This case was last updated from California Courts of Appeal on 02/09/2021 at 01:25:20 (UTC).

Martinez v. The Superior Court of Orange County

Case Summary

On 12/22/2020 Martinez filed an Other lawsuit against The Superior Court of Orange County. This case was filed in California Courts of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District - Division 3 located in Statewide, California. The Judge overseeing this case is Servino, Deborah. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ***9759

  • Filing Date:

    12/22/2020

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Other

  • County, State:

    Statewide, California

Judge Details

Trial Court Judge

Servino, Deborah

 

Party Details

Petitioner

Angelica Fuentes Martinez

Respondent

The Superior Court of Orange County

Attn: Hon. Deborah Servino, Dept. C21 700 Civic Center Drive West

Santa Ana, CA 92701

Interested Parties

St. Joseph Hospital

St. Joseph Heritage Medical Group

St. Jude Heritage Medical Group

St. Joseph Heritage Health Care

Bhumy Dave Heliker

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Petitioner Attorneys

Jenos Firouznman-Heidari

Attorney at Madison Law, ALC

17702 Mitchell North

Irvine, CA 92614

Paige Counsman Sirey

Attorney at Madison Law PC

17702 Mitchell N

Irvine, CA 92614

Interested Party Attorneys

James R Parrett

Attorney at Susson & Parrett

James Anthony Creason

Attorney at Creason Tucker Alexander LLP

32 Executive Park Ste 105

Irvine, CA 92614

Jeffrey D. Tucker

Attorney at Creason & Aarvig

200 E. Sandpointe Ave., Ste. 500

Santa Ana, CA 92707

Alexander M. Farkas

Attorney at Doyle Schafer McMahon

5440 Trabuco Rd

Irvine, CA 92620-5704

Cassidy Elizabeth Davenport

Attorney at Cole Pedroza LLP

2295 Huntington Drive

San Marino, CA 91108

Court Documents

Court documents are not available for this case.

 

Docket Entries

  • 04/28/2021
  • HearingDescription: Record shipped to records center

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/01/2021
  • HearingDescription: Remittitur issued.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/01/2021
  • HearingDescription: ***Jurisdictional order due***.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/28/2021
  • DispositionDescription: Petition denied or dismissed after alternative writ or palma issued.; Disposition Type: Final

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/28/2021
  • DocketDescription: Order denying petition filed.; Notes: THE COURT:* Petitioners filed a petition for writ of mandate and request for immediate stay. On December 31, 2020, this court issued a stay of the challenged order. On January 26, 2021, this court issued an alternative writ. On January 27, 2021, respondent court vacated the order challenged by this petition, set a new hearing date to reconsider the issue presented, and offered the parties the opportunity to file new briefing, declarations, and other evidentiary submissions to be considered at this hearing. The stay imposed by this court is DISSOLVED. The alternative writ is DISCHARGED. The petition is DISMISSED as moot. ARONSON, ACTING P. J. * Before Aronson, Acting P. J., Ikola, J., and Thompson, J.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/28/2021
  • DocketDescription: Case complete.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/27/2021
  • DocketDescription: Received copy of:; Notes: Minute Order from Superior Court.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/26/2021
  • DocketDescription: Alternative writ or OSC issued.; Notes: THE COURT:* On December 22, 2020, petitioners filed a petition for writ of mandate and request for immediate stay. This court issued an immediate stay and invited informal briefing. The parties filed informal briefing in compliance with our order. Petitioner contends respondent court erred by imposing an undertaking in the amount of $30,580 pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1030. Petitioner contends there is no admissible evidence supporting the court's finding that the moving real party in interest has a "reasonable possibility" of winning a defense judgment in this action. (Code Civ. Proc., 1030, subd. (b).) Furthermore, even if the moving party met its burden of showing a "reasonable possibility" it will win the lawsuit, petitioner contends that burden was not met with regard to the inclusion of expert witness fees as costs pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 998. GOOD CAUSE APPEARING, respondent court is hereby ordered to: (1) vacate the challenged order, conduct a further hearing addressed to the contentions outlined above, and enter a new order on the motion for an undertaking; Or, in the alternative, (2) SHOW CAUSE before this court why a peremptory writ of mandate should not issue. If respondent court is considering compliance with alternative (1) above, it should provide notice and an opportunity to be heard to the parties before changing its order. (See Brown, Winfield & Canzoneri, Inc. v. Superior Court (2010) 47 Cal.4th 1233.) Any hearing held pursuant to alternative (1) should offer the parties the opportunity to file additional declarations or other evidentiary submissions to address the arguments raised in these writ proceedings. If respondent court chooses to comply with alternative (1) above, it shall notify this court within 60 days of the date of this order and provide a copy of its order complying with the directives in alternative (1). If respondent court chooses not to comply with alternative (1), real party in interest may file a return within 90 days of this order. Petitioners may file a formal reply within 30 days of the filing of the return. Upon completion of briefing, the clerk of this court is DIRECTED to transmit an argument request letter to the parties. If argument is requested or otherwise ordered by this court, the clerk of this court is DIRECTED to place the matter on the first available calendar. The challenged order remains STAYED pending further order of this court. ARONSON, ACTING P. J. * Before Aronson, Acting P. J., Ikola, J., and Thompson, J.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/22/2021
  • DocketDescription: Reply filed to:; Notes: By petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/22/2021
  • DocketDescription: Filed change of firm name.; Notes: Petitioner's law Firm name.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/14/2021
  • DocketDescription: Opposition filed.; Notes: BY real party in interest, Bhumy Dave Heliker.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/13/2021
  • DocketDescription: Association of attorneys filed for:; Notes: Real Party in Interest BHUMY DAVE HELIKER, M.D. hereby associates the law firm of Cole Pedroza LLP as counsel of record.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/13/2021
  • DocketDescription: Opposition filed.; Notes: RPI preliminary opposition

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/31/2020
  • DocketDescription: Opposition requested.; Notes: THE COURT:* On December 22, 2020, petitioner filed a petition for writ of mandate and request for immediate stay. The request for a stay of the challenged order is GRANTED. The October 23, 2020 order requiring petitioner to post an undertaking is STAYED pending further order of this court. Real parties in interest may file preliminary opposition (or other informal response) to the petition by January 15, 2021. No filing fee is required for this response requested by the court. Petitioner may file an informal reply by January 22, 2021. In addition to any other issues they wish to address, the parties' briefing should address the following questions: (1) has real party in interest Heliker established a "reasonable possibility" of winning a defense judgment in this case absent any evidence from Heliker regarding his actual knowledge at the time of treatment?; and (2) is Heliker entitled to include in the amount of the undertaking his Code of Civil Procedure section 998 defense expert fees? ARONSON, ACTING P.J.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/29/2020
  • DocketDescription: Exhibits filed in support of:; Notes: Amended: Table of exhibits needs to be separate from petition and 2 vol's of exhibits need a description/title to bookmark tab

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/29/2020
  • DocketDescription: Amended petition filed.; Notes: Amended petition; table of exhibits needs to be separate from petition (pgs 54-55).

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/22/2020
  • DocketDescription: Exhibits filed in support of:; Notes: Writ of mandate Two volumes of exhibits,pages 1-548 .

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/22/2020
  • DocketDescription: Filed petition for writ of:; Notes: By petitoner Angelica Fuentes Martinez Petition for writ of mandate (55 pgs) STAY OF PROCEEDINGS REQUESTED Trail: 07/26/2021 01/21/2021

    Read MoreRead Less
related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where ST. JOSEPH HERITAGE MEDICAL GROUP, LLC is a litigant

Latest cases where ST. JUDE HERITAGE MEDICAL GROUP is a litigant

Latest cases where St. Joseph S Hospital, Inc. is a litigant

Latest cases where The Superior Court of Orange County is a litigant