Judge: Michael Shultz, Case: 24STCV04009, Date: 2025-05-22 Tentative Ruling

DEPARTMENT 40 - MICHAEL J. SHULTZ  - LAW AND MOTION RULINGS
The Court issues tentative rulings on certain motions.The tentative ruling will not become the final ruling until the hearing [see CRC 3.1308(a)(2)]. If the parties wish to submit on the tentative ruling and avoid a court appearance, all counsel must agree and choose which counsel will give notice. That counsel must 1) email Dept 40 by 8:30 a.m. on the day of the hearing (smcdept40@lacourt.org) with a copy to the other party(ies) and state that all parties will submit on the tentative ruling, and 2) serve notice of the ruling on all parties. If any party declines to submit on the tentative ruling, then no email is necessary and all parties should appear at the hearing in person or by Court Call. 

Case Number: 24STCV04009    Hearing Date: May 22, 2025    Dept: 40

24STCV04009 Leo David Tumanyan et al. v. USC Care Medical Group, Inc., et al.

[TENTATIVE] ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR ALTERNATIVELY, FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION BY DEFENDANTS, JOON CHOI, M.D.; JOON CHOI, APC, AND SOCAL OBGYN ASSOCIATES

                                                                                         I.         BACKGROUND

      The complaint alleges that Defendants were negligent in providing medical care to Plaintiff, Lilit Tumanyan, while she was pregnant with Plaintiff, Leo David Tumanyan. Plaintiff alleges claims for wrongful birth, wrongful life, and for professional negligence.

                                                                                          II.        ARGUMENTS

      Defendants argue they are entitled to a ruling in their favor because Defendants’ conduct complied with the standard of care and no negligent act or omission caused the alleged injuries. Plaintiffs filed a notice of non-opposition to the motion.          

                                                                                  III.       LEGAL STANDARDS

      Summary judgment is proper “if all the papers submitted show that the material facts are undisputed and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c subd. (c).) The moving party’s burden is to show that based on the undisputed facts “one or more elements of the cause of action, even if not separately pleaded, cannot be established, or that there is a complete defense to the cause of action." (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c subd. (p)(2).) If that threshold burden is met, the burden shifts to the opposing party to show a triable issue of one or more material facts. (Code Civ. Proc., §437c(p)(1).)

      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, [or] that there is no merit to a claim for [punitive] damages.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c subd. (f)(1).) A motion for summary adjudication shall be granted only if it completely disposes of a cause of action, an affirmative defense, a claim for damages, or an issue of duty. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c. subd.(f)(1).)

      The court applies the three-step analysis to motions for summary judgment or adjudication: (1) identify the issues framed by the pleading, (2) determine whether the moving party established facts which negate the opponents’ claim, (3) if the moving party meets its threshold burden of persuasion and the burden shifts, determine whether the opposing party has controverted those facts with admissible evidence. (Torres v. Reardon (1992) 3 Cal.App.4th 831, 836.)

                                                                                                IV.       DISCUSSION

      The complaint alleges that Joon Choi, M.D., and his corporation own, manage, controls, and directs SoCal Obgyn Associates. (Complaint, ¶ 10-13.)          

      All claims are based on the alleged negligence of Defendants in providing medical care to Plaintiffs. The required standard of care owed by a medical professional and whether such care caused the plaintiff’s injuries are matters peculiarly within the knowledge of experts and can only be proven by their testimony. (Hanson v. Grode (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 601, 606–607; Landeros v. Flood (1976) 17 Cal.3d 399, 410; Jones v. Ortho Pharm. Corp. (1985) 163 Cal.App.3d 396, 402.) Defendants submit the declaration of their expert, Lennard Joel Kessler, M.D.

      As Plaintiffs have not filed an opposition, the course of care Defendants provided to Plaintiffs prenatally and through the birth of Leo Tumanyan and shortly thereafter is undisputed. (UF 1-18, 20-24). The obstetrical care provided by Dr. Choi to Ms. Tumanyan

complied with the standard of care. (UF 19, 27-33.) The care provided by Dr. Choi did not cause injury to Plaintiffs. (UF 34-35.)

      Once Defendants have met their burden of proof, the burden shifts to Plaintiffs to proffer evidence controverting the material facts. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c(p)(2).  The absence of opinion evidence on the issues of breach of the standard of care and causation are fatal to Plaintiffs’ claims. (Jambazian v. Borden (1994) 25 Cal.App.4th 836, 844.) Accordingly, the Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED.