responsive pleading, a motion to dismiss. (See Barragan v. Banco BCH (1986) 188 Cal.App.3d 283, 299.)

Accordingly, Pharmacyclics’s motion is GRANTED. Moving party is ordered to give notice.

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF NEW MEXICO is a litigant

Latest cases where CEDARS-SINAI MEDICAL CENTER is a litigant