Judge: Ralph C. Hofer, Case: 23GDCV00358, Date: 2025-03-07 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23GDCV00358 Hearing Date: March 7, 2025 Dept: D
TENTATIVE RULING
Calendar: 4
Date: 3/7/2025
Case No: 23 GDCV00358 Trial Date: April 1, 2025
Case Name: Black v. Glendale Adventist Medical Center dba Adventist Health Glendale, et al.
MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION
Moving Party: Defendant Glendale Adventist Medical Center dba Adventist Health Glendale
Responding Party: Plaintiff Jamie Black (No Opposition)
Relief Requested:
Summary adjudication in favor of defendant Glendale Adventist Medical Center dba Adventist Health Glendale of the second cause of action for Violations of EMTALA
Causes of Action from Complaint
1) Professional Negligence
2) Violation of EMTALA, 42 USC Section 13996dd, et seq. *
*Request for Dismissal of the 2nd Cause of Action against defendant Alec Bradleigh Freling, M.D. filed and dismissal entered April 21, 2023.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND:
Plaintiff Jamie Black alleges that in October of 2022, plaintiff, who had a history of depression, bipolar disorder, ADHD and schizophrenia, for which she had previously been placed on several 5150 involuntary psychiatric holds, went for a walk, and a group of people she encountered noticed she was upset and scared and not acting appropriately and asked if she needed an ambulance, to which plaintiff replied in the affirmative.
Plaintiff alleges that paramedics were summoned and she was transported to defendant Glendale Adventist Medical Center dba Adventist Health Center (the Hospital). The complaint alleges that when plaintiff arrived at the Hospital, her vital signs showed she was hypersensitive and tachycardic. While in the emergency room, when asked her name, plaintiff identified several names, which were not her correct name, and plaintiff was also unable to provide a valid social security number. Plaintiff alleges that although attempts were made to take plaintiff’s blood and urine, the attempts were not successful.
Plaintiff alleges that she was eventually seen by defendant Alec Bradleigh Freling, M.D., who diagnosed plaintiff with, among other conditions, psychosis due to methamphetamine use, schizoaffective disorder, and PCP use, and concluded that plaintiff appeared in a psychotic state.
Plaintiff alleges that she was given a dose of haloperidol, medication used to treat psychotic patients, and an injection of lorazepam, an anti-anxiety medication. Plaintiff repeatedly requested that the psychiatrist evaluate her, and a request was entered by Dr. Freling for plaintiff to be seen by a psychiatrist. Dr. Freling later re-evaluated plaintiff, and noted that she would not provide further information to him because he was a male, and had requested to speak with a female behavioral health individual, so that Dr. Freling noted that a female, Tracy, had previously attempted an evaluation during which plaintiff was uncooperative, and that Tracy would attempt to evaluate plaintiff again.
The complaint alleges that plaintiff engaged in behavior such as telling the nursing staff she had been poisoned and requesting an ultrasound because she believed there were drugs inside her uterus, crying loudly, screaming, pulling the curtains on other patient’s beds and screaming and yelling. Plaintiff was asked to write down her social security number, but ultimately said she could not remember it. The complaint alleges that later that evening Dr. Freling noted that Tracy had evaluated plaintiff and that plaintiff had been cleared by the on-call psychiatrist, although there is no record plaintiff was seen or evaluated by a psychiatrist at any time during her presentation. It is alleged that Dr. Freling stated plaintiff was alert and oriented and had normal mood and affect, but there was no physical examination performed at that time to support such a conclusion.
Dr. Freling then indicated that plaintiff would be discharged, and plaintiff requested of the nursing staff that she see someone else, but her request was denied, and she was told to call someone for a ride.
Plaintiff alleges that after some further confusion, plaintiff ultimately called a friend to pick her up, and the nurses escorted plaintiff out of the hospital, essentially throwing her out of the facility, three hours after arriving, when plaintiff had never been seen or evaluated by a psychiatrist, and had never had blood or urine work done.
Plaintiff alleges that after many instances of improper behavior in the car once plaintiff arrived at the friend’s house, plaintiff eventually walked to an overpass above the 15 freeway in Barstow and jumped off the overpass in an attempt to kill herself, as a result of which she suffered serious injuries.
The file shows that on April 21, 2023, plaintiff filed two Requests for Dismissal as to defendant Alec Bradleigh Freling, M.D. One Request was to dismiss the second cause of action only against that defendant, the second was to dismiss the third prayer for relief only. The third prayer for relief in the Complaint seeks, “For legal interest on judgment from the filing of this complaint to the date of judgment.” Both dismissals were entered as requested on April 21, 2023.
On May 17, 2024, the court granted an unopposed motion for summary judgment brought by defendant Dr. Freling, and judgment was entered in Dr. Freling’s favor the same date.
On January 28, 2025, defendant Lukas Alexanian, M.D. filed a Notice of Settlement indicating that plaintiff and defendant Alexanian had entered into a settlement. That same date, defendant filed a notice of application for good faith settlement.
Defendant Glendale Adventist Medical Center dba Adventist Health Glendale now brings this motion for summary adjudication of the second cause of action against it.
ANALYSIS:
Procedural
Motion Set to be Heard Fewer Than 30 Days Before Trial
CCP §437c(a)(3), pertaining to motions for summary judgment, provides, in pertinent part, “The motion shall be heard no later than 30 days before the date of trial, unless the court for good cause orders otherwise.”
Here, the motion is to be heard on March 7, 2025, with a trial date of April 1, 2025, so fewer than thirty days before the date of trial. There is no indication in the file showing moving party has sought or obtained an order permitting an exception based on good cause prior to the filing of the motion, and the moving papers do not attempt to establish good cause.
The 30-day requirement has been held not jurisdictional, since the court for good cause may permit the matter to be heard closer to the trial date. Beroiz v. Wahl (2000) 84 Cal.App.4th 485, 493 n.4. However, in Beroiz, the Second District found that the trial court properly had considered a motion for summary judgment filed in violation of this time deadline because the trial court had determined that the moving parties had stated good cause. There is no attempt to show good cause in the moving papers here, and no factual basis upon which the court may make a finding of good cause.
In Robinson v. Woods (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 1258, 1268, the Second District concluded the trial court had abused its discretion by continuing a noticed hearing for summary judgment which had not been brought on 75 days’ notice for four days, rather than the statutorily required 75 day period, and then deciding at the continued hearing that good cause had been shown for hearing the motion within 30 days of the trial date, and ruling on the motion.
With respect to the 30-day issue, the Second District held:
“A second reason justified plaintiffs' lack of an opposition on the merits and rendered the April 12, 2007 hearing improper. Defendants noticed their motion for hearing within 30 days of the trial date without first obtaining a determination of good cause from the trial court. (See § 437c, subd. (a).) Unless and until the trial court found good cause, the notice of the hearing was invalid. The party opposing a summary judgment motion should not be under an obligation to respond on the merits—and risk wasting its resources—given that the trial court may ultimately decide that good cause does not exist. Nevertheless, as it turned out here, the trial court did eventually find good cause but not until April 16, 2007—when the parties returned to court as instructed. The court proceeded to hear the summary judgment motion at the same hearing. Thus, April 16 did not legally become the hearing date on the motion until that very day. Plaintiffs had no time to prepare an opposition on the merits after the court granted the defendants' request to hear the motion within 30 days of the trial date—another due process violation and abuse of discretion. (See Urshan, supra, 120 Cal.App.4th at pp. 763, 765–766 & fn. 12, 15 Cal.Rptr.3d 839; see also Matera v. McLeod, supra, 145 Cal.App.4th at pp. 61–62, 51 Cal.Rptr.3d 331; In re Brendan P., supra, 184 Cal.App.3d at pp. 914–916, 230 Cal.Rptr. 720.) Finally, we see no reason why plaintiffs should be forced to seek a continuance of the trial to remedy defendants' mistake in setting the hearing within 30 days of the trial date absent prior court permission.” Robinson, at 1268, italics in original.
Based on Robinson, Weil & Brown observe that in connection with the 30-day cut off before the date set for trial, the “court must make separate order finding ‘good cause’ before motion filed.” The Rutter Group California Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial, section 10:71, italics in original.
Here, the matter is in a posture where there has been no finding of good cause sought or obtained by moving defendant to address the invalidity of the hearing date set for March 7, 2025, which is within thirty days of the April 1, 2025 trial date. It can be inferred from the lack of timely opposition filed in connection with the motion that plaintiff reasonably believed plaintiff had no obligation to respond to the motion based on this clear procedural defect, and a lack of any attempt by defendant to obtain an order which might have resulted in a valid hearing date being established. In any case, plaintiff in fact had no obligation to respond to the motion improperly set to be heard, and there has been no valid hearing date established here, or an opportunity for plaintiff to then respond to the motion.
The motion accordingly is denied for failure of defendant to comply with CCP §437c(a)(3), as the motion was not set to be heard, and cannot now be heard, no later than 30 days before the date of trial.
RULING:
[No Opposition]
Defendant Glendale Adventist Medical Center dba Adventist Health Glendale’s Motion for Summary Adjudication is DENIED. The motion was not noticed to be heard no later than 30 days before the date of trial, as required under CCP § §437c(a)(3), and no order based on a finding of good cause has been sought or obtained from the court.
DEPARTMENT D IS CONTINUING TO CONDUCT AND ENCOURAGE
VIDEO APPEARANCES
Please make arrangement in advance if you wish to appear via LACourtConnect by visiting www.lacourt.org to schedule a remote appearance. Please note that LACourtConnect offers free audio and video appearances. Department D is now requiring either live or VIDEO appearances, not audio appearances. Please note that in the case of video appearances, ADVANCE REGISTRATION IS REQUIRED.
If no appearance is set up through LACourtConnect, or no appearance is otherwise made, then the Court will assume the parties are submitting on the tentative.
