Judge Daniel M. Crowley, Case Number: BC469464, Date: 2024-11-07 Tentative Ruling

Moving Defendant Marvin Anton Perer, M.D.’s motion for summary judgment of Plaintiffs Gina Castleberry Prewitt’s and Adrian Prewitt’s second amended complaint is continued to February 6, 2025 pursuant to C.C.P. §437c(h).

Defendant Marvin Anton Perer, M.D. (“Perer”) (“Moving Defendant”) moves for summary judgment of Plaintiffs Gina Castleberry Prewitt (“Gina”) and Adrian Prewitt’s (“Adrian”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) second amended complaint (“SAC”) on the grounds his care and treatment of Gina complied with the standard of care, no act or omission caused or contributed to Gina’s claimed damages, and to the extent that Gina’s medical malpractice cause of action fails, so too must Adrian’s loss of consortium cause of action, which is a derivative claim. (Notice Motion, pg. 2; C.C.P. §437c.)

Moving Defendant moves in the alternative for summary adjudication of Plaintiffs’ 1st, 2nd, and 6th causes of action. (Notice Motion, pgs. 2-3.) Moving Defendant seeks adjudication of the 1st cause of action for medical malpractice on the basis he complied with the standard of care in his care and treatment of Gina and no actions or failures to act by him were a substantial factor in causing Gina’s injury. (Notice Motion, pg. 3.) Moving Defendant seeks adjudication of the 2nd cause of action for intentional misrepresentation/fraud on the basis: (a)(1) Dr. Perer made no representations to Gina; (2) the alleged misrepresentations not only preceded plaintiff’s first encounter with Moving Defendant, Gina’s reliance on those representations in the form of her decision to undergo the lap band procedure had also preceded her first encounter with Moving Defendant; (3) Moving Defendant was not a managing officer, agent or director of any of the codefendants, as such there was no ratification by him; and (b) Moving Defendant has no knowledge and had no involvement in the billing, for medical services for Gina or other patients, which was done exclusively by others (codefendants). (Notice Motion, pg. 3.) Moving Defendant seeks adjudication of the 6th cause of action for loss of consortium on the basis Adrian’s derivative claim for loss of consortium fails because there was no negligence by Moving Defendant in the medical care of Adrian’s wife, Gina. (Notice Motion, pg. 3.)

Plaintiffs’ expert, Dr. Paul Key is unavailable to testify in this matter. (Opposition, pg. 17.) Moving Defendant’s motion is continued to February 6, 2025, to allow for additional expert discovery necessary to rule on the instant motion. (C.C.P. §437c(h); see Nazar v. Rodeffer (1986) 184 Cal.App.3d 546, 555-556 [stating court shall deny the motion or order a continuance for discovery where it appears there may be additional evidence is mandatory.].)

Accordingly, Moving Defendant’s motion for summary judgment is continued to February 6, 2025.

Hon. Daniel M. Crowley

Judge of the Superior Court