Judge: Joel L. Lofton, Case: 22STCV07502, Date: 2023-05-18 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV07502    Hearing Date: May 18, 2023    Dept: X

   Tentative Ruling

Judge Joel L. Lofton, Department X

HEARING DATE:     May 18, 2023                          TRIAL DATE: No date set.

CASE:                         RADIK KHACHATRYAN, an individual, v. ADVENTIST HEALTH GLENDALE A CA HOSPITAL OR ADVENTIST HEALTH, et al; DOCTOR SAM F DANESHVARI’s administrative team, a medical office in LA, California; and DOES 1 through 25. 

CASE NOS.:               22STCV07179 (lead case); 22STCV07502 (related case)

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

MOVING PARTY:               Defendant Sam F. Daneshvari, M.D.

RESPONDING PARTY:      Plaintiff Radik Khachatryan

SERVICE:                              Filed February 2, 2023

OPPOSITION:                       Filed May 4, 2023

REPLY:                                   Filed May 12, 2023

RELIEF REQUESTED

            Defendant Sam. F. Daneshvari (“Dr. Daneshvari”) moves for summary judgment.

BACKGROUND

             This case arises out of Plaintiff Radik Khachatryan’s (“Plaintiff”) claim for medical malpractice against Glendale Adventist Medical Center (“AHG”) and Dr. Daneshvari. Plaintiff alleges that his mother, Sesil Aleksanyan, was admitted to AGH in February 2021, after contracting COVID-19. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants failed to properly provide his mother with the food necessary to meet her special diet and prevented him from seeing his mother. Plaintiff alleges that based on Defendants’ negligent care, his mother passed away while admitted to AGH.

            Plaintiff has filed two separate cases regarding the same underlying facts. The first case – case number 22STCV07179 (“lead case”) – was filed on February 28, 2022, with a first amended complaint filed on August 19, 2022. The second case – case number 22STCV07502 (“related case”) was filed on February 25, 2022, with a first amended complaint filed on October 17, 2022. Both actions involve the same Plaintiff and the same Defendants.

TENTATIVE RULING

            Dr. Daneshvari’s motion for summary judgment is GRANTED.

LEGAL STANDARD

“The purpose of the law of summary judgment is to provide courts with a mechanism to cut through the parties’ pleadings in order to determine whether, despite their allegations, trial is in fact necessary to resolve their dispute.” (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal. 4th 826, 843.) “A party may move for summary judgment in an action or proceeding if it is contended that the action has no merit or that there is no defense to the action or proceeding.” (Code of Civil Procedure section 473c subd. (a)(1).) “The motion for summary judgment shall be granted if all the papers submitted show that there is no triable issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” (Code of Civil Procedures section 473c subd. (c).)

 “[W]here the plaintiff has also moved for summary judgment—or, as in this case, summary adjudication—that party has the burden of showing there is no defense to a cause of action. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (a).) That burden can be met if the plaintiff “has proved each element of the cause of action entitling the party to judgment on that cause of action.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (p)(1).) If the plaintiff meets this burden, it is up to the defendant “to show that a triable issue of one or more material facts exists as to that cause of action or a defense thereto.” (S.B.C.C., Inc. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. (2010) 186 Cal.App.4th 383, 388.)

DISCUSSION

            Dr. Daneshvari moves for summary judgment as to the entirety of Plaintiff’s complaint. Plaintiff previously filed two complaints seeking to allege the same claim. On November 14, 2022, this court granted Defendants’ demurrer as to Plaintiff’s lead case, case number 22STCV07179. Plaintiff’s related case, case number 22STCV07502, alleges one cause of action for medical negligence.

            “The elements of Plaintiff's medical negligence cause of action allege ‘(1) the duty of the professional to use such skill, prudence, and diligence as other members of his profession commonly possess and exercise; (2) a breach of that duty; (3) a proximate causal connection between the negligent conduct and the resulting injury; and (4) actual loss or damage resulting from the professional's negligence.’ ” (Belfiore-Braman v. Rotenberg (2018) 25 Cal.App.5th 234, 238 fn. 3.)

            On February 1, 2023, the court granted Defendants’ discovery motions, including motions to deem the truth of the matters asserted in their requests for admissions admitted. In Dr. Danesvhari’s requests for admissions, he asked that Plaintiff admit (1) that all care and treatment rendered by Dr. Daneshvari was at all times appropriate, (2) no act or omission by Dr. Daneshvari caused decedent’s death, (3) no act or omission by Dr. Daneshvari caused harm to Plaintiff. (Sulentor Decl. ¶ 6, Exhibit D.) Because those admissions were deemed admitted, Dr. Daneshvari has met his burden of showing that Plaintiff cannot establish his claim for medical negligence. Although Plaintiff indicates he wants to file a motion for relief from the requests for admissions, he has not done so as of the date of this order. Plaintiff fails to raise a triable issue of fact.

CONCLUSION

            Dr. Daneshvari’s motion for summary judgment is GRANTED.

            Moving Party to give notice.

Dated:   May 18, 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