Superior Court of California 

County of Los Angeles – West District  

Beverly Hills Courthouse / Department 205 

 

 

BACKGROUND 

This is a negligence case.  Plaintiff Ona Dawes brings a medical malpractice claim against Defendant The Regents of the University of California (“The Regents”) and a premises liability claim against Defendant Martin Hair Salon LLC d/b/a Hair and Beauty by Martin (“Martin”).   

The case was originally filed on February 1, 2024 against The Regents and Dr. Andrea Rapkin.  Dr. Rapkin has since been dismissed.  Plaintiff alleges she fell from an exam table while being treated by Dr. Rapkin.  She claims she had abrasions on her left forearm and knee, and she hit her head, hip and arm.  X-rays confirmed a left femoral neck fracture for which she underwent a total hip arthroplasty.      

After the complaint against the Regents was filed, Plaintiff was injured on March 2, 2024 at a hair salon.  (Id.) She alleges she tripped over a hair dryer cord and landed on her left shoulder, leading to a torn rotator cuff and fracture in her back.  Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint (“FAC”) which added claims against Martin.  (Id.)   

This hearing is on The Regents’ motion to sever.  The Regents argues that the claims against The Regents and Martin arise out of two separate occurrences, and “there is no doubt as to Defendant from whom Plaintiff is entitled to redress for each separate occurrence.”  The Regents points out that “Plaintiff has testified at deposition that her injuries are unrelated, and that the earlier injury in no way caused or contributed to her subsequent fall.”  There is no opposition filed as of the posting of this tentative ruling.   

LEGAL STANDARD 

Code Civ. Proc. § 379¿provides that all persons may be joined in one action as defendants if there is any right asserted against them “arising out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences and if any question of law or fact common to all these persons will arise in the action; or [a] claim, right, or interest adverse to them in the property or controversy which is the subject of the action.”  “Where the plaintiff is in doubt as to the person from whom he or she is entitled to redress, he or she may join two or more defendants, with the intent that the question as to which, if any, of the defendants is liable, and to what extent, may be determined between the parties.”  (Id.,¿§ 379, subd. (c).) 

Section 379(c)¿“does not permit the unlimited joinder of defendants; it provides for joinder only when plaintiff pleads a specific relationship between the defendants, namely, a single or cumulative injury, giving rise to doubt as to the respective liability of defendants for that injury.”  (Landau v. Salam (1971) 4 Cal. 3d 901, 907.)  “[A] plaintiff cannot bring his action within¿section [379(c)] by means of the bare allegation of his uncertainty as to defendants’ liabilities; plaintiff must plead facts showing the basis of a ‘reasonable uncertainty’ [citation] or a ‘fair doubt’ [citation] as to the ‘alternative or quantitative liability’ of defendants.”  (Id. at 909.)¿ 

The court may¿sever¿the trials of properly joined parties “as the interests of justice may require.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 379.5.)¿The court may also order separate trials “in furtherance of convenience or to avoid prejudice.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 1048(b).)  A motion to¿sever¿a case for trial is a discretionary case management decision made at a later stage in the case and is based on evidence.  (Anaya¿v.¿Sup.Ct.¿(1984) 160 Cal.App.3d 228, 233-234;¿Todd-Stenberg v. Dalkon Shield Claimants Trust¿(1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 976, 978-979.) 

DISCUSSION 

The Regents argues that joinder under § 397.5(c) is unavailable here because Plaintiff is not unsure as to whom she is entitled to redress her injuries.  According to The Regents, “[t]here is no theory that the Regents is responsible for any of the damages related to the fall at Martin Hair Salon and there is no theory that Martin Hair Salon is responsible for any of the damages related to the fall at Ronald Reagan Medical Center at UCLA.”  The Regents argues that absent severance, it will be prejudiced because the two falls may engender sympathy for Plaintiff, and as the Regents is a deeper pocket, the jury may unfairly allocate more of the damages to The Regents.  The Regents also argues that there will be juror confusion in regard to the apportionment of damages from each fall, and there is a high likelihood of conflation that would not be present if the cases were severed.   

No¿opposition¿was¿filed.¿Thus, Plaintiff and co-Defendant effectively¿concede¿all arguments made in the motion. The failure to challenge a contention in a brief results in the concession of that argument.¿(DuPont Merck Pharmaceutical Co. v. Sup. Ct.¿(2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 562, 566¿(“By failing to argue the contrary, plaintiffs concede this issue.”);¿Westside Center Associates v. Safeway Stores 23, Inc.¿(1996) 42 Cal.App.4th 507, 529¿(“failure to address the threshold question ... effectively concedes that issue and renders its remaining arguments moot”);¿Glendale Redevelopment Agency v. Parks¿(1993) 18 Cal.App.4th 1409, 1424¿(issue is impliedly conceded by failing to address it).) 

CONCLUSION 

Based on the foregoing, the Court GRANTS The Regents of the University of California’s motion to sever.   

 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 

DATED: November 8, 2024 ___________________________ 

Edward B. Moreton, Jr. 

Judge of the Superior Court