Judge: Melvin D. Sandvig, Case: 23CHCV01602, Date: 2025-01-09 Tentative Ruling

Counsel wishing to submit on a tentative ruling may inform the clerk or courtroom assisant in North Valley Department F47, 9425 Penfield Ave., Chatsworth, CA 91311, at (818) 407-2247.  Please be aware that unless all parties submit, the matter will still be called for hearing and may be argued by any appearing/non-submitting parties. If the matter is submitted on the court's tentative ruling by all parties, counsel for moving party shall give notice of ruling. This may be done by incorporating verbatim the court's tentative ruling. The tentative ruling may be extracted verbatim by copying and specially pasting, as unformatted text, from the Los Angeles Superior Court’s website, http://www.lasuperiorcourt.org. All hearings on law and motion and other calendar matters are generally NOT transcribed by a court reporter unless one is provided by the party(ies).

Case Number: 23CHCV01602    Hearing Date: January 9, 2025    Dept: F47

Dept. F47

Date: 1/9/25                                                                  TRIAL DATE: 4/6/26

Case #23CHCV01602

 

SUMMARY JUDGMENT

 

Motion filed on 5/7/24. 

 

MOVING PARTY: Defendant Janet Schori, M.D.

RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiffs William Angulo, a minor through his Guardian ad Litem, Joseph Angulo and Michellyn Russell

NOTICE: ok

 

RELIEF REQUESTED: An order granting summary judgment in favor of Defendant Janet Schori, M.D. and against Plaintiffs William Angulo, a minor through his Guardian ad Litem, Joseph Angulo, and Michellyn Russell.

 

RULING: The motion is granted. 

 

SUMMARY OF FACTS & PROCEDURAL HISTORY

 

Plaintiffs Michellyn Russel (Michellyn) and Joseph Angulo (Joseph) filed this action on behalf of themselves and their son Plaintiff William Angulo (William) (collectively, Plaintiffs) against several medical providers, including Defendant Janet Schori, M.D. (Dr. Schori), for professional/medical negligence (alleged on behalf of Michellyn and William) and negligent infliction of emotional distress (alleged on behalf of Michellyn and Joseph) arising out of the care and treatment provided to Michellyn and William during the course of the pregnancy and the birth of William.  (Complaint ¶¶3, 8).  Plaintiffs allege that all of the defendants acted below the standard of care by improperly and negligently providing continuing prenatal care and care associated with the birth of William which resulted in injuries.  (Complaint ¶¶8-9).

 

On 12/6/23, this Court overruled Dr. Schori’s demurrer to the 1st cause of action for professional/medical negligence and sustained with 30 days leave to amend Dr. Schori’s demurrer to the 2nd cause of action for negligent infliction of emotional distress.  (See 12/6/23 Minute Order).  On 12/11/23, 5 days later, Dr. Schori filed an answer to the complaint.  No amended complaint nor dismissal of the 2nd cause of action was filed leaving the status of the 2nd cause of action unclear. 

 

On 5/7/24, Dr. Schori filed and served the instant motion seeking an order granting summary judgment in favor of Defendant Janet Schori, M.D. and against Plaintiffs William Angulo, a minor through his Guardian ad Litem, Joseph Angulo, and Michellyn Russell on the issue of Medical Negligence.  The motion was originally set for hearing on 8/13/24.  On 7/30/24, Plaintiffs’ attorney filed and served a request for a 60-day continuance of the hearing on the motion and for the submission of opposition papers.  On 8/13/24, the request for a continuance was granted and the hearing was continued to 10/23/24.  (See 8/13/24 Minute Order).  At the 8/13/24 hearing, the Court also dismissed the 2nd cause of action without prejudice.  Id.     

On 10/9/24, the Court granted Plaintiffs’ ex parte application for another continuance of the hearing on the motion and continued the hearing to 1/9/25.  (See 10/9/24 Minute Order). 

 

On 12/24/24, Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Non-Opposition to the motion. 

 

ANALYSIS

 

A defendant may move for summary judgment or summary adjudication if it is contended that the cause of action has no merit.  CCP 437c(a).  A cause of action has no merit if: (1) one or more of the elements of the cause of action cannot be separately established, even if that element is separately pleaded, or (2) a defendant establishes an affirmative defense to the cause of action. CCP 437c(o).  The motion shall be granted if all of the papers submitted show that there is no triable issue as to any material fact and that the defendant is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law.  CCP 437c(c).

 

The elements of a cause of action for professional negligence/medical malpractice are: (1) the duty of the professional to use such skill, prudence and diligence as other members of the  profession commonly possess and exercise; (2) 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 negligence.  Banerian (1974) 42 CA3d 604, 611-612.   

 

The standard of care in a medical malpractice action is beyond the knowledge of a layperson and, therefore, must be addressed by a qualified expert.  Landeros (1976) 17 C3d 399; See also Huber, Hunt & Nichols, Inc. (1977) 67 CA3d 278, 313; Wynner (1976) 97 CA3d 166.  When a defendant moves for summary judgment and supports the motion with an expert declaration that the defendant’s conduct fell within the community standard of care, the defendant is entitled to summary judgment unless the plaintiff presents conflicting expert evidence.  Munro (1989) 215 CA3d 977, 984-985.  Additionally, with regard to causation, a plaintiff must prove with a reasonable medical probability, based on competent expert testimony, that a defendant’s negligent conduct was a substantial factor in bringing about (causing) the injury.  Bromme (1992) 5 CA4th 1487, 1498-1499; Dumas 235 CA3d 1593, 1603.

 

Dr. Schori has submitted the expert opinion of James Macer, M.D., an OB/GYN expert, who opines that the care and treatment provided by Dr. Schori to Michellyn complied with the applicable standard of care.  (Separate Statement (SS) 17-23).  Dr. Macer also opines that to a reasonable degree of medical probability, Plaintiffs’ alleged harm was not the result of anything Dr. Schori did or failed to do.  (SS 17-23).

 

Plaintiffs have not submitted any expert opinion to contradict the foregoing opinions of Dr. Macer.  In fact, Plaintiffs have filed a non-opposition to the motion indicating that they do not oppose the instant motion.  (See Notice of Non-Opposition filed 12/24/24).

 

CONCLUSION

 

The motion is granted.