Preview
FILED: BRONX COUNTY CLERK 07/08/2022 12:17 PM INDEX NO. 810056/2022ENYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/08/2022 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Index No.: COUNTY OF BRONX Date Purchase: ____________________________________________________________________Ç IAN THOMPSON, as Administrator of the Estate of SUMMONS KENRICK THOMPSON, Deceased, Plaintiff(s) Plaintiff designate BRONX County as the place of trial. -against- The basis of venue is: TCPRNC, LLC d/b/a THE PLAZA REHABILITATION County of Issuance of & NURSING CENTER, Letters of Adm1mstration Defendant(s). ___________________________________________________________________Ç To the above-named Defendant(s): You are hereby summoned to answer the complaint in this action, and to serve a copy of your answer, or, if the complaint is not served with this summons, to serve a notice of appearance on the Plaintiffs attorneys within twenty days after the service of this summons, exclusive of the day of service, where service is made by delivery upon you personally within the state, or, within 30 days after completion of service where service is made in any other manner. In case of your failure to appear or answer, judgment will be taken against you by default for the relief demanded in the complaint. Dated: Mineola, New York July 8, 2022 TODD M. RUBIN FINZ & FINZ, P. C. Attorneys for Plaintiff IAN THOMPSON, as Administrator of the Estate of KENRICK THOMPSON, Deceased 410 East Jericho Turnpike Mineola, New York 11501 (516) 433-3000 Our File No. 210618 TO: TCPRNC, LLC d/b/a THE PLAZA REHABILITATION & NURSING CENTER 100 W. Kingsbridge Road Bronx, NY 10468 1 of 11FILED: BRONX COUNTY CLERK 07/08/2022 12:17 PM INDEX NO. 810056/2022ENYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/08/2022 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW Y ORK COUNTY OF BRONX ____________________________________________________________________Ç IAN THOMPSON, as Administrator of the Estate of KENRICK THOMPSON, Deceased, VERIFIED COMPLAINT Plaintiff(s), -against- TCPRNC, LLC d/b/a THE PLAZA REHABILITATION & NURSING CENTER, Defendant(s). ____________________________________________________________________Ç Plaintiff, IAN THOMPSON, as Administrator of the Estate of KENRICK THOMPSON, Deceased, by his attorneys FINZ & FINZ, P. C., complaining of the Defendant, TCPRNC, LLC d/b/a THE PLAZA REHABILITATION & NURSING CENTER, (hereinafter "THE PLAZA"), respectfully allege, upon information and belief: 1. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, Plaintiff IAN THOMPSON, was and is a resident of the County of Bronx, State of New York. 2. That on May 10, 2022, the Surrogate's Court of the County of Bronx, State of New York granted Limited Letters of Administration of the Estate of KENRICK THOMPSON to Plaintiff, IAN THOMPSON, with the power to institute and maintain this legal proceeding. 3. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, Defendant, THE PLAZA, was and still is a domestic limited liability corporation duly organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of New York. 4. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, Defendant, THE PLAZA, was authorized to do business as a residential health care facility at 100 W. Kingsbridge Road, Bronx, NY 10468 2 of 11FILED: BRONX COUNTY CLERK 07/08/2022 12:17 PM INDEX NO. 810056/2022ENYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/08/2022 AS AND FOR A FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION PURSUANT TO NEW YORK PUBLIC HEALTH LAW §§ 2801-d AND 2803-c AGAINST DEFENDANT 5. Plaintiff repeats, reiterates and realleges each and every allegation set forth above, with the same force and effect as though same were more fully set forth at length herein. 6. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, Defendant, THE PLAZA, owned and operated the aforesaid residential health care facility. 7. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, Defendant, THE PLAZA, its agents, servants, and/or employees supervised the aforementioned residential health care facility. 8. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, Defendant, THE PLAZA, its agents, servants, and/or employees controlled the aforementioned residential health care facility. 9. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, Defendant, THE PLAZA, employed doctors, nurses, aides, attendants, and others, who were authorized, instructed or permitted by said Defendant to provide, perform, and/or render care, treatment, assistance, and/or other services to Plaintiff decedent, KENRICK THOMPSON, at the residential health care facility operated by said Defendant. 10. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, Plaintiff decedent, KENRICK THOMPSON, was a resident at the residential health care facility operated by Defendant, THE PLAZA. 11. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, Defendant, THE PLAZA, held itself out to Plaintiff decedent, KENRICK THOMPSON, as possessing the proper degree of learning, skill and diligence that it undertook to provide reasonable care, treatment, assistance and other services to Plaintiff decedent, KENRICK THOMPSON. 3 of 11FILED: BRONX COUNTY CLERK 07/08/2022 12:17 PM INDEX NO. 810056/2022ENYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/08/2022 12. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, Defendant, THE PLAZA, was and is vicariously liable for the acts of its employees, servants, agents and/or contractors. 13. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, Defendant, THE PLAZA, had a statutorily mandated responsibility to provide Plaintiff decedent, KENRICK THOMPSON, with the rights granted to residential health care facilities by New York Public Health Law § 2801-d and § 2803-c. 14. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, Defendant, THE PLAZA, owed a duty to Plaintiff decedent, KENRICK THOMPSON, to render care, treatment, assistance, supervision and other services in a safe and appropriate manner, including supervision of Plaintiff. 15. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, Defendant, THE PLAZA, provided, performed, and/or rendered care, treatment, assistance, and/or services to Plaintiff decedent, KENRICK THOMPSON, at the residential health care facility. 16. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, Defendant, THE PLAZA, failed to properly assess the care needs for Plaintiff decedent, KENRICK THOMPSON. 17. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, Defendant, THE PLAZA, failed to implement an appropriate plan of care for Plaintiff decedent, KENRICK THOMPSON. 18. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, Defendant, THE PLAZA, failed to provide appropriate quality of care for Plaintiff decedent, KENRICK THOMPSON. 19. That from April 2021 - THE failed to 8, May 17, 2021, Defendant, PLAZA, provide Plaintiff decedent, KENRICK THOMPSON, with adequate and appropriate medical care. 20. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, while Decedent, KENRICK THOMPSON, was under the care, treatment and supervision of Defendant, THE PLAZA, failed 4 of 11FILED: BRONX COUNTY CLERK 07/08/2022 12:17 PM INDEX NO. 810056/2022ENYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/08/2022 to provide timely and adequate medical treatment. 21. That from April - Plaintiff KENRICK 8, 2021 May 17, 2021, while decedent, THOMPSON, was under the care, treatment and supervision of Defendant, THE PLAZA, the facility failed to managed decedent's indwelling urethral catheter, resulting in sepsis and death. 22. That from April 2021 - while Plaintiff KENRICK 8, May 17, 2021, decedent, THOMPSON, was under the care, treatment and supervision of Defendant, THE PLAZA, the facility failed to prevent, diagnose, treat and manage a urinary tract infection, resulting in sepsis and death. 23. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, the acts and omissions committed by Defendant, THE PLAZA, continued throughout Plaintiff decedent's, KENRICK THOMPSON, residency at its facility. 24. That at all times set forth herein mentioned, Defendant, THE PLAZA, deprived Plaintiff decedent, KENRICK THOMPSON, of the rights and benefits created or established for the well-being of Plaintiff decedent. 25. That Defendant, THE PLAZA 's, deprivation of rights and benefits to Plaintiff decedent, KENRICK THOMPSON, caused his physical, emotional and financial injuries. 26. That Defendant, THE PLAZA, deprivation of rights and benefits to Plaintiff decedent, KENRICK THOMPSON, was in negligent, grossly negligent, willful and in reckless disregard of the lawful rights of Plaintiff decedent, KENRICK THOMPSON. 27. That Defendant, THE PLAZA, actions towards Plaintiff decedent, KENRICK THOMPSON, violated Public Health Law § 2801-d. 28. That Defendant, THE PLAZA, actions towards Plaintiff decedent, KENRICK THOMPSON violated Public Health Law § 2803-c. 5 of 11FILED: BRONX COUNTY CLERK 07/08/2022 12:17 PM INDEX NO. 810056/2022ENYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/08/2022 29. That as a result of Defendant, THE PLAZA, negligent, grossly negligent, willful and reckless disregard of Plaintiff decedent, KENRICK THOMPSON's lawful rights, Plaintiff decedent, is entitled to compensatory damages, punitive damages and attorney fees, as provided by Public Health Law § 2801-d. 30. That as a result of the foregoing, Defendant, THE PLAZA, is negligent per se for violations of Public Health Law § 2801-d and 2803-c. 31. That no negligence on the part of Plaintiff decedent, KENRICK THOMPSON, contributed to the occurrence alleged herein in any manner whatsoever. 32. That this action falls within one or more of the exemptions set forth in CPLR§1602. 33. That by reason of the foregoing, Plaintiff decedent, KENRICK THOMPSON, was caused to sustain serious injuries and to have suffered pain, shock and mental anguish that resulted in his death. 34. That by reason of the foregoing, Plaintiff decedent was damaged in a sum which exceeds the jurisdictional limits of all lower courts which would otherwise have jurisdiction, as well as punitive damages, attorney's fees and costs. AS AND FOR A SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION FOR NEGLIGENCE AGAINST DEFENDANT 35. Plaintiff repeats, reiterates and realleges each and every allegation set forth above, with the same force and effect as though same were more fully set forth at length herein. 36. That at all times set forth herein mentioned, Defendant, THE PLAZA, owed a duty to Plaintiff decedent, KENRICK THOMPSON, to render care, treatment, assistance and other services in a safe and appropriate manner, including supervision of Plaintiff decedent. 37. That the above-mentioned occurrence, and the results, thereof, were caused by the 6 of 11FILED: BRONX COUNTY CLERK 07/08/2022 12:17 PM INDEX NO. 810056/2022ENYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/08/2022 negligence, gross negligence, recklessness and carelessness of Defendant, THE PLAZA, and/or its agents, servants, employees and/or licensees in the failure to properly and adequately manage and supervise the Plaintiff decedent. 38. That no negligence on the part of Plaintiff decedent contributed to the occurrence alleged herein in any manner whatsoever. 39. That by reason of the foregoing, Plaintiff decedent was caused to sustain serious injuries and to have suffered pain, shock and mental anguish that resulted in her death 40. That by reason of the foregoing, Plaintiff decedent was damaged in a sum which exceeds the jurisdictional limits of all lower courts which would otherwise have jurisdiction, as well as punitive damages and costs. AS AND FOR A THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION FOR NEGLIGENT HIRING AND RETENTION AGAINST DEFENDANT 41. Plaintiff repeats, reiterates and realleges each and every allegation set forth above, with the same force and effect as though same were more fully set forth at length herein. 42. That Defendant, THE PLAZA, did employ and continue to employ certain personnel and/or contractors despite having known or should have known that they lacked the qualifications, training, temperament, abilities and suitability for the position in which they were employed. 43. That Defendant, THE PLAZA, acted in a negligent, grossly negligent, careless, wanton and reckless manner by hiring and retaining certain personnel and/or contractors after it knew or should have known that they were unsuitable for the positions in which they were employed. 44. That Defendant, THE PLAZA, conduct in hiring and retaining certain personnel 7 of 11FILED: BRONX COUNTY CLERK 07/08/2022 12:17 PM INDEX NO. 810056/2022ENYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/08/2022 and/or contractors was a proximate cause of the injuries suffered by Plaintiff decedent and all damages concomitant thereto. 45. That by reason of the foregoing, Plaintiff decedent was damaged in a sum which exceeds the jurisdictional limits of all lower courts which would otherwise have jurisdiction, as well as punitive damages and costs. AS AND FOR A FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR WRONGFUL DEATH 46. Plaintiff repeats, reiterates and realleges each and every allegation set forth above, with the same force and effect as though same were more fully set forth at length herein. 47. That as a result of the foregoing, Plaintiff decedent, KENRICK THOMPSON, was caused to die on May 17, 2021. 48. That the Plaintiff decedent, KENRICK THOMPSON, left heirs, next of kin and/or distributees surviving who, by reason of the decedent's death, have suffered a pecuniary loss including, but not limited to, support, services, guidance and estate of the decedent and were all permanently damaged. 49. That by reason of the foregoing, Plaintiff decedent, KENRICK THOMPSON's, heirs, next of kin and/or distributees have been damaged in an amount which exceeds the jurisdictional limitations of all lower courts which would otherwise have jurisdiction of this matter. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment on the First Cause of Action for compensatory damages, punitive damages and attorney's fees against Defendant in a sum exceeding the jurisdictional limits of all lower courts which would otherwise have jurisdiction; on the Second Cause of Action for compensatory and punitive damages against Defendant in a sum exceeding the jurisdictional limits of all lower courts which would otherwise 8 of 11FILED: BRONX COUNTY CLERK 07/08/2022 12:17 PM INDEX NO. 810056/2022ENYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/08/2022 have jurisdiction; on the Third Cause of Action for compensatory and punitive damages against Defendant in a sum exceeding the jurisdictional limits of all lower courts which would otherwise have jurisdiction; and on the Fourth Cause of Action for compensatory and punitive damages against Defendants in a sum exceeding the jurisdictional limits of all lower courts which would otherwise have jurisdiction, together with the costs and disbursem*nts of this action. Dated: Mineola, New York July 8, 2022 Yours, etc. TODD M. RUBIN FINZ & FINZ, P. C. Attorneys for Plaintiff IAN THOMPSON, as Administrator of the Estate of KENRICK THOMPSON, Deceased 410 East Jericho Turnpike Mineola, New York 11501 (516) 433-3000 Our File No. 210618 9 of 11FILED: BRONX COUNTY CLERK 07/08/2022 12:17 PM INDEX NO. 810056/2022ENYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/08/2022 ATTORNEY'S VERIFICATION TODD M. RUBIN, an attorney duly admitted to practice before the Courts of the State of New York, affirms the following to be true under the penalties of perjury: I am an attorney at FINZ & FINZ, P.C., attorneys of record for plaintiff herein. I have read the annexed COMPLAINT and know the contents thereof, and the same are true to my knowledge, except those matters therein which are stated to be alleged upon information and belief, and as to those matters I believe them to be true. My belief, as to those matters therein not stated upon knowledge, is based upon facts, records, and other pertinent information contained in my files. This verification is made by me because Plaintiff is not presently in the county wherein I maintain my offices. DATED: Mineola, New York July 8, 2022 TODD M. RUBIN 10 of 11FILED: BRONX COUNTY CLERK 07/08/2022 12:17 PM INDEX NO. 810056/2022ENYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/08/2022 Index No.: SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF BRONX IAN THOMPSON, as Administrator of the Estate of KENRICK THOMPSON, Deceased, Plaintiff(s), -against- THE PLAZA REHABILITATION & NURSING CENTER, Defendant(s). SUMMONS AND VERIFIED COMPLAINT FINZ & FINZ, P.C. Attorneys for Plaintiff 410 East Jericho Turnpike Mineola, New York 11501 (516) 433-3000 File No.: 210618 TO: TCPRNC, LLC d/b/a THE PLAZA REHABILITATION & NURSING CENTER 100 W. Kingsbridge Road Bronx, NY 10468 11 of 11
Related Contentin Bronx County
Case
GARCIA, JUAN A. v. SCOTT, JAMES CAPECE et al
Feb 07, 2022 |Barbato, Hon. Ben R. |Tort-Motor Vehicle |Tort-Motor Vehicle |801847/2022E
Case
Vincent M. Cafarelli as Executor of the Estate of LINDA M. CAFARELLI a/k/a LINDA MARIE CAFARELLI a/k/a LINDA CAFARELLI, Deceased v. M. Azeem Latib M.D. a/k/a MOHAMED AZEEM LATIB, M.D., Mei L. Chau M.D., Edwin C.W. Ho M.D. a/k/a EDWIN C. HO, M.D., Ythan H. Goldberg M.D., Montefiore Medical Center
May 05, 2023 |Michael Frishman |Torts - Medical, Dental, or Podiatrist Malpractice |Torts - Medical, Dental, or Podiatrist Malpractice |807121/2023E
Case
SERRANO,SUHELI v. SEGOVIA,ANDREWS
Nov 04, 2015 |Tuitt, Hon. Alison Y. |Tort-Motor Vehicle |Tort-Motor Vehicle |303217/2015
Case
Rudolph Hargrett v. Rigo Limo-Auto Corp., Roger Pinnock
Aug 26, 2024 |Torts - Motor Vehicle |Torts - Motor Vehicle |813445/2024E
Case
PRATT, THERESA v. ABRAHAM OPERATIONS
Jul 06, 2021 |Gerez, Hon. Alicia |Tort-Medical, Dental, or Podiatric Malpractice-Nursing Home |Tort-Medical, Dental, or Podiatric Malpractice-Nursing Home |804423/2021E
Case
Antonio Espada v. The City Of New York, 359 East 204th Street Llc and, Evangelican Lutheran Church In America
Aug 27, 2024 |Torts - Other Negligence (Trip and Fall) |Torts - Other Negligence (Trip and Fall) |813518/2024E
Case
RUIZ,ROSA v. HAPPY CARE AMBULETTE,INC.
Dec 23, 2013 |Gonzalez, Hon. Doris M. |Tort-Motor Vehicle |Tort-Motor Vehicle |304954/2013
Case
BISHOP,OSCAR v. HIGH CLASS FURNITURE CORP.
Oct 04, 2012 |Ruiz, Hon. Norma |Tort-Motor Vehicle |Tort-Motor Vehicle |304804/2012
Case
STUKES,VERONICA v. ARAGUN,JUAN ANTINIO
Sep 17, 2013 |Friedlander, Hon. Mark |Tort-Motor Vehicle |Tort-Motor Vehicle |300790/2013
Ruling
Dessa Wylie vs Noel Espinoza, et al.
Aug 27, 2024 |23CV-04678
23CV-04678 Dessa Wylie v. Noel Espinoza, et al.Motion to be Relieved as Counsel for Plaintiff Dessa WylieThe unopposed Motion to be Relieved as Counsel for Plaintiff Dessa Wylie is GRANTEDeffective upon the service of notice of entry of the order granting the Motion to beRelieved as Counsel and reflecting that a prior order of this court ordered thatResponses to Form and Special Interrogatories by served by August 17, 2024, thatMonetary Sanctions of $1,810 were ordered to be paid by September 6, 2024, and that aCase Management Conference is scheduled for December 2, 2024 at 10:00 in Courtroom8.
Ruling
JULIA CHEVEREZ VS SERENITY CARE HEALTH GROUP
Aug 29, 2024 |22STCV04131
Case Number: 22STCV04131 Hearing Date: August 29, 2024 Dept: M CASE NAME: Cheverez, v. Serenity Care Health Group, et al. CASE NO.: 22STCV04131 MOTION: Motion to Enter Judgment (CCP § 664.6) HEARING DATE: 8/29/2024 Legal Standard Code of Civil Procedure section¿664.6 provides: If parties to pending litigation stipulate, in a writing signed by the parties outside the presence of the court or orally before the court, for settlement of the case, or part thereof, the court, upon motion, may enter judgment pursuant to the terms of the settlement. If requested by the parties, the court may retain jurisdiction over the parties to enforce the settlement until performance in full of the terms of the settlement. Section 664.6 empowers a court to enforce a settlement agreement by way of a summary procedure if certain requirements are satisfied. In order to take advantage of the statutes expedited procedure, a party must first establish the agreement at issue was set forth in a writing signed by the parties or was made orally before the court. (Harris v. Rudin, Richman & Appel (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 299, 304, citations omitted.) Because of its summary nature, strict compliance with the requirements of section 664.6 is prerequisite to invoking the power of the court to impose a settlement agreement. (Sully-Miller Contracting Co. v. Gledson/Cashman Construction, Inc. (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 30, 37.) In ruling on a motion under section 664.6, the trial judge may receive oral testimony, or may determine the motion upon declarations alone. (Corkland v. Boscoe (1984) 156 Cal.App.3d 989, 994.) Where the agreement was reached at a court hearing, the court can resolve the dispute on the basis of its own notes or recollection of what was agreed to (as well as any transcripts of the proceedings). (Richardson v. Richardson (1986) 180 Cal.App.3d 91, 97.) Analysis Defendants Serenity Care Health Group (SCHG) and Binko Corp. (Binko) (collectively, the Setting Defendants) move for an order enforcing the written settlement agreement executed by Defendants on July 3, 2024. (Spinger Decl., Ex. 1.) Defendants demonstrate the procedural requirements for enforcement under section 664.6. There is no dispute that the parties signed an enforceable settlement agreement. (Id.) Therefore, the Court may enter judgment pursuant to the terms of the settlement. The Settlement terms provide, in relevant part: It is hereby agreed that this matter is settled pursuant to the following terms and conditions: 1. The parties stipulate that the agreement does not constitute an admission of liability. 2. Defendant BINKO CORP and SERENITY CARE HEALTH GROUP will pay the Plaintiff, JULIA CHEVEREZ, the total sum of $50,000.00. Payment shall be made within 45 days of Plaintiffs execution of a long form settlement agreement and release of all claims. 3. Plaintiffs counsel shall file a Notice or Settlement with the trial court. 4. The parties agree to take the trial, scheduled for July 22, 2024, off calendar. 5. The Plaintiff agrees to accept the settlement with the knowledge that she will be barred from proceeding in the future concerning any matter connected or related to this case. 6. The parties shall execute a full and complete releases prepared by the Defendants and approved by Plaintiff which shall include an express waiver of CC 1542, thereby releasing all parties and counsel from any new known and unknown claims arising from the allegations set forth in the pleadings, except for the obligations outlined in this agreement. 7. Each party shall bear their own costs and attorney's fees. 8. This settlement agreement shall be binding and enforceable, pursuant to CCP 664.6& and reflects the final agreement regarding the material terms between the parties to this dispute& The parties dispute the effect of the terms of the settlement, focusing on paragraphs 5 and 6. Specifically, the parties discuss the release, and its effect on the defaulted third party, Specialized Community Healthcare Company. Defendants explain that counsel drafted the contemplated long form settlement agreement and release, but when it came time to sign, Plaintiff refused unless Defendants agreed to exclude Specialized from the release. (Spigner Decl. ¶ 7.) Plaintiff argues Specialized should be excluded from the release and that Plaintiff should proceed to default judgment since Specialized was not part of the settlement, was unrepresented and was previously defaulted. The Court concurs that the proper interpretation of the parties in paragraph 6 would not include Specialized. Thus, Specialized should not be included in any express waiver/release under Civil Code section 1542 required by the Settlement. Defendants proffer an unreasonable interpretation of the parties and all parties and counsel without consideration of the other express terms of the contract. The contract does not refer to Specialized at all. The settlement is expressly between two parties, Plaintiff and Defendants. The title caption only refers to Plaintiff and Defendants. The signature blocks only provide space for Plaintiff and Defendants. Counsel for Defendants purports to only represent Defendants. Paragraph 6 itself specifically requires The parties to execute a full and complete releases. It is unlikely that the parties to the settlement intended for Specialized to execute the full settlement and release. The record suggests the very opposite, since the parties have no apparent control over Specialized. In light of these facts, paragraph 6 does not support Defendants motion. However, the Settlement still requires dismissal of all defendants, including Specialized. The Settlement provides that Plaintiff will be barred from proceeding in the future concerning any matter connected or related to this case. (Settlement ¶ 5.) In light of these broad terms, Plaintiff is barred from proceeding in this action. Plaintiff is precluded from proceeding in any action connected to or related to this case. This action is a matter connected to or related to this case. Further, Plaintiff filed a notice of settlement of the entire action. As Plaintiff is barred from proceeding in this matter by the Settlement, the Court must dismiss the entire action in accordance with the settlement if the motion is granted. The Court finds the case of Provost, cited by both parties, instructive on this point. (Provost v. Regents of Univ. of California, (2011) 201 Cal. App. 4th 1289, 1299.) There, the Regents were allowed to enforce the stipulated settlement which required dismissal of individual non-signatory defendants. (Id.) The Provost court noted that the individual defendants neither signed the agreement, nor sought to enforce the settlement., but [r]ather, they [were] third party beneficiaries of the stipulated settlement and the judgment in their favor [was] valid as well. (Id., at 1298.) The court found that the language of the stipulated settlement demonstrated it was made for the benefit of the individual defendants by providing statements such as [t]he case is settled as to all claims ... and the entire action [is] dismissed [with] prejudice. (Id. at 1299.) While the instant settlement does not expressly require dismissal of the entire action, the settlement language shows that the parties intended that Plaintiff could not proceed with the action generally, which would necessarily include any further action against Specialized. As such, the Court is will grant the motion on the following terms. Plaintiff and Defendants must execute the full and complete long form settlement agreement and releases prepared by Defendants per paragraph 6 within one week. The releases do not need to expressly reference Specialized and should only pertain to Plaintiff and Defendant. Binko and SCHG must pay Plaintiff a sum of $50,000.00 within 45 days of the execution of the release. The Court will continue the OSC re: Dismissal (Settlement) to December 4, 2024, at 8:30 a.m. If Plaintiff receives payment, the Court will enter a dismissal of the entire action in accordance with the settlement agreement. Considering the above discussion, the Court does not find either partys position to be frivolous or made in bad faith required for sanctions under Code of Civil Procedure section 128.5. Accordingly, the Court will not grant sanctions.
Ruling
Gaige vs. Greyhound Lines, Inc, et al.
Aug 29, 2024 |23CV-0203891
GAIGE VS. GREYHOUND LINES, INC, ET AL.Case Number: 23CV-0203891This matter is on calendar for review regarding status of removal. The matter was removed to Federal Court andon February 23, 2024, the Court found this matter to be exempt from case disposition goals under CRC3.714(c)(1). Due to the removal to Federal Court, the Court removes this matter from the Court’s control. TheCourt continues this Review Hearing to Monday, August 25, 2025 at 9:00 a.m. in Department 63 for reviewregarding status of removal. No appearance is necessary on today’s calendar.
Ruling
EVA HERERRA VS KATHY SCOTT
Aug 26, 2024 |Renee C. Reyna |21STCV23166
Case Number: 21STCV23166 Hearing Date: August 26, 2024 Dept: 29 Hererra v. Scott 21STCV23166 Motion to Continue Trial filed by Defendant Kathy Scott. Tentative The motion is granted. Background On June 22, 2021, Eva Hererra (Plaintiff) filed a complaint against Kathy Scott (Defendant) for negligence arising out of a dog attack incident on June 24, 2019. On July 7, 2023, Defendant filed an answer. On July 29, 2024, Defendant filed this motion to continue trial. No opposition has been filed. Legal Standard Code of Civil Procedure section 128, subdivision (a)(8), provides that the court has the power to amend and control its process and orders so as to make them conform to law and justice. The power to determine when a continuance should be granted is within the discretion of the trial court. (Color-Vue, Inc. v. Abrams (1996) 44 Cal.App.4th 1599, 1603.) A trial court has wide latitude in the matter of calendar control including the granting or denying of continuances. (Park Motors, Inc. v. Cozens (1975) 49 Cal.App.3d 12, 18.) To ensure the prompt disposition of civil cases, the dates assigned for trial are firm. All parties and their counsel must regard the date set for trial as certain. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332(a).) Although continuances of trials are disfavored, each request for a continuance must be considered on its own merits. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332(c).) The court may grant a continuance only on an affirmative showing of good cause requiring the continuance. (Ibid.) Circ*mstances that may support a finding of good cause include: (1) The unavailability of an essential lay or expert witness because of death, illness, or other excusable circ*mstances; (2) The unavailability of a party because of death, illness, or other excusable circ*mstances; (3) The unavailability of trial counsel because of death, illness, or other excusable circ*mstances; (4) The substitution of trial counsel, but only where there is an affirmative showing that the substitution is required in the interests of justice; (5) The addition of a new party if: (A) The new party has not had a reasonable opportunity to conduct discovery and prepare for trial; or (B) The other parties have not had a reasonable opportunity to conduct discovery and prepare for trial in regard to the new party's involvement in the case; (6) A party's excused inability to obtain essential testimony, documents, or other material evidence despite diligent efforts; or (7) A significant, unanticipated change in the status of the case as a result of which the case is not ready for trial. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332(c).) In ruling on a motion or application for continuance, the court must consider all the facts and circ*mstances that are relevant to the determination. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332(d).) California Rules of Court, rule 3.1332(d) sets forth a non-exhaustive list of factors that the court may consider: (1) The proximity of the trial date; (2) Whether there was any previous continuance, extension of time, or delay of trial due to any party; (3) The length of the continuance requested; (4) The availability of alternative means to address the problem that gave rise to the motion or application for a continuance; (5) The prejudice that parties or witnesses will suffer as a result of the continuance; (6) If the case is entitled to a preferential trial setting, the reasons for that status and whether the need for a continuance outweighs the need to avoid delay; (7) The court's calendar and the impact of granting a continuance on other pending trials; (8) Whether trial counsel is engaged in another trial; (9) Whether all parties have stipulated to a continuance; (10) Whether the interests of justice are best served by a continuance, by the trial of the matter, or by imposing conditions on the continuance; and (11) Any other fact or circ*mstance relevant to the fair determination of the motion or application. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332(d).) Discussion Defendant contends that she has been unable to obtain Plaintiffs deposition. (Morand Decl., ¶ 2.) Defendant argues Plaintiffs deposition is necessary to fully evaluate her claims against Defendant. (Id.) Defendant is also interested in pursuing mediation for this matter. (Id., ¶ 5.) In her motion, Defendant contends she has noticed Plaintiffs deposition multiple times, but it has yet to occur. (Motion, 3:10-16.) Plaintiff has not filed an opposition to this motion, and was non-responsive to Defendants request to meet and confer regarding a trial continuance and discovery. (Id., ¶ 4.) The request to continue trial is GRANTED for good cause shown Conclusion The Court GRANTS the motion to continue trial. The Court CONTINUEs trial to approximately mid April 2025. The Final Status Conference and all discovery deadlines are reset based on the new trial date. Moving Party is ORDERED to give notice.
Ruling
RODNEY PIMENTEL VS JOSEPHY BARRETT ET AL
Aug 27, 2024 |BC701615
Case Number: BC701615 Hearing Date: August 27, 2024 Dept: 57 The Court is denying the motion of Defendants Joseph Barrett and the Barrett Law Firm ("the Barrett Defendants") for reconsideration of the Court's decision denying in part their motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication on the claims of Plaintiff Rodney Pimentel ("Pimentel") . The Court disagrees with Pimentel's contention that the Barrett Defendants' motion for reconsideration is a renewed motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication that does not comply with requirements of Code of Civil Procedure Section 437c. In the Court's view, the Barrett Defendants' motion for reconsideration was properly filed under Section 1008. In that regard, the Court accepts the Barrett Defendants' contention that they did not have a meaningful opportunity at the hearing on their motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication to present precedent on the mediation privilege, which, according to the Barrett Defendants, renders the Court's decision denying their motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication wrong as a matter of law. The Court reviewed that precedent following the hearing and before issuing its decision -- particularly Wimsatt v. Superior Court (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 137. The Court concluded that the precedent did not compel the conclusion that the Barrett Defendants were entitled to summary judgment or summary adjudication on Pimentel's claims that the Court left standing. The Court has reviewed that precedent again in connection with the Barrett Defendants' motion for reconsideration. Following the additional review, the Court is adhering to its summary judgment ruling and denying the motion for reconsideration.The Court also is denying the motion of Defendant Todd Wakefield ("Wakefield") for reconsideration of the Court's decision denying his motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication. The Court based that decision on the ground that the declaration that Wakefield submitted in support of his motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication, which was the only evidence that he submitted, failed to comply with the strict requirements of Code of Civil Procedure Section 2015.5. In the Court's view, Wakefield has offered insufficient grounds to warrant reconsideration of the Court's determination that the defects in Wakefield's declaration compelled denial of his motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication.
Ruling
Stayer vs. A Plus Safety LLC, et al.
Aug 27, 2024 |23CV-0203556
STAYER VS. A PLUS SAFETY LLC, ET AL.Case Number: 23CV-0203556This matter is on calendar for review regarding status of the case. The Court notes that allComplaints and Cross-Complaints are at issue, with the exception of the most recently filed Cross-Complaint, filed by O’Reilly Auto Enterprises, LLC on August 9, 2024. However, all partiesnamed in that Cross-Complaint have previously appeared as Plaintiffs, Defendants, or Cross-Defendants in this action. The parties are ordered to appear to discuss status and trial setting.
Ruling
DANIEL CORONA VS WHITE MEMORIAL MEDICAL CENTER ET AL
Aug 27, 2024 |BC585574
Case Number: BC585574 Hearing Date: August 27, 2024 Dept: 78 Superior Court of California County of Los Angeles Department 78 ¿ DANIEL CORONA, by and through his Guardian Ad Litem REBECCA GUTIERREZ, Plaintiff(s), vs. WHITE MEMORIAL MEDICAL CENTER, et al., Defendant(s). Case No.: BC585574 Hearing Date: August 27, 2024 [TENTATIVE] ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES I. BACKGROUND & PROCEDURAL HISTORY Plaintiff Daniel Corona, a minor through his mother and guardian ad litem Rebecca Gutierrez, (Plaintiff) filed this action against his mothers prenatal health care provider Dr. Kathryn Shaw (Dr. Shaw). Plaintiff alleged Dr. Shaw negligently failed to diagnose his serious abnormalities that were evident on his ultrasound. On April 19, 2018, the parties filed a Notice of Settlement. On April 16, 2019, Plaintiffs petition to approve minors compromise was granted and the court found that the proposed $1,250,0000 settlement reasonably compensated minor Plaintiff for his claim. After deducting expenses and attorney fees, the balance of $873,504.18 was divided between a deferred annuity and an irrevocable special needs trust. (Order Approving Compromise, April 16, 2019.) Further, with the consent of Department of Health Care Services, (DHCS), $358,117.51 would be disbursed to Plaintiffs counsels Client Trust Account pending determination of DHCS lien claim. (Ibid.) On July 6, 2020, DHCS provided a revised final lien letter stating that it had paid $358,061 for Plaintiffs medical care, from which it sought to recover $229,696. On August 10, 2020, Judge Draper granted DHCS Medi-Cal Lien in the amount of $229,696. Plaintiff timely appealed, and the Court of Appeal found that the court erred by failing to equitably allocate the settlement amount. On November 29, 2023, Judge Feeney ruled that DHCS was to recover on its lien in the amount of $23,204.70. On June 12, 2024, Plaintiffs counsel filed the instant motion seeks approval for disbursem*nt of minor Plaintiffs funds in the amount of $30,973.80 for attorneys fees and $1,499.61 for costs advanced arising from the determination of DHCS lien, and pursuant to the retainer agreement between Plaintiff and his counsel. II. DISCUSSION Plaintiffs counsel avers that Plaintiff previously paid to DHCS $229,696 as determined by Judge Draper. After Judge Feeney determined that DHCS was entitled to collect $23,204.70 for its lien claim, the court ordered DHCS to issue a refund to Plaintiff in the amount of $206,492.03. DHCS paid the refund on February 14, 2024 via a check made payable to Plaintiffs counsels Client Trust Account. Plaintiffs counsel declares he distributed $174,018.62 to Plaintiffs Special Needs Trust, and held the remaining $32,473.41 in the Client Trust Account pending approval of distribution to Plaintiffs counsel for fees and costs advanced. Attorneys fees are allowed as costs when authorized by contract, statute, or law. (Code Civ. Proc, § 1033.5, subd. (a)(10)(B).) Here, Plaintiffs counsel attests that he and Plaintiff have a contingency fee agreement ,which specifies that Plaintiffs counsel is to receive 15% in fees of any reduction of DHCS lien claim, and that Plaintiffs counsel would be reimbursed for any costs advanced on Plaintiffs behalf. (Mot. Exh. 3.) Plaintiffs counsel avers 15% of $206,492.03 equates to $30,973.80, and that the receipts demonstrate costs advanced of $1,499.61 (Mot. Exh. 4) for filing fees and transaction costs incurred for filing the appeal and documents with the superior court. The Court has reviewed the Retainer Agreement Contingency Fee Contract and finds that Plaintiffs counsel has demonstrated that he is entitled to attorneys fees arising from settlement/determination of the DHCS lien by contractual agreement with Plaintiff through his guardian ad litem. Further, Plaintiffs counsel has supported, with evidence, the amount of costs advanced on behalf of Plaintiff. III. CONCLUSION The motion for attorney fees in the amount of $30,973.80 and reimbursem*nt of costs in the amount of $1,499.61 to be distributed from the Client Trust Account to Plaintiffs counsel is GRANTED. Moving Party is ordered to give notice. DATED: August 23, 2024 __________________________ Hon. Michelle C. Kim Judge of the Superior Court PLEASE TAKE NOTICE: " Parties are encouraged to meet and confer after reading this tentative ruling to see if they can reach an agreement. " If a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the court at SMCDEPT78@lacourt.org with the Subject line SUBMIT followed by the case number. The body of the email must include the hearing date and time, counsels contact information, and the identity of the party submitting. " Unless all parties submit by email to this tentative ruling, the parties should arrange to appear remotely (encouraged) or in person for oral argument. You should assume that others may appear at the hearing to argue. " If the parties neither submit nor appear at hearing, the Court may take the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court. After the Court has issued a tentative ruling, the Court may prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion without leave.
Ruling
MONCINO HADNOT-BROWN VS GLAM HOUSE LOS ANGELES
Aug 26, 2024 |24STCV00245
Case Number: 24STCV00245 Hearing Date: August 26, 2024 Dept: 28 On August 1, 2024, the Court granted Midvale Indemnity Company (Midvale) leave to intervene on behalf of Defendant Happy Home Goods LLC dba Glam House (erroneously sued and served as Glam House Los Angeles) based on the stipulation between Midvale and Plaintiff Moncino Hadnot-Brown. Therefore, Midvales motion for leave to intervene, set to be heard on August 26, 2024, is moot.
Document
Dec 13, 2022 |Mary Ann Brigantti |Torts - Other Negligence (Assault) |Torts - Other Negligence (Assault) |818648/2022E
Document
Nelson Cabrera v. Intrepid Museum Foundation Inc., U.S.S. Intrepid Association Inc., Intrepid Museum Foundation Inc. d/b/a Intrepid Sea, Air and Space Museum
Sep 18, 2018 |Marissa Soto |Torts - Other (Premise) |Torts - Other (Premise) |30705/2018E
Document
Joslyn J. Diaz v. Bk Bryant Avenue Housing Development Fund Company, Inc., Joe Bk Bryant Avenue Llc, Dougert Management Corp.
Sep 26, 2022 |Andrew J. Cohen |Torts - Other Negligence (Premise liability) |Torts - Other Negligence (Premise liability) |814209/2022E
Document
Manuel Enamorado v. 25-18 40th Avenue Llc, Vardo Construction Corp., 25-20 Llc
Jun 05, 2020 |Ashlee Crawford |Torts - Other (Labor Law) |Torts - Other (Labor Law) |25316/2020E
Document
Alfi Ortiz Medina, William Manuel Maseo Castillo v. Raymond Pagan, Utopia Leasing Inc., Lesly Lezeau, Wedding Center Plus Depot Inc.
Dec 22, 2020 |Raymond P. Fernandez |Torts - Motor Vehicle |Torts - Motor Vehicle |35596/2020E
Document
Raimot Abisola Yusuff and, Saheed A. Yusuff v. Argelis Rodriguez
Mar 07, 2019 |Patsy Gouldborne |Torts - Motor Vehicle |Torts - Motor Vehicle |22723/2019E
Document
Johan Ventura v. Surinder Singh
Feb 03, 2020 |Veronica G. Hummel |Torts - Motor Vehicle |Torts - Motor Vehicle |21656/2020E
Document
Walter Lino Lopez v. Buchanan Development Llc, Credent Development Inc., Structureline Inc., Kingdom Elevator Inc, Hyper Structure Corp, Newgen Builders Inc, Omada Construction Corp.
Feb 20, 2018 |Ashlee Crawford |Torts - Other Negligence (Labor Law) |Torts - Other Negligence (Labor Law) |23107/2020E
