Judge Sarah J. Heidel, Case Number: 23GDCV02293, Date: 2024-12-02 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Sarah J. Heidel, Case: 23GDCV02293, Date: 2024-12-02 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23GDCV02293 Hearing Date: December 2, 2024 Dept: V

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES – NORTHEAST DISTRICT

DEPARTMENT V

HONORATO ALTAMIRANO TORRES, by and through his Guardian ad Litem, Roberto Ayala,

Plaintiff,

vs.

LAC VERDUGO OPERATIONS, LLC dba GLENDALE POST ACUTE CENTER; CAMBRIDGE HEALTHCARE SERVICES, LLC; and DOES 1 through 100.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 23GDCV02293

Hearing Date: October 15, 202

Time: 8:30 a.m.

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE PROPOUNDED ON CAMBRIDGE HEALTHCARE SERVICES, LLC

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff HONORATO ALTAMIRANO TORRES, by and through his Guardian Ad Litem, Roberto Ayala

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant LAC VERDUGO OPERATIONS, LLC, dba LLC GLENDALE POST ACUTE CENTER

The court considered the moving papers, Opposition, and Reply.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Honorato Altamirano Torres (plaintiff), by and through his Guardian Ad Litem, Roberto Ayala, filed the complaint against defendants LAC Verdugo Operations, LLC dba Glendale Post Acute Center and Cambridge Healthcare Services, LLC on October 30, 2023. Defendant Cambridge Healthcare Services, LLC is the operator of the facility located at 250 N Verdugo Road, Glendale, California 91206, defendant LAC Verdugo Operations, LLC dba Glendale Post Acute Center (facility). Plaintiff alleges elder abuse and neglect, violation of residents’ bill of rights, and negligence against defendants. Plaintiff was born on February 16, 1947, and was approximately 76 years of age during the events from which this case arises. On April 25, 2023, plaintiff was hospitalized due to progressing dementia and was a high risk for falls. On April 29, 2023, plaintiff was discharged from the hospital in stable condition and transferred to defendants’ facility. On April 30, 2023, plaintiff was admitted to defendants’ facility with a diagnosis of metabolic encephalopathy, history of cerebrovascular accident, difficulty walking, muscle atrophy, dementia, anxiety, hypertension, and a history of falling. During his time at the facility, plaintiff experienced two unsupervised falls. Plaintiff alleges that the facility did not perform neurological checks for the 72 hours following those falls as per the facility’s policy. Plaintiff also alleged the facility staff failed to implement fall prevention measures, assess plaintiff’s risk for falls, nor did the facility create any care plans for plaintiff’s risk for falls. Plaintiff alleges that after the second fall, his condition deteriorated which defendants’ staff failed to acknowledge. Plaintiff’s physician ordered that plaintiff be transferred to the emergency room due to encephalopathy, lethargy, and decline in activity on June 5, 2023. On June 6, 2023, plaintiff was intubated and had an orogastric tube and Foley catheter placed. He also underwent bilateral frontal craniotomy and evacuation the hematoma with drains. By June 11, 2023, plaintiff’s condition improved but was dependent on others to feed him. On June 17, 2023, plaintiff was stable and discharged to a skilled nursing facility, College Vista Post Acute. Plaintiff alleges that after his falls and head injuries he has not regained his ability to ambulate with a walker nor returned to prior levels of functioning. On June 21, 2023, the California Department of Public Health issued a deficiency based on findings that the facility failed to conduct neurological assessments pursuant to facility’s policy after plaintiff’s fall. Plaintiff filed the instant motion on July 26, 2024. Plaintiff filed an amended notice on November 15, 2024. Defendant LAC Verdugo Operations, LLC dba Glendale Post Acute Center (defendant) filed the opposition on November 15, 2024. Plaintiff filed his reply on November 20, 2024.

LEGAL STANDARD

With respect to requests for production of documents there are three appropriate responses: (1) a statement that the party will comply with the request; (2) a statement of inability to comply; or (3) an objection. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.210(a).) The requesting party may move for an order compelling further responses to request for production of documents if any of the following apply: (1) a statement of compliance with the demand is incomplete; (2) a representation of inability to comply is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive; or (3) an objection in the response is without merit or too general. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310(a).) The motion must be filed within 45 days from verified responses, supplemental responses, or a specific later date agreed to in writing (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310(c).) Failure to make motion within the specified period constitutes waiver of right to compel a further response. (Sexton v. Superior Court (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1410.) The time period is mandatory and jurisdictional in the sense that it renders the Court without authority to rule on motions to compel other than to deny them. (Id.) The motion shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Code of Civil Procedure section 2016.040. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310(b)(2).) The purpose of the meet and confer requirement is to encourage the parties to make serious effort to work out differences informally and avoid a need for a formal order. (Stewart v. Colonial Western Agency, Inc. (2001) 87 Cal. App. 4th 1006, 1016.) Under Rule of Court 3.1345, the movant must submit a separate statement along with the motion to compel further responses. The movant must include specific facts showing good cause justifying further responses. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310(b)(1).)

DISCUSSION

A. Timeliness

Defendant served its responses on April 1, 2024, but without verifications. (Decl. of Ayman Mourad, ¶ 3; Exh. B.) Berifications were provided on May 22, 2024. (Decl. of Ayman Mourad, ¶ 6; Exh. E.) On July 8, 2024, defendant’s counsel agreed to an extension for the motion to compel deadline to July 26, 2024. (Decl. of Ayman Mourad, ¶ 8; Exh. G.) Because defendant agreed to an extension for the filing of the motion to compel further, and plaintiff filed the motion by the deadline, plaintiff’s motion is timely.

B. Meet and Confer

Plaintiff’s counsel sent a meet and confer letter on May 1, 2024, requesting further responses and verifications. (Decl. of Ayman Mourad, ¶ 4; Exh. C.) On May 7, 2024, the parties met and conferred via telephone agreeing that defendant would provide further responses, verifications, and/or a response to the meet and confer letter by May 22, 2024. (Decl. of Ayman Mourad, ¶ 5; Exh. D.) On May 22, 2024, defendant sent verifications, but no further responses. (Decl. of Ayman Mourad, ¶ 6; Exh. E.) Plaintiff’s counsel agreed to a one-week extension for the discovery to June 10, 2024. (Decl. of Ayman Mourad, ¶ 7; Exh. F.) Plaintiff fulfilled the meet and confer requirement.

C. Requests for Production of Documents

Plaintiff requests further responses to Requests for Production of Documents nos. 1, 3, and 4. Defendant argues that the motion is moot because defendant provide further verified responses on November 13, 2024, and all responsive documents have been produced. Jeffrey S. Healey, ¶ 2; Exh. A.) Plaintiff argues that the motion is not moot because defendant only provided the further responses after plaintiff filed the instant motion. The court agrees that the motion is moot. Defendant provided further responses, and those responses agree to produce the requested documents.

Sanctions

Plaintiff requests $1,160.00 in sanctions. A request for sanctions must, “in the notice of motion, identify every person, party, and attorney against whom the sanction is sought, and specify the type of sanction sought. The notice of motion shall be supported by a memorandum of points and authorities, and accompanied by a declaration setting forth facts supporting the amount of any monetary sanction sought.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.040.) Plaintiff’s initial notice simply states the amount of sanctions he seeks, but fails to identify every person, party, and attorney against whom the sanction is sought. Plaintiff attempted to remedy this by filing an amended notice that identified the monetary sanctions requested are against defendant LAC Verdugo Operations, LLC dba Glendale Post Acute Center. However, this amended notice was filed on November 15, 2024, nine court days before the hearing date. Proper notice requires sixteen court days plus two calendar days for service of the notice by email. (Code Civ. Proc., 1005(b).) The amended notice is not timely, and plaintiff’s request for sanctions is denied.

Defendant requests sanctions in the amount of $1,175.00 against plaintiff because defendant had to oppose and attend the hearing on the moot motion. However, this motion is only moot because defendant provided further responses and document production after plaintiff filed the motion. Accordingly, sanctions against plaintiff are not warranted.

Based on the foregoing, the court DENIES plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to request for production of documents as moot.

The court DENIES plaintiff’s request for sanctions.

The court DENIES defendant’s request for sanctions.