Judge: Michael P. Linfield, Case: 22STCV32439, Date: 2023-08-04 Tentative Ruling

The Court often posts its tentative several days in advance of the hearing. Please re-check the tentative rulings the day before the hearing to be sure that the Court has not revised the ruling since the time it was posted.

Please call the clerk at (213) 633-0154 by 4:00 pm. the court day before the hearing if you wish to submit on the tentative.

Case Number: 22STCV32439    Hearing Date: January 19, 2024    Dept: 34

SUBJECT:        Motion for Summary Judgment

Moving Party: Defendant Martin Luther King Jr. – Los Angeles (MLK-LA) Healthcare Corporation

Resp. Party:    None

The Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED.

Summary judgment is GRANTED in favor of Defendant and against Plaintiff (in her individual capacity) on all causes of action in the First Amended Complaint. 

PRELIMINARY COMMENTS:

        It appears to the Court that Plaintiff has abandoned her case. Although originally represented by counsel, the Court granted then-counsel’s unopposed motion to be relieved on August 4, 2023.  Plaintiff did not oppose Defendant’s two discovery motions that were granted on September 11, 2023.  She also failed to appear at the hearing on these motions.  Plaintiff did not oppose Defendant’s motion to compel discovery that was granted on September 12, 2023, nor did she appear at the hearing on the motion.  Plaintiff did not oppose Defendant’s Motion for Terminating Sanctions or Defendant’s two other discovery motions that were granted on December 18, 2023. She also failed to appear at the hearing on these motions.  Lastly, she has failed to oppose this Motion for Summary Judgment.

        As the Court stated in both its September 11, 2023 and September 12, 2023 Minute Orders:

This Court understands that, to the pro per litigant, “interrogatories, requests for admissions, law and motion proceedings, and the like” are “baffling devices.”  (Bruno v. Superior Court (1990) 219 Cal.App.3d 1359, 1363, quoting Burley v. Stein (1974) 40 Cal.App.3d 752, 755, fn. 3.)  The Court is also understands that “Providing access to justice for self-represented litigants is a priority for California courts.”  (California Rules of Court, rule 10.960, subdivision (b).)

Nonetheless, “A party proceeding in propria persona ‘is to be treated like any other party and is entitled to the same, but no greater[,] consideration than other litigants and attorneys.’” (Rappleyea v. Campbell (1994) 8 Cal.4th 975, 985.) Indeed, “‘the in propria persona litigant is held to the same restrictive rules of procedure as an attorney.’” [Citation.]” (First American Title Co. v. Mirzaian (2003) 108 Cal.App.4th 956, 958, fn. 1; see also Nwosu v. Uba (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 1229, 1246-1247.)

BACKGROUND:

On October 4, 2022, Plaintiff Fatimah Muhammad filed her Complaint against Defendant Martin Luther King Jr. Healthcare Corporation, as well as against Nominal Defendants Hakimah Muhammad and Habeeb Muhammad. The causes of action sound in elder abuse, negligence, negligent hiring and supervision, fraud, and wrongful death. Plaintiff Fatimah Muhammad concurrently filed her Declaration as successor in interest pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 377.32.

On December 29, 2022, Plaintiff filed her First Amended Complaint (FAC).

On January 31, 2023, Defendant Martin Luther King Jr. Healthcare Corporation (“Defendant”) filed its Answer to the FAC.

On February 7, 2023, by request of Plaintiff, the Clerk’s Office dismissed without prejudice the fourth cause of action for fraud from the FAC.

On August 4, 2023, the Court granted Plaintiff’s Counsel’s motion to be relieved as counsel.

On September 11 and 12, 2023, the Court granted Defendant’s discovery motions, in which the Court deemed admitted certain requests for admission and compelled Plaintiff to provide initial responses to form interrogatories, special interrogatories, and requests for production of documents.

On October 31, 2023, Defendant filed its Motion for Summary Judgment. In support of its Motion for Summary Judgment, Defendant concurrently filed: (1) Separate Statement; (2) Proposed Order; (3) Proposed Judgment; and (4) Proof of Service.

On December 18, 2023, the Court dismissed Plaintiff (in her capacity as successor-in-interest on behalf of Tauheedah Salaam) from the FAC. The Court also granted two unopposed discovery motions and kept on calendar the Motion for Summary Judgment as to Plaintiff (in her individual capacity). 

No oppositions or other responses have been filed to the Motion for Summary Judgment. 

ANALYSIS:

I.          Legal Standard

“A party may move for summary judgment in an action or proceeding if it is contended that the action has no merit or that there is no defense to the action or proceeding. The motion may be made at any time after 60 days have elapsed since the general appearance in the action or proceeding of each party against whom the motion is directed or at any earlier time after the general appearance that the court, with or without notice and upon good cause shown, may direct.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (1)(a).)

“[T]he party moving for summary judgment bears the burden of persuasion that there is no triable issue of fact and that he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. That is because of the general principle that a party who seeks a court’s action in his favor bears the burden of persuasion thereon. There is a triable issue of material fact if, and only if, the evidence would allow a reasonable trier of fact to find the underlying fact in favor of the party opposing the motion in accordance with the applicable standard of proof.” (Aguilar v. Atl. Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 850, citation omitted.)

“[T]he party moving for summary judgment bears an initial burden of production to make a prima facie showing of the nonexistence of any triable issue of material fact; if he carries his burden of production, he causes a shift, and the opposing party is then subjected to a burden of production of his own to make a prima facie showing of the existence of a triable issue of material fact.” (Aguilar, supra, at p. 850; Smith v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (2005) 135 Cal.App.4th 1463, 1474, [applying the summary judgment standards in Aguilar to motions for summary adjudication].)

“On a summary judgment motion, the court must therefore consider what inferences favoring the opposing party a factfinder could reasonably draw from the evidence. While viewing the evidence in this manner, the court must bear in mind that its primary function is to identify issues rather than to determine issues. Only when the inferences are indisputable may the court decide the issues as a matter of law. If the evidence is in conflict, the factual issues must be resolved by trial.” (Binder v. Aetna Life Ins. Co. (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 832, 839, citation omitted.)

“The trial court may not weigh the evidence in the manner of a fact finder to determine whose version is more likely true. Nor may the trial court grant summary judgment based on the court's evaluation of credibility.” (Binder, supra, at p. 840, citations omitted; see also Weiss v. People ex rel. Dep’t of Transp. (2020) 9 Cal.5th 840, 864 [“Courts deciding motions for summary judgment or summary adjudication may not weigh the evidence but must instead view it in the light most favorable to the opposing party and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of that party”].)

“On a motion for summary adjudication, the trial court has no discretion to exercise. If a triable issue of material fact exists as to the challenged causes of action, the motion must be denied. If there is no triable issue of fact, the motion must be granted.” (Fisherman's Wharf Bay Cruise Corp. v. Super. Ct. (2003) 114 Cal.App.4th 309, 320, citation omitted.)

II.       Discussion

Defendant moves the Court for summary judgment against Plaintiff, who remains in this matter in her individual capacity. (Motion for Summary Judgment, p. 12:3–4.)

Defendant argues: (1) that the care and treatment provided by Defendant’s medical and nursing personnel complied with the standard of care and did not substantially cause Plaintiff’s alleged damages; and (2) that the undisputed expert evidence conclusively refutes any allegation of neglect or abuse of Plaintiff by Defendant. (Motion for Summary Judgment, p. 11:1–3, 11:18–19.)

 Plaintiff, who is litigating this matter in propria persona, has not opposed or otherwise responded to the Motion for Summary Judgment. Thus, it appears Plaintiff is not contesting the arguments in the Motion for Summary Judgment.

        Upon considering the evidence submitted, the Court determines that Defendant has met its initial burden on summary judgment to show that there are no triable issues of material fact. Plaintiff has not met her subsequent burden. Therefore, summary judgment is appropriate here.

III.     Conclusion

The Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED.

Summary judgment is GRANTED in favor of Defendant and against Plaintiff (in her individual capacity) on all causes of action in the First Amended Complaint.