Judge: Jon R. Takasugi, Case: 23STCV00171, Date: 2023-12-15 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV00171    Hearing Date: December 15, 2023    Dept: 17

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

DEPARTMENT 17

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendants’ motion for leave to file a Cross-Complaint is GRANTED.

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, 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.

Now, Defendants move for leave to file a Cross-Complaint (XC).

Discussion

            Defendants seek leave to file a XC for equitable indemnity against Hrayr Basmajian, M.D.

A party must obtain leave of court to file any cross-complaint after the court has set a trial date, and the court may grant leave to file a permissive cross-complaint in the interest of justice at any time during the course of the action. (CCP § 428.50(c)) The court may grant leave to file a cross-complaint at any time until judgment is entered. (City of Hanford v. Superior Court (1989) 208 Cal. App.3d 580; see also Orient Handel v. United States Fid. & Guar. Co. (1987) 192 Cal.App.3d 684, 701 [cross-complaint may be filed close to time of trial on the complaint].)

            Trial in this matter is set for 1/24/2024. Defendants argue that they only discovered the need to pursue this claim after Plaintiff provided supplemental responses to Defendant’s RFA No. 33 on 11/7/2023.

            More specifically, Defendants contend that at the 12/6/2022 deposition, Mr. Basmajian testified that it is not his custom to leave any order regarding CAM boot management, and he does not give actual orders to check the skin. (Ho Del. ¶ 6.) Given that no express order was given to Defendants’ staff towards CAM Boot management, Defendants were under the assumption that Plaintiffs’ claim against them would not include allegations related to this issue. However, in a 11/7/2023 supplemental response to RFA No. 33—which asks the Plaintiffs to admit that when Ms. Matsuda was discharged from the hospital, there was no physician’s discharge order regarding skin care relating to her CAM boot—Plaintiffs admitted, but stated that Dr. Basmajian’s deposition testimony indicates there was never going to be an order because there was an implied order for CAM boot management.

As such, this response informed Defendants for the first time that Plaintiff alleges that while Dr. Basmajian did not provide express instructions on the care of the surgical wounds, staff at Pomona Vista should have known how to care for a patient in Ms. Matsuda’s state based on an implied order. As such, the issue of Dr. Basmajian’s comparative negligence regarding Ms. Matsuda’s post-surgical care is implicated, and Defendants must now pursue a claim for equitable indemnity to account for his share of responsibility for Plaintiffs’ damages.

“The purpose of equitable indemnification is to avoid the unfairness, under joint and several liability theory, of holding one defendant liable for the plaintiff's entire loss while allowing another responsible defendant to escape ‘scot free’. A defendant has a right to bring in other tortfeasors who are allegedly responsible for plaintiff's action through a cross-complaint ... for equitable indemnification.” (Platt v. Coldwell Banker Residential Real Estate Services (1990) 217 Cal. App.3d 1439, 1444 [citations omitted]).

            Here, the Court agrees that Plaintiffs’ supplemental responses indicated that Plaintiffs intended to allege that Defendants’ negligence was based, at least in part, on failure to follow an implied order from Dr. Basmajian for post-surgical wound care.  Plaintiffs did not indicate that they believed there to be an implied order until they amended their responses to RFA No. 33 on 11/7/2023.  As such, Defendants would be substantially prejudiced if they were unable to pursue a claim for equitable indemnity to account for Mr. Basmajian’s share of responsibility in this alleged negligence.

            Based on the foregoing, Defendants’ motion for leave to file a Cross-Complaint is granted.

It is so ordered.

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