Judge: Michelle Williams Court, Case: 21STCV37889, Date: 2024-08-15 Tentative Ruling

If you wish to submit on the tentative ruling, please email
the clerk at SMCdept1@lacourt.org (and “cc” all other parties in the same
email) no later than 7:30 am on the day of the hearing, and please notify all
other parties in advance that you will not be appearing at the hearing.  Include the word "SUBMISSION" in
all caps in the subject line and include your name, contact information, the
case number, and the party you represent in the body of the email. If you
submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing
party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the motion, and the
Court may decide not to adopt the tentative ruling.

Case Number: 21STCV37889    Hearing Date: August 15, 2024    Dept: 1

21STCV37889           VALERIE LATHERN vs AIRPORT CENTER DENTAL FAMILY

Defendants Joseph Sabet & Airport Center Family Dental’s Unopposed Motion to Deem Cases Related & Request to Transfer to Proper Venue

TENTATIVE RULING:  Defendants Joseph Sabet & Airport Center Family Dental’s Motion to Deem Cases Related & Request to Transfer to Proper Venue is GRANTED, in part. Department 1 relates 21STCV37889 and 24TRCV00388 and orders 24TRCV00388 reassigned to Department T of the Alhambra Courthouse for all purposes. All hearings currently set in civil law case 24TRCV00388 are hereby advanced and vacated.  Defendants’ request to reassign the related cases to the Central District is DENIED.  Moving party to give notice. 

Background of 21STCV37889 Lathern v. Airport Center Dental Family

On October 14, 2021, Plaintiff Valerie Lathern filed this action for medical malpractice against Airport Center Dental Family and Joseph Sabet, D.D.S. arising out of a root canal procedure.

On March 14, 2024, Sabet Dental Corporation filed a Notice of Related Case involving 21STCV37889 and 24TRCV00388 Sabet Dental v. Lathern. The court stamped the document with “Denied- The Inglewood filing is not Personal Injury and cannot be heard in the Hub.”

On May 13, 2024, Sabet Dental filed a new Notice of Related Case. On May 31, 2024, Judge Ian C. Fusselman declined to relate the two cases, finding they “are not related within the meaning of California Rules of Court, rule 3.300(a).”

On June 12, 2024, the parties submitted a stipulation to relate the two cases and transfer them to the Inglewood Courthouse. On July 17, 2024, Judge Fusselman issued an order on denying the stipulation finding “Case Numbers 21STCV37889 and 24TRCV00388 are not related.”

This case is currently pending in Department T of the Alhambra Courthouse with trial set for October 28, 2024.

Background of 24TRCV00388 Sabet Dental v. Lathern

On February 2, 2024, Sabet Dental Corporation dba Airport Center Family Dental sued Valerie Lathern in 24TRCV00388 asserting causes of action for: (1) breach of contract; (2) promissory fraud; (3) quantum meruit; and (4) declaratory relief. The complaint alleges Lathern received dental treatment from 2008 through April 2021 and “consistently made assurances and promises to Sabet that she would settle her outstanding bills for the dental services provided.” However, Lathern allegedly failed to pay for the dental services rendered.

This case is currently pending in Department 8 of the Inglewood Courthouse with the case management conference set for August 30, 2024.

Request for Judicial Notice

Defendants request the Court take judicial notice of various court documents filed in the two actions. The requests are GRANTED. (Evid. Code § 452(d).)

Motion to Relate Cases

Standard

In the event that the pertinent judge under California Rules of Court, rule 3.300(h)(1) does not relate any of the cases set forth in a Notice of Related Case, Department 1 may relate the matters on noticed motion. (Cal. R. Ct., rule 3.300(h)(1)(D); LASC Local Rules, rule 3.3(f)(3).)

The Court Finds the Cases Are Related

As noted above, Judge Fusselman issued an order declining to relate 21STCV37889 and 24TRCV00388 on May 31, 2024. Accordingly, the motion is properly brought in Department 1. (Cal. R. Ct., rule 3.300(h)(1)(D), LASC Local Rule 3.3(f)(3).)  

Defendants contend the cases involve the same parties, arise from the same or substantially identical transactions, incidents, and events, “the factual nexus between the cases is evident,” and the cases will require a substantial duplication of judicial resources if heard by different judges. (Mot. at 9:2-19.)

Cases are related when they (1) involve the same parties and are based on the same or similar claims, (2) arise from the same or substantially identical transactions, incidents, or events requiring the determination of the same or substantially identical questions of law or fact, (3) involve claims against, title to, possession of, or damages to the same property, or (4) are likely for other reasons to require substantial duplication of judicial resources if heard by different judges. (Cal. R. Ct., rule 3.300(a).)

The cases do not involve the same parties as Joseph Sabet is not a party to 24TRCV00388. (Cal. R. Ct., rule 3.300(a)(1).) However, the cases arise from the same or substantially identical transactions, incidents, or events requiring the determination of the same or substantially identical questions of law or fact, (Cal. R. Ct., rule 3.300(a)(2)), and are likely to require substantial duplication of judicial resources if heard by different judges. (Cal. R. Ct., rule 3.300(a)(4).)

In 21STCV37889, Lathern alleges Defendants committed malpractice during the course of a root canal performed at Airport Center Family Dental and in 24TRCV00388 Defendants seek to recover for unpaid services, including root canals. The reasonable value of the services rendered by Defendants may be influenced by whether their services met the standard of care, and the parties’ claims may serve as an offset. Additionally, on June 7, 2024, Valerie Lathern filed an answer in 24TRCV00388, which asserted a general denial and a single affirmative defense that “incorporates by reference her complaint and the allegations set forth against Airport Center Family Dental and Joseph Sabet.” Accordingly, the complaint in 21STCV37889 has been expressly incorporated into 24TRCV00388.

The Court finds 21STCV37889 and 24TRCV00388 are related within the meaning of California Rules of Court, rule 3.300.

Motion to Transfer Between Districts

Standard

The Local Rules of the Los Angeles Superior Court govern the assignment of cases between its districts and departments. (Code Civ. Proc. § 402.) LASC Local Rule 2.3(b)(2) authorizes Department 1 to transfer civil cases from one judicial district to another via a noticed motion on three enumerated grounds: (1) when the case was filed in an improper district; (2) for the convenience of witnesses; or (3) to promote the ends of justice. (LASC Local Rule 2.3(b)(2).)

Because the same language appears in both LASC Local Rule 2.3(b)(2) and Code of Civil Procedure section 397(c), Department 1 applies the case authority related to Section 397. Accordingly, a party acting under the authority of Los Angeles Superior Court Local Rule 2.3(b)(2) bears the same burden of proof if it seeks a district transfer. (See Lieberman v. Superior Court (1987) 194 Cal.App.3d 396, 401.) That burden of proof calls for affidavits that contain more than generalities and conclusions. (See Hamilton v Superior Court (1974) 37 Cal. App.3d 418, 424.) Such affidavits or declarations, like those for change of venue under Code Civ. Proc. section 397(c), should show the name of each witness, the expected testimony of each witness, and facts showing why the attendance of said witnesses at trial would be inconvenient or why the ends of justice would be served by a transfer. (See Stute v. Burinda (1981) 123 Cal. App. 3d Supp. 11, 17.) Convenience to non-party witnesses alone is the key to the success of the motion, and not the convenience of parties or employees of parties. (Ibid.)

The Cases Shall be Assigned to Department T in the Alhambra Courthouse

Defendants’ motion also requests the cases be assigned to the Stanley Mosk Courthouse in the Central District. (Mot. at 8:3-17; 10:6-11:15.) When two unlimited civil cases are related, they are assigned to the department with the earliest filed case, which is Department T of the Alhambra Courthouse. (See Cal. R. Ct., rule 3.300(h)(1).)

Defendants cite Code of Civil Procedure sections 397(a), 396(b)(a), and 395.5 to argue the Alhambra Courthouse is an improper venue. (Mot. at 10:10-11:6.) However, these sections of the Code of Civil Procedure govern transfers between superior courts, not different districts within one superior court. The Los Angeles Superior Court is only one court. (See generally Glade v. Glade (1995) 38 Cal.App.4th 1441, 1449 (“Even though a superior court is divided into branches or departments, pursuant to California Constitution, article VI, section 4, there is only one superior court in a county and jurisdiction is therefore vested in that court, not in any particular judge or department. Whether sitting separately or together, the judges hold but one and the same court.”).) Local Rule 2.3 governs the assignment and transfer of cases between districts of the Los Angeles Superior Court. (Code Civ. Proc. § 402; LASC Local Rule 2.3.)

While Defendants cite Local Rule 2.3(b), (Mot. at 8:3-17), the motion does not demonstrate either case was initially filed in an improper district or that a transfer is warranted either for the convenience of witnesses or to promote the ends of justice. Defendants did not meet their burden and the request to transfer the actions to the Central District is DENIED.

The now related cases shall be assigned to Department T in the Alhambra Courthouse.