Judge: David J. Cowan, Case: 21STCV10748, Date: 2022-11-10 Tentative Ruling

Please notify Dept. 1’s courtroom staff by email (SMCDept1@lacourt.org) or by telephone (213-633-0601) no later than 8:30 a.m. the day of the hearing if you wish to submit on the tentative ruling rather than argue the motion.  If you submit on the tentative, you must immediately notify the other side that you will not appear at the hearing.  If you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the motion.  Please keep in mind that appearing at the hearing and simply repeating the arguments set forth in the papers is not a good use of the court’s time or the parties’ time.

 

Case Number: 21STCV10748    Hearing Date: November 10, 2022    Dept: 1

Tentative Ruling

Judge David J. Cowan

Department 1

Hearing Date:                  Thursday, November 10, 2022

Case Name:                     William Bradley v. Thomas P. Schmalzried, M.D., et al.

Case No.:                         21STCV10748

Motion:                           Reinstate Case on Docket

Moving Party:                  Plaintiff William Bradley

Responding Party:           Unopposed

Notice:                             OK     

Ruling:                             The Motion is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

Plaintiff Bradley to give notice.

BACKGROUND

On March 19, 2021, William Bradley filed a Complaint against Thomas P. Schmalzried, M.D.; Thomas P. Schmalzried, M.D., a professional corporation; Pinnacle West Orthopaedics, Inc.; Gregory T. Switzer; Aimee Anselmo; and Does 1-20, stating causes of action for product liability, negligence, fraud, negligent misrepresentation, breach of implied warranty, and breach of express warranty arising out of a "defective hip implant system" Bradley received in 2008. Further, Bradley filed a Notice of Related Case indicating case 21STCV10748 is related to Judicial Council Coordination Proceeding (JCCP) 4662 (DePuy Pinnacle Hip System Cases).

On May 11, 2021, Pinnacle and Switzer filed a Notice of Court Order Re: Coordination of Add-On Cases indicating that case 21STCV10748 had been added to JCCP 4662.

On January 21, 2022, various defendants in JCCP 4662 filed a Notice of Removal of Action to United States District Court.

On July 13, 2022, Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. of the District Court for the Northern District of California granted a Motion to Remand filed by Bradley. However, Judge Gilliam remanded "the case to San Francisco County Superior Court, stating that Bradley "filed this product liability action in San Francisco County Superior Court in March 2021."

On October 7, 2022, Bradley filed, in Department 1, a Motion to Reinstate Case on the Los Angeles Superior Court Docket.

DISCUSSION

Bradley requests the Court "reinstate this matter to the Los Angeles Superior Court Docket" and return the matter to "Department 19 where the case was assigned before its initial transfer to JCCP 4662." On July 13, 2022, the District Court granted Bradley’s motion to "REMAND the case to San Francisco County Superior Court.” (Partain Decl., Exh. 6.) However, Bradley states that a clerk of the San Francisco Superior Court "informed [him] that this matter does not appear on the docket" of that Court. (Partain Decl., para. 3.) Bradley argues the case has been left "in limbo . . . as it is not on the docket anywhere."

The July 13, 2022 remand order appears to be the source of Bradley’s “limbo.” In remanding the case to the San Francisco Superior Court, the District Court noted that Bradley "filed this product liability action in San Francisco County Superior Court in March 2021.” But Bradley filed case 21STCV10748 in Los Angeles Superior Court on March 19, 2021. Had this fact been promptly raised to the District Court, the case likely would have been remanded to this Court, not the San Francisco Superior Court. The San Francisco Superior Court may also have declined to docket Bradley’s case for that reason. As the case has not been remanded to the Los Angeles Superior Court, no action can be taken at this time. The appropriate relief may be to request the District Court remand the case to the Los Angeles Superior Court by amending its July 13, 2022 order or issuing a further order.

CONCLUSION

The Motion is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

Plaintiff Bradley to give notice.