Judge David B. Gelfound, Case Number: 22CHCV00818, Date: 2025-02-07 Tentative Ruling

Judge: David B. Gelfound, Case: 22CHCV00818, Date: 2025-02-07 Tentative Ruling

Counsel wishing to submit on a tentative ruling may inform the clerk or courtroom assistant in North Valley Department F49, 9425 Penfield Ave., Chatsworth, CA 91311, at (818) 407-2249. Please be aware that unless all parties submit, the matter will still be called for hearing and may be argued by any appearing/non-submitting parties. If the matter is submitted on the court's tentative ruling by all parties, counsel for moving party shall give notice of ruling. This may be done by incorporating verbatim the court's tentative ruling. The tentative ruling may be extracted verbatim by copying and pasting, as unformatted text, from the Los Angeles Superior Court’s website, http://www.lasuperiorcourt.org.
All hearings on law and motion and other calendar matters are generally NOT transcribed by a court reporter unless one is provided by the party(ies).

Case Number: 22CHCV00818 Hearing Date: February 7, 2025 Dept: F49

Dept. F49

Date: 2/7/25

Case Name: Mary Ann

Arteaga v. Providence

Holy Cross Medical

Center, Scott Adam

Fields, M.D., and Does 1

through 30.

Case No. 22CHCV00818

LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT

NORTH VALLEY DISTRICT

DEPARTMENT F49

FEBRUARY 7, 2025

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. 22CHCV00818

Motion filed: 11/13/24

MOVING PARTY: Defendant Scott Adam Fields, M.D.

RESPONDING PARTY: None.

NOTICE: OK.

RELIEF REQUESTED: An order granting the Moving Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment.

TENTATIVE RULING: The motion is DENIED AS MOOT.

BACKGROUND

This case arises from alleged medical malpractice.

On October 4, 2022, Plaintiff Mary Ann Arteaga (“Plaintiff” or “Arteaga”) filed the Complaint against Defendants Providence Holy Cross Medical Center (“Providence”), Scott Adam Fields, M.D. (“Dr. Fields”) (collectively, “Defendants”) and Does 1 through 30. The Complaint alleges a single cause of action for Professional Negligence. (Compl. at p. 3.) Providence filed its Answer to the Complaint on December 21, 2022. Dr. Fields filed his Answer on October 12, 2023. Subsequently, on January 24, 2025, Plaintiff filed a Request for Dismissal, dismissing Dr. Fields without prejudice, which was entered by the Court Clerk on the same day.

On November 13, 2024, Dr. Fields filed the instant Motion for Summary Judgment (the “Motion”). Subsequently, on January 27, 2025, Dr. Fields filed a Notice of Non-Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment and Request for Entry of Judgment and/or Dismissal with Prejudice.

No Opposition or Reply papers have been received by the Court.

ANALYSIS

Code of Civil Procedure section 581, subdivision (c), provides: “A plaintiff may dismiss his or her complaint, or any cause of action asserted in it, in its entirety, or as to any defendant or defendants, with or without prejudice prior to the actual commencement of trial.” (Underlines added.)

But “[t]he right of a plaintiff to voluntarily dismiss an action before commencement of trial is not absolute.” (Harris v. Billings (1993) 16 Cal.App.4th 1396, 1402.) There are statutory exceptions to a plaintiff's right of voluntary dismissal, and “other limitations have evolved through the courts' construction of the term ‘commencement of trial.’” (Ibid.) The meaning of the term “trial” is not restricted to jury or court trials on the merits, but includes other procedures that “effectively dispose of the case.” (Wells v. Marina City Properties, Inc. (1981) 29 Cal.3d 781, 785 (Wells).)

In Zapanta v. Universal Care, Inc. (2003) 107 Cal.App.4th 1167 (Zapanta), the plaintiffs filed a request for dismissal of the entire action without prejudice one day before their opposition to the defendants’ motion for summary judgment was due. (Id. at p. 1170.) The Court of Appeal held that the plaintiffs’ request for dismissal without prejudice was valid and that the trial court exceeded its jurisdiction in granting the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. The court reasoned that “[a]t the time appellants filed their request for dismissal, the opposition to the summary judgment motion was not past due, no hearing on the motion had been held and no tentative ruling or other decision tantamount to an adjudication had been made in respondents' favor. In other words, the case had not yet reached a stage where a final disposition was a mere formality.” (Id. at p. 1173.) (Underlines added.)

Similarly, here, the hearing on the Motion is set for February 7, 2025. Under the applicable Code of Civil Procedure section 437c, subdivision (b), any “opposition to the Motion shall be served and filed not less than 14 days preceding the noticed or continued date of hearing[.]” This requirement establishes that Plaintiff’s deadline to file and serve her Opposition to the Motion was January 24, 2025.

On the same day, January 24, 2025, Plaintiff filed a Request for Dismissal, voluntarily dismissing Dr. Fields. This request was entered by the Court Clerk on the same day, making it “effective for all purposes when so entered.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 581d.)

As in Zapanta, Plaintiff’s Request for Dismissal was filed before the Opposition deadline had passed, and prior to any tentative ruling or decision tantamount to an adjudication in Dr. Fields’s favor being made. Consequently, Plaintiff’s right to voluntarily dismiss was not extinguished, as the case had not reached a stage where “the entry of summary judgment was a mere formality.” (See Zapanta, supra, 107 Cal.App.4th at p. 1173.)

Accordingly, in alignment with the holding in Zapanta, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s Request for Dismissal without Prejudice was valid. As Dr. Fields was dismissed without prejudice on January 24, 2025, his pending Motion is now moot.

The Court therefore DENIES the Motion.

CONCLUSION

The Motion for Summary Judgment, filed by Defendant Scott Adam Fields, M.D., is DENIED AS MOOT.

Moving party to provide notice.