Judge: Gary Y. Tanaka, Case: 20STCV36943, Date: 2022-07-27 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV36943    Hearing Date: July 27, 2022    Dept: B

PROCEEDINGS

Estate of Alejandro Alers, Sr., et al. v. Olympia Medical Center, et al.

20STCV36943

1. Hazel Alers’ Motion for Reconsideration of Order of Dismissal

2. Hazel Alers, et al.’s Motion to Amend Second Amended Complaint to Include Punitive Damages Claims

3. Hazel Alers, et al.’s Motion for an Order to Allow Plaintiffs to Discover Financial Condition Information

     

   
   

   TENTATIVE RULING

        

               Hazel Alers’ Motion for Reconsideration of Order of Dismissal is denied.

    

               Hazel Alers, et al.’s Motion to Amend Second Amended Complaint to Include Punitive Damages Claims and Motion for an Order to Allow Plaintiffs to Discover Financial Condition Information are deemed moot. No operative Second Amended Complaint currently remains against the Defendants that would support a Motion to Amend the Second Amended Complaint or a Motion to Allow Discovery of Financial Condition.

    

               The Court further notes that the Court’s calendar reflects a purported “Motion to Set Aside or Vacate Dismissal.”  However, this appears to be merely a duplicate scheduling of the Motion for Reconsideration, and is, thus, taken off calendar.

    

               Background

    

               Plaintiffs filed their Complaint on September 28, 2020. Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint was submitted on January 19, 2021, but never officially filed. On August 24, 2021, the parties stipulated that the First Amended Complaint was deemed filed on January 19, 2021. Plaintiffs’ operative Second Amended Complaint was filed on November 23, 2021. Plaintiffs allege numerous causes of action in relation to the death of Plaintiffs’ decedent Alejandro Alers, Sr. The Plaintiffs in this action are the Estate of Alejandro Alers, Sr., Alejandro Alers, Jr., and Hazel Alers. Each of the Plaintiffs bring this action in pro per. On December 9, 2021, all causes of action that were brought on behalf of the Estate of Alejandro Alers, Sr. were ordered dismissed.

    

               Defendants’, Healthcare Partners Affiliates Medical Group, Mary Jean 27 Lockard, N.P., N. Isabel Kiefer, M.D., Hagop Sarkissian, M.D., and Kelly Winer, S.W., motion for summary judgment was granted on March 23, 2022.

    

               Thereafter, various demurrers by other Defendants were sustained with leave to amend and without leave to amend.  As to the portions of the demurrers to which leave to amend was granted, Plaintiffs failed to timely amend.

    

               On May 31, 2022, Defendants Seasons Hospice and Palliative Care of California, LLC, Arman Ahangarzadeh, LVN, Gary Zimny, R.N., Thomas (Tom) Carmody, Philip Rohrbacher, R.N., and Pejman Naghdechi, M.D were dismissed with prejudice.

    

               Defendant Sara Kossuth, D.O. was dismissed with prejudice on June 17, 2022. Defendant Windsor Terrace Healthcare, LLC was dismissed with prejudice on June 23, 2022.

    

               Motion for Reconsideration

    

               CCP § 1008(a) states: “When an application for an order has been made to a judge,

   or to a court, and refused in whole or in part, or granted, or granted conditionally, or on terms, any party affected by the order may, within 10 days after service upon the party of written notice of entry of the order and based upon new or different facts, circumstances, or law, make application to the same judge or court that made the order, to reconsider the matter and modify, amend, or revoke the prior order.  The party making the application shall state by affidavit what application was made before, when and to what judge, what order or decisions were made, and what new or different facts, circumstances, or law are claimed to be shown.”  In addition, the party seeking reconsideration must provide not just new or different facts, circumstance, or law, but a satisfactory explanation for the failure to produce it at an earlier time. See Garcia v. Hejmadi (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 674, 690.

    

               “A court may reconsider its order granting or denying a motion and may even reconsider or alter its judgment so long as judgment has not yet been entered. Once judgment has been entered, however, the court may not reconsider it and loses its unrestricted power to change the judgment. It may correct judicial error only through certain limited procedures such as motions for new trial and motions to vacate the judgment.” Ramon v. Aerospace Corp. (1996) 50 Cal.App.4th 1233, 1236 (emphasis in original).

    

               Plaintiffs move for reconsideration of the Court’s March 23, 2022 order granting Healthcare Partners Affiliates Medical Group, et al.’s motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff’s motion is based on a purported new fact.  Plaintiff contends that she served responses to Healthcare Partners’ Interrogatories, Set One, Number 17.1 on December 17, 2021.

    

               However, because judgment has been entered, the Court lacks jurisdiction to hear this motion.  The Court does note that the motion for summary judgment was granted based on deemed admissions pursuant to the Court’s order granting Defendants’ motion to deem requests for admissions admitted.  The ruling on the motion for summary judgment was not based on the motion to compel responses to form interrogatories.  In addition, there was no Court order to provide for Plaintiffs to serve responses to requests for admissions. Instead, the requests for admissions were deemed admitted.

    

               Plaintiff Hazel Alers’ Motion for Reconsideration is denied.

    

               Defendants are ordered to give notice of this ruling.