TENTATIVE RULING

Defendants-in-Intervention Jason Cuellar, M.D.; John Greenfield, M.D.; Glendale Diagnostic Imaging Network, Inc.; San Dimas Pain Management Center, Inc.; Pasadena Laser & Surgery Center; Spectrum Health Center; Coast Fluroscopy Image, Inc.; West Coast Neuro LLC; Docs Surgical Hospital; and Vascular Surgery Associates Medical Group’s Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED.

Plaintiff-in-Intervention Daniel V. Behesnilian is ordered to release all funds presently held in his attorney-client trust account on behalf of Cemil Gunday, recovered in Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. 19STCV15444, which shall be released to counsel for Defendants-in-Intervention Jason Cuellar, M.D.; John Greenfield, M.D.; Glendale Diagnostic Imaging Network, Inc.; San Dimas Pain Management Center, Inc.; Pasadena Laser & Surgery Center; Spectrum Health Center; Coast Fluroscopy Image, Inc.; West Coast Neuro LLC; Docs Surgical Hospital; and Vascular Surgery Associates Medical Group and distributed by counsel to the appropriate in such amounts as agreed upon by the parties, and those amounts shall represent full and final satisfaction of any and all debt owed by Cemil Gunday relevant to the medical debt incurred in Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. 19STCV15444.

The Court will sign Defendants-in-Intervention Jason Cuellar, M.D.; John Greenfield, M.D.; Glendale Diagnostic Imaging Network, Inc.; San Dimas Pain Management Center, Inc.; Pasadena Laser & Surgery Center; Spectrum Health Center; Coast Fluroscopy Image, Inc.; West Coast Neuro LLC; Docs Surgical Hospital; and Vascular Surgery Associates Medical Group’s proposed judgment on this date.

Defendants-in-Intervention Jason Cuellar, M.D.; John Greenfield, M.D.; Glendale Diagnostic Imaging Network, Inc.; San Dimas Pain Management Center, Inc.; Pasadena Laser & Surgery Center; Spectrum Health Center; Coast Fluroscopy Image, Inc.; West Coast Neuro LLC; Docs Surgical Hospital; and Vascular Surgery Associates Medical Group to give notice.

REASONING

Request for Judicial Notice

Defendants-in-Intervention Jason Cuellar, M.D.; John Greenfield, M.D.; Glendale Diagnostic Imaging Network, Inc.; San Dimas Pain Management Center, Inc.; Pasadena Laser & Surgery Center; Spectrum Health Center; Coast Fluroscopy Image, Inc.; West Coast Neuro LLC; Docs Surgical Hospital; and Vascular Surgery Associates Medical Group (“Defendants”) request judicial notice of the complaint filed in Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. 19STCV15444. Defendants’ request is GRANTED pursuant to Evidence Code section 452, subdivision (d).

Analysis

This is an interpleader action to determine Defendants’ rights in and to settlement proceeds in an underlying motor vehicle personal injury action, Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. 19STCV15444. Plaintiff-in-Interpleader Daniel Behesnilian (“Plaintiff”) alleges a settlement of $485,072.14, of which $323,381.43 remain for distribution. (Compl. ¶ 4.) Plaintiff is holding the settlement funds until Defendants’ rights to those funds has been determined. (Compl. ¶ 8.) Defendants move for an order granting summary judgment in their favor, which would require Plaintiff to release all funds presently held in his attorney-client trust account on behalf of Cemil Gunday, recovered in Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. 19STCV15444, which shall be released to counsel for Defendants and distributed by counsel to the appropriate clients in such amounts as agreed upon by the parties, and those amounts shall represent full and final satisfaction of any and all debt owed by Cemil Gunday relevant to the medical debt incurred in Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. 19STCV15444.

The purpose of a motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication “is to provide courts with a mechanism to cut through the parties’ pleadings in order to determine whether, despite their allegations, trial is in fact necessary to resolve their dispute.” (Aguilar v. Atl. Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 843.) 

“On a motion for summary judgment, the initial burden is always on the moving party to make a prima facie showing that there are no triable issues of material fact.” (Scalf v. D. B. Log Homes, Inc. (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 1510, 1519.) A defendant moving for summary judgment or summary adjudication “has met his or her burden of showing that a cause of action has no merit if the party has shown that one or more elements of the cause of action . . . cannot be established, or that there is a complete defense to the cause of action.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (p)(2).) “Once the defendant . . . has met that burden, the burden shifts to the plaintiff . . . to show that a triable issue of one or more material facts exists as to the cause of action or a defense thereto.” (Ibid.) “If the plaintiff cannot do so, summary judgment should be granted.” (Avivi v. Centro Medico Urgente Med. Ctr. (2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 463, 467.)

“Code of Civil Procedure section 437c, subdivision (c), requires the trial judge to grant summary judgment if all the evidence submitted, and ‘all inferences reasonably deducible from the evidence’ and uncontradicted by other inferences or evidence, show that there is no triable issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” (Adler v. Manor Healthcare Corp. (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1110, 1119.) “[T]he court must consider all of the evidence set forth in the papers (except evidence to which the court has sustained an objection) . . . in the light most favorable to the party opposing summary judgment.” (Avivi, supra, 159 Cal.App.4th at p. 467; see also Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (c).)

When an interpleader action has been filed, the court may determine the rights of the claimants to the interpleaded funds. (City of Morgan Hill v. Brown (1999) 71 Cal.App.4th 1114, 1126-1127.) A defendant’s claim to the interpleaded funds may be determined on summary judgment. (Id. at p. 1127.) Where the undisputed facts demonstrate that a defendant has a right to the interpleaded funds, or a portion of the funds, summary judgment is proper. (Id. at p. 1128.) The fact that other defendants may also have claims to a portion of the interpleaded funds is not a basis for denying summary judgment as to the moving party’s claim since the claims of the remaining defendants are reserved for later resolution by the court. (Ibid.)

Defendants present undisputed evidence that on September 26, 2017, Cemil Gunday was involved in a motor vehicle accident, and he sought medical treatment and services for injuries caused by the accident. (Defs.’ UMF Nos. 1, 2.) Gunday was represented by Plaintiff in the personal injury action relating to that accident, and on December 12, 2022, Plaintiff settled Gunday’s claim for the policy limits of $485,072.14, with $323,581.43 being the net balance for distribution. (Nos. 3-5.) At the time of the settlement, the unpaid medical expenses provided to Gunday at his request totaled $511,555.96. (No. 6.) In seeking medical treatment and services, Gunday was a consumer who incurred debts to all medical providers regardless of whether a medical lien was executed. (No. 7.) Plaintiff then filed the instant action based on Gunday’s refusal to pay his medical debt from the authorized settlement proceeds of the personal injury action. (No. 8.) The complaint includes a verified list of all existing unpaid medical debt incurred relevant to the civil complaint in Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. 19STCV15444. (No. 9.)

Defendants’ evidence, and Gunday’s and Plaintiff’s failures to oppose the motion, makes it such that there are no disputed facts that Gunday sought and obtained medical services as a consumer as a result of a traffic accident as alleged in Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. 19STCV15444, Gunday authorized a settlement of that lawsuit but has refused to pay all of  his medical debt, there are funds recovered from the traffic accident settlement, Gunday has refused to permit Plaintiff to pay his medical debt, and the medical providers are seeking payment of Gunday’s consumer medical debt. The failure to oppose the motion renders it such that there is no triable issue as to any of these facts. Accordingly, Defendants-in-Intervention Jason Cuellar, M.D.; John Greenfield, M.D.; Glendale Diagnostic Imaging Network, Inc.; San Dimas Pain Management Center, Inc.; Pasadena Laser & Surgery Center; Spectrum Health Center; Coast Fluroscopy Image, Inc.; West Coast Neuro LLC; Docs Surgical Hospital; and Vascular Surgery Associates Medical Group’s Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED. Plaintiff-in-Intervention Daniel V. Behesnilian is ordered to release all funds presently held in his attorney-client trust account on behalf of Cemil Gunday, recovered in Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. 19STCV15444, which shall be released to counsel for Defendants-in-Intervention Jason Cuellar, M.D.; John Greenfield, M.D.; Glendale Diagnostic Imaging Network, Inc.; San Dimas Pain Management Center, Inc.; Pasadena Laser & Surgery Center; Spectrum Health Center; Coast Fluroscopy Image, Inc.; West Coast Neuro LLC; Docs Surgical Hospital; and Vascular Surgery Associates Medical Group and distributed by counsel to the appropriate in such amounts as agreed upon by the parties, and those amounts shall represent full and final satisfaction of any and all debt owed by Cemil Gunday relevant to the medical debt incurred in Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. 19STCV15444.