Judge Elaine Lu, Case Number: 24STCV28259, Date: 2025-02-28 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Elaine Lu, Case: 24STCV28259, Date: 2025-02-28 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV28259 Hearing Date: February 28, 2025 Dept: 9

The Court hereby distributes a tentative ruling for the Case Management Order. The parties are welcome to provide input and propose modification(s) to any aspect of the CMO at the Initial Status Conference. If all parties submit on the tentative CMO prior to the commencement of the February 28, 2025 ISC, the Court will adopt the tentative CMO, and the parties need not appear.

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

Jeanne Moore v Orange Coast Memorial Medical Center,

24STCV28259

[TENTATIVE] CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER

This action has been designated as complex pursuant to CRC 3.400(a), and thus requires exceptional judicial management. All provisions of this CMO are deemed necessary to carry out the purposes of Rule 3.400(a), and to promote effective decision-making by the Court. They are based upon individual consideration of this complex action, including the Status Conference Reports previously filed by the parties.

1. Plaintiff has filed proof of service of the Summons and Complaint as to certain defendants who have not responded and have not filed a notice of appearance though the time for them to file a notice of appearance or responsive pleading has lapsed, including MEMORIALCARE HEALTH SYSTEM. No later than April 15, 2025, Plaintiff’s Counsel must file either a request for entry of MEMORIALCARE HEALTH SYSTEM’s default or a declaration explaining the failure to seek and obtain MEMORIALCARE HEALTH SYSTEM’s default, setting forth any and all efforts undertaken to obtain MEMORIALCARE HEALTH SYSTEM’s default, and explaining why sanctions (including monetary sanctions of at least $1,000) should not be imposed for failure to timely seek MEMORIALCARE HEALTH SYSTEM’s default, in compliance with California Rules of Court, Rule 3.720.

a. Failure to timely obtain MEMORIALCARE HEALTH SYSTEM’s default by April 15, 2025 may result in the Court setting an OSC re sanctions.

b. The Court reminds the parties that ultimately, the Court may not enter judgment in an amount exceeding the amount demanded in the Complaint. (CCP 585(b).) The Court may not grant relief not demanded in the complaint by default judgment even though that relief otherwise would have been proper. (CCP § 580(a); Airs Aromatics, LLC v. CBL Data Recovery Technologies, Inc. (2018) 23 Cal.App.5th 1013, 1018 (default judgment for sum in excess of that demanded in complaint is void). “It is fundamental to the concept of due process that a defendant be given notice of the existence of a lawsuit and notice of the specific relief which is sought in the complaint served upon him.” (Marriage of Lippel (1990) 51 Cal.3d 1160, 1166 [emphasis added].) Thus, for example, where the complaint does not request attorney fees, the court cannot award fees against a defaulting defendant. It makes no difference that the fees are awardable by statute. (Feminist Women's Health Ctr. v. Blythe (1995) 32 Cal.App.4th 1641, 1675). Accordingly, prior to seeking any Defendant’s default, Plaintiff may wish to review the operative Complaint for whether the operative Complaint fails to give notice of the amount of damages that Plaintiff seeks to recover; if so, it may be futile for Plaintiff to seek entry of Defendant’s default without first amending the Complaint to clearly state and give notice of the amount of damages that Plaintiff is seeking to recover. In the event that Plaintiff wishes to amend the Complaint for this purpose, the Court hereby lifts the stay to grant leave to amend the operative complaint. If Defendant again fails to respond upon being served with the amended complaint, a request for entry of Defendant’s default on the Amended Complaint may lead to a request for entry of default judgment in an amount equal to or less than that stated in the Amended Complaint.

c. A non-appearance case review is set for April 22, 2025 at 8:30 am in Department 9 re: entry of MEMORIALCARE HEALTH SYSTEM’s default.

2. Defendants state that MemorialCare Health System, Memorial Health Services, Memorial Medical Center Foundation, and MemorialCare Medical Group are improperly named parties in this action and should be dismissed. The parties are to meet and confer and to attempt to resolve the identity of the proper defendants, including if appropriate through a voluntary exchange of informal discovery and/or declarations. If the parties are able to reach an agreement, they may file a stipulation and proposed order regarding dismissal of MemorialCare Health System, Memorial Health Services, Memorial Medical Center Foundation, and MemorialCare Medical Group. If the parties are unable to reach an agreement, Defendants may have to file a dispositive motion to resolve the issue.

3. Defendants state that Plaintiff has signed an arbitration agreement, and Defendants have produced the arbitration agreement to Plaintiff.

4. Plaintiff is amenable to mediation. Defendants believe that it is premature to discuss mediation at this time.

5. The Court hereby lifts the stay to permit Defendant to file and serve a Motion to Compel Arbitration or a Responsive Pleading to the Complaint. Defendant must file and serve a Motion to Compel Arbitration or a Responsive Pleading by no later than April 1, 2025. Before filing any demurrer or other motion, the moving party must contact the Court Staff in Department 9 to obtain a hearing date and a briefing schedule. The Court sets a Non-Appearance Case Review Re: Filing and Serving of Defendant’s Motion to Compel Arbitration or Responsive Pleading for April 22, 2025, 8:30 AM, Department 9.

6. Phased Discovery. Discovery shall be phased. Discovery shall be phased. Upon the filing of any motion to compel arbitration, the stay shall be lifted, and the parties will be permitted to conduct discovery on the arbitration issue only. Once an answer is filed and served or, if applicable, after the Court rules on the motion to compel arbitration or pleading challenge, the Court will permit class certification discovery only. Informal discovery is permitted. Merits-based discovery will be allowed after a successful class certification motion. If there is a dispute concerning whether a given discovery request is arbitration based, or certification or merits-based, the parties are to set up a telephonic conference with the court pursuant to the instructions herein.

7. Class list discovery. The decision in In Re Insurance Installment Fee cases (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 1395, 1426-1429, held that the notice procedure prescribed by the trial court and followed by the defendant was necessary to protect privacy rights under the California Constitution. Therefore, upon the Court’s lifting of the stay on class certification discovery, the parties shall use the procedure described in Belaire-West Landscape v Superior Court (2008) 149 Cal.App.4th 554 to notify putative class members, as described in the applicable paragraph of the currently operative complaint, giving them the opportunity to opt out. The parties must share the cost of the procedure equally.

a. Plaintiff is to take the lead and prepare a proposed letter to be sent out by the agreed-upon third party administrator. The parties must discuss and settle upon a final version.

b. The letter must be written using the administrator’s letterhead, not that of any party.

c. The defense must turn over the contact information consisting of name, address, phone number, and email address (if available) to the third-party administrator.

d. In the event the putative class list is greater than 400 people, the administrator must randomly select a sample of no more than 400. The contact information for those persons who did not opt out must be turned over to the plaintiff.

8. Payroll Records Discovery. Responses to any payroll record discovery requests must be uniquely numbered and redacted so that putative class member’s identifying information, i.e., name, social security numbers, etc. are not revealed.

9. Protective Order. Parties are alerted that model protective orders may be found at Los Angeles Superior Court website at http://www.lacourt.org/division/civil/CI0043.aspx. The parties are encouraged to use these model orders as shown, or if modified, as a template for the modified order. A redlined courtesy copy must be posted on the e-service bulletin board and lodged with the court at the time of filing. The parties must use the redlined version to identify any changes proposed to the model order.

10. E-service & E-filing. Electronic service is not the same as electronic filing. The parties have agreed, and the Court has signed an order authorizing Case Anywhere as the e-service to be used in this case. Argument must not be posted on the bulletin board. For information on electronic filing in the Complex Courts, please refer to https://www.lacourt.org/division/efiling/efiling2.aspx and http://www.lacourt.org/division/efiling/pdf/ComplexefilingFAQs.pdf.

11. Class Certification Motion. The Court will set a deadline for filing and serving the Class Certification Motion after ruling on the anticipated Motion to Compel Arbitration. If no party files a Motion to Compel Arbitration, then the Court will set a deadline for filing and serving the Class Certification Motion upon the filing of all Defendants’ responsive pleadings.

12. Telephonic conferences. The Court handles discovery motions informally, using telephonic conferences and LA CourtConnect. Counsel must post a message via their Electronic Service Provider to request any informal discovery conference or other conference. The Court will either reply to the message or issue a Minute Order setting the conference. The telephonic conference will automatically be taken off calendar if all relevant parties have not scheduled the telephonic conference with LA CourtConnect. Parties must file and serve a 5-page joint brief two days before the conference. Since these conferences are informal, no court reporter or audio recording is permitted.

13. Potential Related Cases. Counsel are ordered to file and serve a Notice of Related Case for any potentially related cases pursuant California Rule of court Rule 3.300, including any PAGA case involving the same representative plaintiff. This is a continuing obligation on both plaintiffs and defendants while this case is pending. In particular, the parties have identified at least four other actions with overlapping class definitions. The parties are ordered to file and serve a notice of related cases on all parties in all potentially related by no later than April 1, 2025. The Court sets a Non-Appearance Case Review Re: Filing and Service of Notice of Related Cases for April 22, 2025, 8:30 AM, Department 9.

14. Settlement. File a Notice of Settlement on Judicial Council form CM-200, a mandatory form.

a. Consider using the form wage and hour settlement agreements now available on the court’s website at https://www.lacourt.org/forms/all – “Civil Forms” section. With input and unanimous consensus from an Ad Hoc Wage and Hour Committee, the court posted: (1) a form class action settlement agreement, (2) a form class action/PAGA settlement agreement, (3) and a form PAGA settlement agreement. Using these forms should cut down on attorney negotiation time and reduce the lag time between a successful mediation and execution of a long form agreement. Filing a motion that is based on a form agreement and includes a redlined copy identifying modifications will also expedite the court’s review process and help reduce the current backlog on hearings.

b. If settlement includes dismissal of class action claims (such as a PAGA only settlement or an individual settlement), then Plaintiff must comply with CRC 3.769 and 3.770 in order to obtain dismissal of class claims. Do NOT use Judicial Council Form Civ-110, Request for Dismissal.

Plaintiff is ordered to download the instant signed order from the Court’s website, to give formal notice to all other parties, and to file proof of service of such within five (5) days.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: February 28, 2025

__________________________

ELAINE LU

Judge of the Superior Court