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