Judge: Jon R. Takasugi, Case: 22STCV00171, Date: 2025-03-24 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV00171    Hearing Date: March 24, 2025    Dept: 17

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

 

DEPARTMENT 17

 

TENTATIVE RULING

 

MARJORIE MATSUDA, et al.

 

         vs.

 

POMONA VISTA CARE CENTER, et al.

 

 Case No.:  22STCV00171

 

 

 

 Hearing Date: March 24, 2025

 

PVCC’s motion to compel further responses is GRANTED. Responses due in 20 days.  Dr. Basmajian is sanctioned, jointly and severally with counsel, $350.00, payable within 60 days.

           

On 1/3/2022, Plaintiff Marjorie Matsuda in and through her successor-in-interest Brian Matsuda and William Picknell filed suit against Pomona Vista Care Center, MJB Partners, LLC dba Pomona Vista Care Center (PVCC), and Sun Mar Management Services (collectively, Defendants), alleging: (1) dependent abuse; (2) negligence; (3) violation of Health and Safety Code section 1430(b); (4) willful misconduct; and (5) wrongful death.

 

            On 1/30/2025, PVCC moved to compel further responses from Cross-Defendant Hrayr Georges Basmajian, M.D. (the Cross-Defendant or Dr. Basmajian) to PVCC’s Form Interrogatories (Set One) No. 15.1.

 

Discussion

 

            PVCC argues that Dr. Basmajian’s responses are evasive and incomplete.

 

            After review, the Court agrees.

 

Form Interrogatory No. 15.1 is a judicially-approved interrogatory. The scope of the interrogatory requires the responding party to state the facts, witnesses and writings which supports his or her affirmative defenses. An affirmative defense must contain a statement of any new matter constituting a defense. (CCP §431.30 (b)(2).) The defendant has the burden of pleading and proving the existence of all facts essential to the particular defense being asserted. (Evid. Code §§500, 501.) Additionally, pleading an affirmative defense is subject to the same rules that apply to pleading a cause of action in a complaint. In pleading an affirmative defense, a defendant must plead ultimate facts and the facts must be pleaded with particularity where they must be so pleaded in a Complaint. (FPI Development, Inc. v. Nakashima (1991) 241 Cal.Ap.3d 367.).)

 

 Dr. Basmajian failed to properly respond to No. 15.1 as the subparts (b) and (c) were not fully complete. Dr. Basmajian failed to identify any witnesses by name, failed to provide their addresses and phone numbers, and failed to identify any document with specificity. Broad statements, such as the ones provided by Dr. Basmajian above, are improper as they do not state names, addresses, and phone numbers as requested. If he lacks sufficient personal knowledge to respond, he may so state, but only after making a reasonable and good faith effort to obtain the information by inquiring to other persons or organizations. (Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc., v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 406.)

 

With respect to the identification of documents that support his affirmative defense, Dr. Basmajian is required to identify any supportive documents with significant detail to permit the propounding party to locate and to identify, as readily as the responding party can, the documents from which the answers may be ascertained. (C.C.P. §2030.230.) A blanket, nondescriptive statement of “medical records” from various medical facilities lack the details that the Code requires.

 

Based on the foregoing, PVCC’s motion to compel further responses is granted. Dr. Basmajian is sanctioned, jointly and severally with counsel, $350.00. ($350/hr x 1 hr.)

 

It is so ordered.

 

Dated:  March    , 2025

                                                                                                                                                          

   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.  For more information, please contact the court clerk at (213) 633-0517.