Judge: Daniel M. Crowley, Case: 19STCV45059, Date: 2023-03-02 Tentative Ruling

All parties are urged to meet and confer with all parties concerning this tentative ruling to see if they can reach an agreed-upon resolution of their matter.  If you are able to reach an agreement, please notify the courtroom staff in advance of the hearing if you wish to submit on the tentative ruling rather than argue the motion by notifying the court by e-mailing the court at: SSCDEPT28@lacourt.org.  Include the word "SUBMITS" in all caps and the Case Number in the Subject line.  In the body of the email, please provide the date and time of the hearing, your name, your contact information, the party you represent, and whether that party is a plaintiff, defendant, cross-complainant, cross-defendant, claimant, intervenor, or non-party, etc.

            Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may still appear at the hearing and argue the matter, and the court could change its tentative based upon the argument.  Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue.  If you submit, but still intend to appear, include the words "SUBMITS, BUT WILL APPEAR" in the Subject line.     If you elect to argue your matter, you are urged to do so remotely, via Court-Connect.
                          
            Note that once the Court has issued a tentative, the Court has the inherent authority not to allow the withdrawal of a motion and to adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the court.   
 
            If you submitted a courtesy copy of your papers containing media (such as a DVD or thumb drive), unless you request the return of the media in your papers, the court will destroy it following the hearing of your matter.  

Case Number: 19STCV45059    Hearing Date: March 2, 2023    Dept: 28

Defendants Sean Leoni, M.D. and Sean Leoni, M.D., Inc.’s Motion to Coordinate Cases

Having considered the moving papers, the Court rules as follows.

BACKGROUND

On December 13, 2019, Plaintiff Garry Isaacson (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Sean Leoni, M.D., (“Leoni”) and Sean Leoni, M.D., Inc. (“Leoni Inc.”) for medical malpractice.

On June 22, 2022, Defendants filed an answer.

On December 12, 2022, Defendants filed a Motion to Coordinate Actions.

On December 20, 2022, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Consolidate to be heard on March 2, 2023.

Trial is current scheduled for June 23, 2023.

PARTY’S REQUESTS

Defendants request the Court coordinate this case with Case No. 30-2019-01118574-CU-MM-CJC, entitled Gary Isaacson v. Batal Medical, Inc.; et al., pending in the Orange County Superior Court

LEGAL STANDARD

CCP § 404.1 holds “Coordination of civil actions sharing a common question of fact or law is appropriate if one judge hearing all of the actions for all purposes in a selected site or sites will promote the ends of justice taking into account whether the common question of fact or law is predominating and significant to the litigation; the convenience of parties, witnesses, and counsel; the relative development of the actions and the work product of counsel; the efficient utilization of judicial facilities and manpower; the calendar of the courts; the disadvantages of duplicative and inconsistent rulings, orders, or judgments; and, the likelihood of settlement of the actions without further litigation should coordination be denied.”

DISCUSSION

Defendants allege that both cases arise out of the same set of facts and the same incident. This case focuses on allegedly negligent liposuction treatment and bowel perforation of Plaintiff; the Orange County action references the post-operative treatment and subsequent hospitalization of Plaintiff following the liposuction. Defendants further allege that the actions should be heard together, as Plaintiff received multiple surgeries in regard to this injury; a physician is entitled to have a jury allocate fault between him and a subsequent treating physician.

It also is more convenience for parties, witnesses and counsel, as many of the same witnesses will be called in both cases. It would be substantially easier to coordinate testimony and discovery for one case in one location, rather than two cases in two locations.

It is within the interest of judicial economy to coordinate these actions. It also allows for more consistent rulings between cases. As such, the Court grants the motion.

CONCLUSION

Defendants Sean Leoni, M.D. and Sean Leoni, M.D., Inc.’s Motion to Coordinate Cases is GRANTED. Case No. 19STCV45059 and Case No. 30-2019-01118574-CU-MM-CJC are coordinated and assigned to the Los Angeles County Superior Court. The action is stayed pending completion of the coordination process.

                Moving Party is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

Moving Party is ordered to file the proof of service of this ruling with the Court within five days.

The parties are directed to the header of this tentative ruling for further instructions.