Judge: Sarah J. Heidel, Case: 23GDCV00513, Date: 2025-01-14 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23GDCV00513    Hearing Date: January 14, 2025    Dept: V

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES – NORTHEAST DISTRICT

DEPARTMENT V

ELOISE FERRER and PATRICK FERRER, Plaintiff, vs. ADVENTIST HEALTH GLENDALE, and DOES 1 to 10, Defendants. Case No.: 23GDCV00513 Hearing Date: January 14, 2025 Time: 8:30 a.m. [TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: MOTION FOR AN ORDER DEEMING DEFENDANT’S REQEUST FOR ASMISSIONS ON PLAINTIFFS ELOISE FERRER AND PATRICK FERRER ADMITTED; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS AGAISNT PLAINTIFFS

MOVING PARTIES: Defendant GLENDALE ADVENTIST MEDICAL CENTER

RESPONDING PARTY: Unopposed

The court considered the moving papers.

BACKGROUND

This is a wrongful death claim. Plaintiffs Eloise Ferrer (Eloise) and Patrick Ferrer (Patrick) filed the complaint on March 13, 2024, against defendant Glendale Adventist Medical Center dba Adventist Health Glendale. Plaintiffs filed the first amended complaint on May 5, 2023. Plaintiffs allege negligence against defendant Adventist Health Glendale. Plaintiffs filed Amendments to Complaint to identify Does 1 through 9 as defendants Christy Leigh Doliney, MD; Frederick Boghossian, MD; Leo M. Schum, MD; Laszlo Z. Galffy, MD; James C. Wu; Deon We Jin Lau, MD; Sam F. Daneshvair, MD; Denis Hyun Son, MD; and Ali Mehdizadeh, MD on July 24, 2024.

Plaintiffs allege that on March 6, 2022, plaintiffs’ mother Evangelina Ferrer (decedent) was transported and admitted to defendant Glendale Adventist Medical Center (GAMC). Instead of decedent receiving her dialysis treatment the next day, defendant GAMC’s doctors ordered and scheduled paracentesis and esophagogastroduodenoscopy examinations to take place March 8, 2022. During the paracentesis procedure, decedent went into acute hemorrhagic shock, went into critical condition as a result of severe blood loss. On March 9, 2022, decedent died. Plaintiffs allege defendants owed a duty to plaintiff to provide a standard of care in its treatment that did not create an unreasonable risk of negligence or harm to decedent and that this duty of care was breached which resulted in decedent’s death.

Defendant filed the instant motions on December 17, 2024. No oppositions have been received.

LEGAL STANDARD

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.280, subdivision (b), a “party may move for an order that the genuineness of any documents and the truth of any matters specified in the requests be deemed admitted, as well as for a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with section 2023.010).” The court “shall” grant the motion to deem requests for admission admitted “unless it finds that the party to whom the requests for admission have been directed has served, before the hearing on the motion, a proposed response to the requests for admission that is in substantial compliance with Section 2033.220.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.280(c).) “It is mandatory that the court impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) on the party or attorney, or both, whose failure to serve a timely response to requests for admission necessitated this motion.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280(c).)

DISCUSSION

A. Request for Admissions

Defendant propounded its Requests for Admission (Set Two) on plaintiffs on October 29, 2024. (Martino Decl., ¶ 4; Exh. A.) Responses were due by December 2, 2024, since the requests were served by email. Plaintiffs failed to serve responses or request an extension, so defendant’s counsel sent a meet and confer email on December 4, 2024, requesting plaintiffs provide responses without objection by December 11, 2024. (Martino Decl., ¶ 5-6; Exh. B.) On December 10, 2024, plaintiffs’ counsel emailed defense counsel indicating that he was attaching verified responses to the requests, however the documents attached were unsigned, unverified, and unanswered. (Martino Decl., ¶ 8; Exhs. C, D.)

The court finds that defendant properly served Requests for Admission (Set Two) and plaintiffs failed to serve verified responses. Accordingly, the court finds that defendant is entitled to an order deeming the truth of matters admitted in its Requests for Admission (Set Two) served on plaintiffs.

B. Sanctions

Defendant requests sanctions against plaintiffs and their counsel of record, Jance Weberman, Esq. in the amount of $1,140.00 per motion. The court finds that sanctions are warranted, but reduces the amount requested because the motion is unopposed. The court grants sanctions in the amount of $600.00 (2hrs. at $270.00/hr. plus $60.00 in filing fees) per motion for a total of $1,200.00 against plaintiffs and their counsel of record, Jance Weberman, Esq.

Based on the foregoing, the court GRANTS defendant’s motion and deems the matters within defendant’s Requests for Admission (Set Two) as true against plaintiffs Eloise Ferrer and Patrick Ferrer.

The court awards sanctions against plaintiff Eloise Ferrer and her counsel of record Jance Weberman, Esq. in the amount of $600.00 and against plaintiff Patrick Ferrer and his counsel of record, Jance Weberman, Esq. in the amount of $600.00. The court orders plaintiffs and their

counsel of record to pay the sanctions to Kjar, McKenna & Stockalper LLP within 20 days notice of this motion.

Defendant is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

IT IS SO ORDERED.