Judge: Jon R. Takasugi, Case: 21STCV05325, Date: 2023-05-01 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV05325    Hearing Date: May 1, 2023    Dept: 17

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

DEPARTMENT 17

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendants’ motion for a stay of proceedings is GRANTED, pending a ruling on their Appeal.

            On 2/9/2021, Amira Hanna, a minor by and through her Guardian ad Litem, Sandra Guzman, and Sandra Guzman (collectively, Plaintiffs) filed suit against Ahmad S. Kalifa, M.D., Farnaaz Kia, M.D., California Hospital Medical Center, Eisner Health, Los Angeles Women’s Center, and Borzouyeh Poursharif, M.D, alleging: (1) negligence; (2) medical battery; andd (3) emotional distress. 

            Now, Defendants Ahmad S. Khalifa M.D., Borzouyeh Poursharif M.D., Eisner Pediatric and Family Medical Center dba Eisner Health, and Los Angeles Women’s Center (collectively, Defendants) move for a stay of proceedings.

            The motion is unopposed.

Discussion

            Defendants seek a stay of proceedings pending the resolution of disputed federal claims and issues currently before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal.

            More specifically, Defendants removed this case to Federal Court on 10/1/2022. On 11/28/2022, the Federal Court remanded the case back to state court, and determined that Defendants did not qualify for Federal immunity. Defendants contend the Federal Court’s determinations were in error, and have appealed these rulings. 

            The Court agrees that a stay is appropriate here. Defendants’ appeal is pending and the Court of Appeal may determine that, the lower court ruling was in error and that Plaintiff’s suit is barred against Defendants based on the federal immunity doctrine, or may determine that the case was improperly remanded to state court. As such, Defendants would be prejudiced if forced to litigate this action before the threshold issue of immunity has been determined. (Harlow v. Fitzgerald (1982) 457 U.S. 800, 818-19.) (“[u]ntil this threshold immunity question is resolved, discovery should not be allowed.”) Moreover, a stay is appropriate given that one of the issues on appeal is whether or not State Court is a jurisdictionally proper forum.

            Based on the foregoing, Defendants’ motion for a stay of proceedings is granted, pending a ruling on their Appeal.

It is so ordered.

Dated:  May    , 2023

   Hon. Jon R. Takasugi
   Judge of the Superior Court

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at smcdept17@lacourt.org by 4 p.m. the day prior as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  If a party submits on the tentative, the party’s email must include the case number and must identify the party submitting on the tentative.  If all parties to a motion submit, the court will adopt this tentative as the final order.  If the department does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on the tentative and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion may be placed off calendar. 

            Due to Covid-19, the court is strongly discouraging in-person appearances.  Parties, counsel, and court reporters present are subject to temperature checks and health inquiries, and will be denied entry if admission could create a public health risk.  The court encourages the parties wishing to argue to appear via L.A. Court Connect.  For more information, please contact the court clerk at (213) 633-0517.  Your understanding during these difficult times is appreciated.