Judge: Maurice A. Leiter, Case: 23STCV04799, Date: 2025-03-11 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV04799    Hearing Date: March 11, 2025    Dept: 54

Hearing Date: March 11, 2025

Department 54, Judge Maurice A. Leiter

Motion for Summary Judgment, or in the alternative, Motion for Summary Adjudication

Moving Party: Defendants Mark Cunningham, M.D., Malini Daniel, M.D. and Keck Hospital of USC

Responding Party: Plaintiffs Kathy Kosaka, individually and as successor in interest to Leslie Yoshito Kosaka, Scott Kosaka and Jeffrey Kosaka

T/R:      DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IS GRANTED.

DEFENDANTS TO NOTICE.

If the parties wish to submit on the tentative, please email the courtroom at SMCdept54@lacourt.org with notice to opposing counsel (or self-represented party) before 8:00 am on the day of the hearing.

The Court considers the moving papers and non-opposition.

BACKGROUND

On March 3, 2023, Plaintiffs Kathy Kosaka, individually and as successor in interest to Leslie Yoshito Kosaka, Scott Kosaka and Jeffrey Kosaka filed a complaint against Defendants Kaiser, Mark Cunningham, M.D., Malini Daniel, M.D. and Keck Hospital of USC, asserting causes of action for (1) wrongful death; and (2) medical negligence. Plaintiffs allege Defendants’ treatment of decedent Leslie Yoshito Kosaka in performing an aortic dissection repair fell below the standard of care, resulting in her death.

ANALYSIS

In a medical malpractice action, a plaintiff must establish the following elements: “(1) the duty of the professional to use such skill, prudence, and diligence as other members of his profession commonly possess and exercise; (2) a breach of that duty; (3) a proximate causal connection between the negligent conduct and the resulting injury; and (4) actual loss or damage resulting from the professional's negligence.  [citations.]”  (Galvez v. Frields (2001) 88 Cal.App.4th 1410, 1420.)  A defendant moving for summary judgment in a medical malpractice action must “present evidence that would preclude a reasonable trier of fact from finding it was more likely than not that their treatment fell below the standard of care.”  (Johnson v. Superior Court (2006) 143 Cal.App.4th 297, 305.)  “When a defendant moves for summary judgment and supports his motion with expert declarations that his conduct fell within the community standard of care, he is entitled to summary judgment unless the plaintiff comes forward with conflicting expert evidence.”  (Munro v. Regents of University of California (1989) 215 Cal.3d 977, 984-985.) 

Defendants move for summary judgment on the ground that their conduct did not fall below the standard of care. Defendants provide the declaration of expert Murray Kwon, M.D., who declares that Defendants’ treatment of decedent did not fall below the standard of care. This is sufficient to meet Defendants' burden on summary judgment. The burden shifts to Plaintiffs to provide conflicting expert evidence.

Plaintiffs have filed a non-opposition to this motion. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is GRANTED.