Judge: Joel L. Lofton, Case: 22AHCV00771, Date: 2023-03-30 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22AHCV00771 Hearing Date: March 30, 2023 Dept: X
Tentative Ruling
Judge Joel L. Lofton, Department X
HEARING DATE: March 30, 2023 TRIAL DATE: No date set.
CASE: SAMI HAKIM by and through his Successor-in-Interest, Hilda Hakim; Hilda Hakim, an individual; HYATT HAKIM, an individual; and ANGEL HAKIM, an individual, v. LOMA LINDA UNIVERSITY HEALTH; BRUCE M. TOPOROFF, M.D.; MUSTAFA KADHIM HUSSEIN BALDAWI, M.D.; MELISSA D. MCCABE, M.D.; HUAYONG HU, M.D. RAMESH CHANDER BANSAL, M.D.; SHARMIN KALAM, M.D.; SAHIBZADI MAHRUKH NOOR, M.D.; CORY JAMES TOOMASIAN, M.D., FELIPE JOSE ZINKEWICH, M.D.; JENNIFER L. MOHR, PA-C; and DOES 1 THROUGH 200, inclusive.
CASE NO.: 22AHCV00771
MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE
MOVING PARTY: Defendant Faculty Physicians and Surgeons of LLUSM (“Moving Party”)
RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiffs Sami Haki, by and through Hilda Hakim, Hilda Hakim, Hyatt Hakim, and Angel Hakim
SERVICE: Filed March 1, 2023
OPPOSITION: Filed March 17, 2023
REPLY: Filed March 23, 2023
RELIEF REQUESTED
Moving Parties moves to transfer this case to San Bernardino County Superior Court.
BACKGROUND
This case arises out of Plaintiffs’ claim that Defendants failed to properly administer medical care to Sami Hakim, a dependent adult (“Decedent”). Plaintiffs allege that on July 14, 2021, Decedent presented to Loma Linda for a procedure to replace an ascending aorta. Plaintiffs allege that Decedent required the assistance of a cardiopulmonary bypass machine (“CBM”). Plaintiffs allege that after the procedure, Decedent exhibited significant bleeding. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants attempted to place Decedent back on the CBM but were unable to because the CBM had become clotted.
Plaintiffs allege that Defendants failed to administer the proper amount of heparin, a blood thinning agent, and protamine, a blood clotting agent. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants did not have a backup CBM ready and spent a significant amount of time changing the CBM. Plaintiffs allege that Decedent suffered from extended periods of low blood pressure and oxygen deprivation. Plaintiffs allege that Decedent died on September 13, 2021.
Plaintiffs filed this complaint on October 6, 2022, alleging three causes of action for (1) dependent adult abuse, (2) negligence, and (3) wrongful death.
TENTATIVE RULING
Moving Party’s motion to transfer venue is DENIED.
REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE
Moving Party’s request for judicial notice is granted pursuant to Evidence Code section 452, subdivision (c).
Plaintiff’s request for judicial notice is granted pursuant to Evidence Code section 452, subdivision (c).
DISCUSSION
On February 27, 2023, Moving Party was substituted in for Doe 2. Moving Party brings this motion on the grounds that its principal place of business is in Loma Linda and that therefore this case should be transferred to San Bernardino County.
“The moving party must overcome the presumption that the plaintiff has selected the proper venue. [Citation.] Thus, ‘[i]t is the moving defendant's burden to demonstrate that the plaintiff's venue selection is not proper under any of the statutory grounds.’ ” (Fontaine v. Superior Court (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 830, 836.) “Pursuant to section 395, subdivision (a), the general venue rule is that ‘the superior court in the county where the defendants or some of them reside at the commencement of the action is the proper court for the trial of the action.’ ” (Id. at p. 837.)
Code of Civil Procedure section 395.5 provides: “A corporation or association may be sued in the county where the contract is made or is to be performed, or where the obligation or liability arises, or the breach occurs; or in the county where the principal place of business of such corporation is situated, subject to the power of the court to change the place of trial as in other cases.”
To attempt to overcome the presumption that Plaintiff selected the proper venue, Moving Party relies on Capp Care, Inc. v. Superior Court (1987) 195 Cal.App.3d 504 (“Capp Care”). Moving Parties argues that Capp Care provides that if there are multiple causes of action and venue is not proper to each cause of action, the corporate defendant is entitled to transfer the case to where its principal office is located. (Reply at p. 2:9-12.) Plaintiff further argues that Plaintiff alleges three causes of actions against the corporation defendants while only alleging two causes of action against the individual defendants.
Moving Party’s reliance on Capp Care is misplaced. In Capp Care, supra, 195 Cal.App.3d at p. 508, the Court held that “[w]here two or more inconsistent venue provisions appear to be applicable to the same case, a motion for change of venue must be granted on the entire complaint if the defendant is entitled to a change of venue on any one cause of action.” In Capp Care, the specific cause of action warranting a change of venue was for involuntary dissolution, which is governed by a special venue statute that establishes the proper venue to be where the principal executive office of the corporation is located. (Id. at p. 508.) The claim for involuntary dissolution only had one proper venue, which entitled the defendant to transfer the entire case. (Ibid.)
The ruling from Capp Care does not establish, as Moving Party contends it does, that a corporation defendant is entitled to transfer a case to its principal place of business simply because a cause of action is not plead against an individual defendant. Capp Care, supra, requires “a ‘mixed action,’ i.e., an action in which the plaintiff has alleged two or more causes of action, each of which is governed by a different venue rule.” (195 Cal.App.3d at p. 508.) Moving Party has failed to establish that Los Angeles County is an improper venue.
CONCLUSION
Moving Party’s motion to transfer venue is DENIED.
Moving Party to give notice.
Dated: March 30, 2023 ___________________________________
Joel L. Lofton
Judge of the Superior Court
Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court indicating their
intention to submit. Parties intending to appear are strongly encouraged to appear remotely. alhdeptx@lacourt.org