Judge: Mark A. Young, Case: 22SMCV01360, Date: 2024-07-18 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22SMCV01360    Hearing Date: July 18, 2024    Dept: M

CASE NAME:           Pollard v. Barlow Respiratory Hospital

CASE NO.:                22SMCV01360

MOTION:                  Motion for Summary Judgment/Adjudication

HEARING DATE:   07/18/2024

Legal Standard

A party may move for summary judgment in any action or proceeding if it is contended the action has no merit or that there is no defense to the action or proceeding. (CCP, § 437c(a).) “The purpose of the law of summary judgment 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. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 843.)  

“A party may move for summary adjudication as to one or more causes of action within an action, one or more affirmative defenses, one or more claims for damages, or one or more issues of duty, if the party contends that the cause of action has no merit, that there is no affirmative defense to the cause of action, that there is no merit to an affirmative defense as to any cause of action, that there is no merit to a claim for damages, as specified in¿Section 3294 of the Civil Code, or that one or more defendants either owed or did not owe a duty to the plaintiff or plaintiffs.”¿(CCP,¿§ 437c(f)(1).)¿If a party seeks summary adjudication as an alternative to a request for summary judgment, the request must be clearly made in the notice of the motion. (Gonzales v. Superior Court¿(1987) 189 Cal.App.3d 1542, 1544.)¿ “[A] party may move for summary adjudication of a legal issue or a claim for damages other than punitive damages that does not completely dispose of a cause of action, affirmative defense, or issue of duty pursuant to” subdivision (t). (CCP,¿§ 437c(t).)¿ 

To prevail, the evidence submitted must show there is no triable issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.¿(CCP, §¿437c(c).)¿The motion cannot succeed unless the evidence leaves no room for conflicting inferences as to material facts; the court has no power to weigh one inference against another or against other evidence. (Murillo v. Rite Stuff Food Inc. (1998) 65 Cal.App.4th 833, 841.) In determining whether the facts give rise to a triable issue of material fact, “[a]ll doubts as to whether any material, triable, issues of fact exist are to be resolved in favor of the party opposing summary judgment…” (Gold v. Weissman (2004) 114 Cal.App.4th 1195, 1198-99.) “In other words, the facts alleged in the evidence of the party opposing summary judgment and the reasonable inferences there from must be accepted as true.” (Jackson v. County of Los Angeles (1997) 60 Cal.App.4th 171, 179.) However, if adjudication is otherwise proper the motion “may not be denied on grounds of credibility,” except when¿a material fact is the witness’s¿state of mind and “that fact is sought to be established solely by the [witness’s] affirmation thereof.” (CCP, § 437c(e).)¿ 

Once the moving party has met their burden, the burden shifts to the opposing party “to show that a triable issue of one or more material facts exists as to that cause of action or a defense thereto.” (CCP § 437c(p)(1).) “[T]here¿is no obligation on the opposing party... to establish anything by affidavit unless and until the moving party has by affidavit stated facts establishing every element... necessary to sustain a judgment in his favor.”¿(Consumer Cause, Inc. v.¿SmileCare¿(2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 454, 468.)¿ 

¿ 

“The pleadings play a key role in a summary judgment motion. The function of the pleadings in a motion for summary judgment is to delimit the scope of the issues and to¿frame¿the outer measure of materiality in a summary judgment proceeding.” (Hutton v. Fidelity National Title Co.¿(2013) 213 Cal.App.4th 486, 493, quotations and citations omitted.) “Accordingly, the burden of a defendant moving for summary judgment only requires that he or she negate plaintiff's theories of liability¿as alleged in the complaint; that is, a moving party need not refute liability on some theoretical possibility not included in the pleadings.” (Ibid.)¿ 

Analysis

Defendant Barlow Respiratory Hospital moves for summary judgment, or in the alternative, summary adjudication of each cause of action. Defendant fails to meet its burden of production on any noticed issue.

As an initial matter, Defendant failed to file the principal evidence in the motion: the Medical Records (Exhibits A, B and C). The Medical Records were instead lodged with Department M via a flash-drive. The records on file, however, omit the Medical Records entirely. Defendant cannot meet their burden without presenting these exhibits filed with the Court and not simply lodged. Defendant contends that these records demonstrate that no abuse/neglect occurred, no breach of the standard of care occurred, and that no act or omission caused any injury to Plaintiff. Critically, Defendant proffers the declaration of expert nurse Lisa Gildred, BSN, RN-BC, CWCA, in support of such conclusions. (Exhibit D.) Gildred extensively (and almost exclusively) relies on the Medical Records to come to her conclusions on neglect, the standard of care and causation. Without the Medical Records being properly filed, the Court cannot consider the material evidence, and cannot conclude that Defendant has submitted evidence showing that there is no triable issue of fact as to the noticed issues.

Second, Defendant’s memorandum and separate statement make impermissibly vague citations to the entirety of Plaintiff’s medical records from a given facility, without directing the Court to the relevant pages of the exhibits. California Rules of Court, rule 3.1350(d)(3) requires that “Citation to the evidence in support of each material fact must include reference to the exhibit, title, page, and line numbers.” The instant separate statement violates this rule with every citation to Exhibits A-C. For example, in support of UMF 1, Defendant cites the entirety of Exhibit A “Medical records from Barlow Respiratory Hospital” and Exhibit B “Medical records from Providence St. Joseph Medical Center” without even noting a page number. The same can be said of every other citation to Exhibits A-C. Exhibit A is a collection of over 27,000 pages. Exhibits B and C are likewise thousands of pages. Defendant cannot reasonably expect the Court or Plaintiff to sort through the voluminous exhibits to guess which documents support the motion.

Accordingly, the motion is DENIED.