Judge: Joel L. Lofton, Case: 22STCV07502, Date: 2023-08-03 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV07502    Hearing Date: August 3, 2023    Dept: X

   Tentative Ruling

 

Judge Joel L. Lofton, Department X

 

 

HEARING DATE:      August 3, 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 A NEW TRIAL

 

MOVING PARTY:               Plaintiff Radik Khachatryan

 

RESPONDING PARTY:      Sam F. Daneshvari, M.D.

 

SERVICE:                              Filed June 26, 2023

 

OPPOSITION:                       Filed June 30, 2023

 

REPLY:                                   Filed August 1, 2023

 

RELIEF REQUESTED

 

             Plaintiff moves for a new trial.

 

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 (“Decedent”), 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

           

            Plaintiff’s motion for a new trial is DENIED.

 

LEGAL STANDARD

 

DISCUSSION

 

            Plaintiff moves for a new trial. On May 18, 2023, the court granted Dr. Daneshvari’s motion for summary judgment. On June 9, 2023, judgment was entered in favor of Dr. Daneshvari.

 

               A new trial is a re-examination of an issue of fact in the same court after a trial and decision by a jury, court, or referee.” (Code Civ. Proc. section 656.)

 

            The verdict may be vacated and any other decision may be modified or vacated, in whole or in part, and a new or further trial granted on all or part of the issues, on the application of the party aggrieved, for any of the following causes, materially affecting the substantial rights of such party: [¶] 1. Irregularity in the proceedings of the court, jury or adverse party, or any order of the court or abuse of discretion by which either party was prevented from having a fair trial. [¶] 2. Misconduct of the jury; and whenever any one or more of the jurors have been induced to assent to any general or special verdict, or to a finding on any question submitted to them by the court, by a resort to the determination of chance, such misconduct may be proved by the affidavit of any one of the jurors. [¶] 3. Accident or surprise, which ordinary prudence could not have guarded against. [¶] 4. Newly discovered evidence, material for the party making the application, which he could not, with reasonable diligence, have discovered and produced at the trial. [¶] 5. Excessive or inadequate damages. [¶] 6. Insufficiency of the evidence to justify the verdict or other decision, or the verdict or other decision is against law. [¶] 7. Error in law, occurring at the trial and excepted to by the party making the application.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 657.)

 

            Plaintiff does not establish substantive grounds to vacate the judgment granted in Dr. Daneshvari’s favor.

 

CONCLUSION

 

            Plaintiff’s motion for a new trial is DENIED.

 

            Court to provide notice.

 

           

Dated:   August 3, 2023                                              ___________________________________

                                                                                    Joel L. Lofton

                                                                                    Judge of the Superior Court