Case Number: BC615917??? Hearing Date: July 28, 2016??? Dept: 1
#2 ? Unanyan v. Woodland Care Center LLC, et al. (BC 615 917)
(1) Providence?s Motion to Transfer
Defendant Providence Health System – Southern California, dba Providence Holy Cross Medical Center (?Providence?)?s motion to transfer the case from the Central District to the North Valley District (Chatsworth courthouse), originally filed on May 18, 2016 and reserved for hearing on June 16, 2016, was later continued to June 30, 2016. Notice of continuance was filed on June 1, 2016 and served on May 31, 2016. At the June 30, 2016 hearing, the matter was continued to this hearing date. On June 30, 2016 notice of the continuance was filed and served on plaintiff Dikran Unanyan and defendants Barlow Respiratory Hospital and Woodland Care Center, LLC dba Woodland Care Center, with an amended notice filed on July 13, 2016 and served on July 12, 2016. To date, however, there is only proof that the motion itself was served on Dikran Unanyan, the plaintiff. (See omnibus proof of service filed June 1, 2016 as well as notices of continuances cited above.) No proof of service has established that the motion itself was served on co-defendant Barlow Respiratory Hospital or co-defendant Woodland Care Center, LLC dba Woodland Care Center; however, as Woodland Care Center filed a notice of joinder on July 18, 2016, the court will presume that service was in fact properly effected.
In its motion, Providence argues that venue in the North Valley District is proper because this case arises from medical care provided to Plaintiff at Providence?s facility in Mission Hills and co-defendant Woodland Care Center?s facility in Reseda, and thus all the causes of action arose in the North Valley District rather than the Central District. Providence asks the court to exercise its CCP ?? 396(b) [sic] and 397(a) authority to transfer this case to the proper district. (The court will presume as typographical error and thus ignore the motion?s concurrent and contradictory reference, at 1:5-7 and 3:2-4, to the defendant as being ?Providence Health Systems – Southern California dba Providence Little Company of Mary Medical Center San Pedro.?)
Plaintiff opposes the motion, arguing that the motion was untimely pursuant to CCP ? 396b(a) in that it was filed more than 30 days after service of the complaint, and therefore Defendant waived the right to seek transfer. Further, Plaintiff argues Providence showed intent to invoke the Central District?s jurisdiction, and waived the right to seek transfer, by not only making a peremptory challenge but also by filing a motion to transfer the case from a Personal Injury court to an Independent Calendar courtroom within the district. (Opposition, Exh. 1 and 3.) Finally, Plaintiff argues venue is proper in this district pursuant to LASC Local Rule 2.3(a)(1)(B).
Providence?s reply argues that the motion was filed timely in that it was filed within 30 days of service and concurrently with its first appearance; that ?permissive filing? in the Central District is not supported by LASC Local Rule 2.3(a)(1)(B), et al.; that its filing of a peremptory challenge did not waive the right to seek transfer; and that the North Central District is the proper venue for what is really a medical malpractice action (not an elder abuse civil petition, as is designated on the Civil Case Cover Sheet).
Thereafter, three weeks after the above briefing was completed and only nine court days before this hearing ? and without seeking leave of court ? Providence filed an ?amended? memorandum on July 15, 2016 purportedly based on the original documents filed on June 1, 2016 but appearing to raise entirely different arguments than in that original motion. On July 21, 2016 Plaintiff filed an objection thereto, arguing the document was filed untimely and filed without leave of court and with the benefit of having received the court?s tentative ruling from the prior hearing date denying the motion. The court exercises its CRC 3.1300(d) discretion and refuses to consider this document, as this document was filed untimely pursuant to CCP ? 1005(b); its untimeliness denies Plaintiff an opportunity to respond on the substantive arguments raised; and the filing also causes confusion as the matter has already been fully briefed.
Plaintiff had filed this action on April 4, 2016 alleging elder abuse/neglect; negligence; negligent hiring, supervision, and retention; and violation of resident?s rights against Woodland Care Center, LLC dba Woodland Care Center (?Woodland?); Providence Health System – Southern California, dba Providence Holy Cross Medical Center; and Barlow Respiratory Hospital (?Barlow?). Plaintiff, an elderly adult through his guardian ad litem/son, alleges that he was admitted to Woodland in September 2015 for treatment and rehabilitation after suffering a fall at home. Plaintiff alleges he was not provided necessary assistance with aspects of daily living, and upon his son?s demand when he found Plaintiff unresponsive despite Woodland?s report he has stable, Plaintiff was transported to Providence, which diagnosed him with dehydration and having suffered a stroke. Plaintiff alleges he was not provided with necessary supervision and necessary medical care and he developed an unstageable (but at least Stage III) pressure ulcer (bedsore) while at Providence. He was admitted to Barlow on November 13, 2015 for further treatment and rehabilitation, and alleges his bedsore further deteriorated at Barlow. Plaintiff alleges that the medical care providers failed to provide necessary and required services, were under-staffed and insufficiently educated, and fraudulently represented to the general public that they were adequately staffed and able to provide sufficient care. On the civil case cover sheet, the case was not designated as a personal injury action. The matter was assigned to Department 31 of the Stanley Mosk courthouse. Following Providence?s timely CCP ? 170.6 challenge filed May 9, 2016, on May 11, 2016 the case was reassigned to Department 38. Providence?s demurrer and motion to strike are currently set for hearing September 21, 2016, after an August 11, 2016 case management conference.
Initially, the court notes that the moving parties? sole initial reliance on CCP ?? 396b and 397(a) ? and the opposing party?s argument of waiver due to untimeliness based thereon ? is inapposite, as those statutes apply to the proper county in which an action should proceed, while the current inquiry relates to the proper district within Los Angeles County for the case. Instead, the relevant statute is LASC Local Rule 2.3(b)(2), which authorizes this court to transfer non-personal-injury civil cases from one judicial district to another, including when the case was filed in an improper district, or for the convenience of witnesses or to promote the ends of justice. LASC Local Rule 2.3(b)(2). As Plaintiff did not designate this case as a personal injury case, and the case is not proceeding in a Personal Injury court, this court may consider the instant motion.
Under the optional filing requirements of LASC Local Rule 2.3(a)(1)(B), this tort case could proceed in (1) the Central District; or (2) the North Valley District or the Northwest District (where the tort causes of action arose, in that the complaint alleges Providence is at 15031 Rinaldi Street in Mission Hills in the North Valley District; and Woodland is at 7120 Corbin Ave. in Reseda and Barlow at 15107 Vanowen Street in Nan Nuys, both in the Northwest District). Therefore, the Central District would be a proper venue for this action and Providence has failed to establish that the Central District is an improper venue for this action, which was the only argument raised in the original motion. The court would also be concerned regarding at least the appearance of improper forum-shopping, in that Providence filed this motion not only more than a week after filing their one available CCP ? 170.6 challenge to the originally assigned judge, but also about a week after receiving notice regarding the identity of the newly assigned judge.
Additionally, the court notes that if Plaintiff had designated this matter as a personal injury / medical malpractice case as Providence urges in the reply, the case would have been assigned to the Central District under the mandatory filing obligation of LASC Local Rule 2.3(a)(1)(A) for such a case, with no guarantee it would have been deemed ?complicated? and transferred to an independent calendar court.
Therefore, Providence has failed to carry the necessary burden of proof to move the case out of the Central Judicial District, which is a proper district for the action, and the court denies the motion.
(2) Woodland Care Center?s Motion to Deem Complicated and Transfer
On May 27, 2016 Defendant Woodland Care Center, LLC dba Woodland Care Center filed an LACIV 238 form ?motion? to transfer this purported complicated personal injury case from a Personal Injury court to an independent calendar court. On the form at ? 3 is a request that the matter be transferred to the Chatsworth courthouse, ?due to the complexity of issues, convenience of witnesses, and to promote the ends of justice,? without further argument or information. On June 30, 2016 this court continued the matter for hearing this date in this court.
On its face the motion is moot because the case is already proceeding in an independent calendar courtroom and not a Personal Injury court.
To the extent Woodland intended this to be a noticed motion to transfer the case between districts pursuant to LASC Local Rule 2.3(b)(2), Woodland fails to carry its burden of proof to show that the convenience of witnesses or ends of justice require this case to be transferred out of what is a proper venue (see discussion above), in that Woodland presents no argument or evidence of any kind to support its position. Therefore, the motion is denied.