|
Quash Service of Summons |
|
|
MP: |
Defendant Universal Health Services, Inc. |
|
RP: |
Plaintiff J’aime Sirgany |
|
Compel RFP, Interrogatories, RfA |
|
|
MP: |
Defendant BHC Alhambra Hospital |
|
RP: |
Plaintiff J’aime Sirgany |
ALLEGATIONS:
J’aime Sirgany (“Plaintiff”) filed suit against Universal Health Services, Inc. (“Universal”) and BHC Alhambra Hospital (“BHC”, and together, “Defendants”), alleging that a man who is currently unknown but sued as Doe 1, observed that Plaintiff was standing behind a door, opened the door in a violent, negligent, and unsafe manner, injuring Plaintiff.
Plaintiff filed a Complaint on July 20, 2018, and a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) on October 10, 2019, alleging three (3) causes of action sounding in: (1) General Negligence; (2) Premises Liability; and (3) Intentional Tort.
PRESENTATION:
Quash Service of Summons
Universal filed the motion to quash service of summons on November 19, 2019, Plaintiff filed an opposition on December 13, 2019, and Universal filed a reply on December 17, 2019. The original hearing date for the matter was set for December 27, 2019.
On December 27, 2019, the Honorable Kristin S. Escalante continued the motion to quash service of summons to March 27, 2020 to permit Plaintiff to conduct limited discovery relating to personal jurisdiction issues only, and to file a supplemental briefing 9 court days before the hearing.
On March 20, 2020, the Honorable Kristin S. Escalante continued the motion to quash service of summons to May 22, 2020 and ordered Defendants to give notice.
On April 17, 2020, in response to the COVID-19 pandemic and pursuant to the March 17, 2020, Administrative Order of the Presiding Judge, the Court continued the motion to quash service of summons to August 26, 2020. Counsel for Plaintiff was informed by mail and directed to give notice.
On August 25, 2020, the Honorable Kristin S. Escalante reassigned and transferred the instant case from Department 29 to this Court for all purposes except trial and took all hearings off calendar subject to reassignment.
On September 01, 2020, the Court reset the hearing date for the motion to quash service of summons to December 11, 2020. Plaintiff was directed to give notice and a copy of the minute order was mailed to counsel for Plaintiff.
On August 19, Universal filed a notice of no supplemental opposition by Plaintiff. No supplemental briefing by Plaintiff has been received by the Court.
Compel RFP, Interrogatories, RfA
BHC filed the motion to compel request for production of documents, motion to compel form and special interrogatories, and motion to deem admitted on April 17, 2020. Plaintiff filed oppositions to all three matters on August 13, 2020, and BHC filed replies to all three matters on August 19, 2020.
On April 20, 2020, in response to the COVID-19 pandemic and pursuant to the March 17, 2020, Administrative Order of the Presiding Judge, the Court continued the instant matters to August 26, 2020. Counsel for Plaintiff was informed by mail and directed to give notice.
On August 25, 2020, the Honorable Kristin S. Escalante reassigned and transferred the instant case from Department 29 to this Court for all purposes except trial and took all hearings off calendar subject to reassignment.
On September 01, 2020, the Court reset the hearing date for the instant matters on December 11, 2020. Plaintiff was directed to give notice and a copy of the minute order was mailed to counsel for Plaintiff.
On November 30, 2020, Plaintiff filed three declarations in opposition to each of the three discovery motions, and on December 02, 2020, BHC filed objections to those declarations.
RELIEF REQUESTED:
Universal makes a special appearance to move for an order quashing the service of summons and complaint served by Plaintiff on Universal for lack of personal jurisdiction.
BHC moves for an order compelling Plaintiff to provide responses to Request for Production, Set One. BHC further moves for associated issue preclusion sanctions and monetary sanctions in the amount of $1,200 against Plaintiff.
BHC moves for an order compelling Plaintiff to provide responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One, and Special Interrogatories, Set One. BHC further moves for associated issue preclusion sanctions and monetary sanctions in the amount of $1,850 against Plaintiff.
BHC moves for an order deeming each item in Request for Admission, Set One admitted by Plaintiff. BHC further moves for associated monetary sanctions in the amount of $1,100 against Plaintiff.
DISCUSSION:
As a preliminary matter, the Court did not authorize the filing of any sur-replies or supplemental declarations, and so will disregard the declarations filed by Plaintiff on November 30, 2020.
Standard of Review – Without valid service of a summons, the court never acquires jurisdiction over a defendant. Hence, the statutory ground for the motion to quash is that the court lacks jurisdiction over the defendant. (Code Civ. Proc., § 418.10, subd. (a)(1).) CCP § 418.10 authorizes a motion to quash service of summons within the time allowed for filing a response to the complaint. If the motion is timely made, “no act” by the party making such motion, “including filing an answer, demurrer or motion to strike,” shall be deemed a general appearance. (Code Civ. Proc., § 418.10, subd. (e)(1).)
California’s long-arm statute authorizes California courts to exercise jurisdiction on any basis not inconsistent with the Constitution of the United States or the Constitution of California. (Code Civ. Proc., § 410.10; Vons Companies, Inc. v. Seabest Foods, Inc. (1996) 14 Cal. 4th 434, 444-45; International Shoe Co. v. Washington (1945) 326 U.S. 310, 316.) Accordingly, a California court’s assertion of personal jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant who has not been served with process within the State comports with the requirements of the due process clause of the federal Constitution if the defendant has such minimum contacts with the State that the assertion of jurisdiction does not violate traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. ( Vons, supra, 14 Cal. 4th at 444-45.)
The concept of minimum contacts embraces two types of personal jurisdiction over the non-resident defendant: general and specific. ( Sonora Diamond Corp. v. Superior Court (2000) 83 Cal. App. 4th 523, 536; Vons, supra, 14 Cal. 4th at 445 – 446.) A non-resident defendant may be subject to the general jurisdiction of the forum if his or her contacts in the forum state are substantial, continuous, and systematic, so that the defendant’s contacts with the forum are so wide-ranging that they take the place of physical presence in the forum as a basis for jurisdiction. (Vons, supra, 14 Cal. 4th at 445 – 446;International Shoe Co. v. Washington (1945) 326 U.S. 310;Perkins v. Benguet Mining Co. (1952) 342 U.S. 437, 447 – 448; Worldwide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson (1980) 444 U.S. 286, 291.) If the non-resident defendant does not have substantial and systematic contacts in the forum sufficient to establish general jurisdiction, he/she/it may be subject to the specific jurisdiction of the forum, if the defendant has purposefully availed himself or herself of forum benefits, and the controversy is related to or “arises out of” a defendant’s contacts with the forum. (Vons, supra, 14 Cal.4th at 446; Asahi Metal Industry Co. v. Superior Court (1987) 480 U.S. 102, 109.) A controversy relates to or arises out of such contacts if there is a substantial connection between the forum contacts and the plaintiff’s claim. (Vons, supra, 14 Cal. 4th at 452.) When a non-resident defendant challenges jurisdiction, the plaintiff bears the burden of proof to show that minimum contacts exist between the defendant and the forum state to justify the imposition of personal jurisdiction. ( Mihlon v. Superior Court (1985) 169 Cal.App.3d 703, 710.) If the plaintiff meets this burden, “it becomes the defendant’s burden to demonstrate that the exercise of jurisdiction would be unreasonable.” ( Buchanan v. Soto (2015) 241 Cal.App.4th 1353, 1362.)
Merits – Universal argues that the Court lacks personal jurisdiction over it because general jurisdiction and specific jurisdiction are not present in the instant case. As to general jurisdiction, Universal contends that it is incorporated in Delaware and headquartered in Pennsylvania, does not have any regular business, clients, or employees in California, never designated a registered agent in California, never maintained a place of business in California, never owned property in California, and maintains no control over BHC or any other entity in California. (Ex. B; Decl. Carson, ¶¶ 3-4, 7-8.) As to specific jurisdiction, Universal contends it never transacted business with anyone in California or exercised any control over BHC, Plaintiff, or Doe 1. (Decl. Carson, ¶¶ 3-8.) Universal also contends it employs no employees and played no role in the alleged action or activity in California or anywhere else. (Decl. Carson, ¶¶ 6-8.)
In opposition, Plaintiff argues that the instant motion is an improper summary judgment motion and should be denied on that basis. Plaintiff also argues that Universal is not just a holding company, as it claims, and cites to its website (Exs. A-D) in support of the contention that Universal holds itself out to California consumers as a healthcare provider directly involved in patient health care.
In reply, Universal argues that Plaintiff fails to bear the burden to establish minimum contacts justifying the imposition of personal jurisdiction, and further fails to establish genera jurisdiction or specific jurisdiction.
As an initial issue, the Court finds that the instant motion is procedurally proper pursuant to CCP § 410.10 and does not constitute an improper summary judgment motion.
On December 27, 2019, the Honorable Kristin S. Escalante continued the motion to quash service of summons to permit Plaintiff to conduct limited discovery relating to personal jurisdiction issues only, and to file a supplemental briefing 9 court days before the hearing. The Court did not receive any supplemental briefing.
The Court finds that Plaintiff fails to sufficiently show that Universal has substantial and systematic contacts in the forum sufficient to establish general jurisdiction, and further fails to sufficiently show that Universal purposefully availed itself of forum benefits, and the controversy is related to or “arises out of” its contacts with California. The only evidence Plaintiff presents is screenshots of what she contends is Universal’s website. (Oppo., Exs. A-D.) Even if the website’s statements are assumed to be made by Universal, they do not, on their own, fulfill Plaintiff’s burden to show minimum contacts.
In light of Plaintiff’s failure to file supplemental briefing and presenting further evidence, the Court finds that Plaintiff fails to bear the burden to show that minimum contacts exist between Universal and California to justify the imposition of personal jurisdiction and will grant the instant motion.
—
Standard of Review – Compel Production – A motion to compel responses may be brought where a responding party fails to timely respond to written discovery. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300.) No meet and confer is necessary where a party fails to respond to written discovery. (See Leach v. Superior Court (1980) 111 Cal. App. 3d 902, 906.) Sanctions are mandatory for a party making or opposing a motion, except when the party making or opposing the motion is determined by the Court to have been acting with substantial justification, or that other circumstances would render the imposition of sanctions unjust. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (c).) Under the Civil Discovery Act, the Court is only entitled to impose monetary sanctions in the amount of “reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred by anyone as a result of” the misuse of discovery. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.030, subd. (a).) The purpose of discovery sanctions is “not to provide a weapon for punishment, forfeiture and the avoidance of a trial on the merits, but to prevent abuse of the discovery process and correct the problem presented.” ( Parker v. Wolters Kluwer U.S., Inc. (2007) 149 Cal. App. 4th 285, 301.) Consequently, “[t]he trial court cannot impose sanctions for misuse of the discovery process as a punishment.” ( Doppes v. Bentley Motors, Inc. (2009) 174 Cal. App. 4th 967, 992.)
Merits – BHC contends that it served Plaintiff with Request for Production, Set One on December 10, 2019, due by January 14, 2020 (Decl. Brennan, ¶ 4, Ex. A.) BHC further contends that after two 2-week extensions, Plaintiff failed to respond to discovery and provided no responses to BHC’s inquiries. (Decl. Brennan, ¶¶ 4-6.)
In opposition, Plaintiff’s counsel does not dispute BHC’s contentions, but contends that she has been sheltering in place since March 13, 2020 due to his vulnerability to COVID-19 infection.
The Court finds that Plaintiff’s counsel’s explanation does not comport with BHC’s discovery timeline, which Plaintiff does not refute. The Request for Production, Set One was due before March 13, 2020, even when factoring in the two 2-week extensions granted by BHC. Plaintiff makes no argument or explanation as to why it did not respond to discovery by the discovery deadline. The Court will thus grant the instant motion.
Sanctions – When a party engages in misuse of the discovery process, “[t]he court may impose an issue sanction ordering that designated facts shall be taken as established in the action in accordance with the claim of the party adversely affected by the misuse of the discovery process. The court may also impose an issue sanction by an order prohibiting any party engaging in the misuse of the discovery process from supporting or opposing designated claims or defenses.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.030, subd. (b).) The purpose of discovery sanctions is to prevent abuse of the discovery process and correct the problem presented. (McGinty v. Superior Court (1994) 26 Cal. App. 4th 204, 210.) Under California law, a discovery order cannot go further than is necessary to accomplish the purpose of discovery. ( Newland v. Superior Court (1995) 40 Cal. App. 4th 608, 613.)
BHC requests both issue sanctions and monetary sanctions. The Court finds that BHC fails to show sufficient evidence, beyond general arguments of gamesmanship, to support the imposition of issue sanctions. Further, BHC’s arguments concerning the upcoming trial date at the time of the motion have been mooted, as the trial date has been vacated and is not currently set for this case. Counsel did not comply with CCP 2023.040: A request for a sanction shall, 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.
—
Standard of Review – Compel Interrogatories – A motion to compel responses to interrogatories may be brought where a responding party fails to timely respond to written discovery. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290.) No meet and confer is necessary where a party fails to respond to written discovery. (See Leach v. Superior Court (1980) 111 Cal. App. 3d 902, 906.) An untimely responding party waives all objections, including privilege, unless they subsequently serve responses in substantial compliance with the Civil Discovery Act and demonstrate that their failure is the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (a).) Sanctions are mandatory for a party making or opposing a motion, except when the party making or opposing the motion is determined by the Court to have been acting with substantial justification, or that other circumstances would render the imposition of sanctions unjust. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (c).) Under the Civil Discovery Act, the Court is only entitled to impose monetary sanctions in the amount of “reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred by anyone as a result of” the misuse of discovery. (Code Civ. Proc., §2023.030, subd. (a).) The purpose of discovery sanctions is “not to provide a weapon for punishment, forfeiture and the avoidance of a trial on the merits, but to prevent abuse of the discovery process and correct the problem presented.” (Parker v. Wolters Kluwer U.S., Inc. (2007) 149 Cal. App. 4th 285, 301.) Consequently, “[t]he trial court cannot impose sanctions for misuse of the discovery process as a punishment.” ( Doppes v. Bentley Motors, Inc. (2009) 174 Cal. App. 4th 967, 992.)
Merits – BHC contends that it served Plaintiff with Form Interrogatories, Set One and Special Interrogatories, Set One on December 10, 2019, due by January 14, 2020 (Decl. Brennan, ¶ 4, Ex. A.) BHC further contends that after two 2-week extensions, Plaintiff failed to respond to discovery and provided no responses to BHC’s inquiries. (Decl. Brennan, ¶¶ 4-6.)
In opposition, Plaintiff’s counsel does not dispute BHC’s contentions, but contends that he has been sheltering in place since March 13, 2020 due to his vulnerability to COVID-19 infection.
The Court finds that Plaintiff’s counsel’s explanation does not comport with BHC’s discovery timeline, which Plaintiff does not refute. The Request for Production, Set One was due before March 13, 2020, even when factoring in the two 2-week extensions granted by BHC. Plaintiff makes no argument or explanation as to why it did not respond to discovery by the discovery deadline. The Court will thus grant the instant motion.
Sanctions – BHC requests both issue sanctions and monetary sanctions. The Court finds that BHC fails to show sufficient evidence, beyond general arguments of gamesmanship, to support the imposition of issue sanctions. Further, BHC’s arguments concerning the upcoming trial date at the time of the motion have been mooted, as the trial date has been vacated and is not currently set for this case. Counsel did not comply with CCP 2023.040: A request for a sanction shall, 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.
—
Standard of Review – Compel Admissions – If a party fails to timely respond to requests for admissions, the propounding party may move for a Court order deeming the Requests for Admission admitted. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.280.) An untimely responding party waives all objections, including privilege, unless they subsequently serve responses in substantial compliance with the Civil Discovery Act and demonstrate that their failure is the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (a); § 2033.280, subd. (a).) The Court shall impose monetary sanctions for failure to timely respond to interrogatories or requests for production unless the party acted with substantial justification or the circumstances render imposition of sanctions unjust. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (c).) For untimely responses to Requests for Admission, the Court shall deem the Requests for Admission admitted unless the responding party serves a code compliant response prior to the hearing. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (c).) The Court must impose a monetary sanction on the party or attorney whose failure to serve timely Requests for Admission responses necessitated the motion. (Ibid.)
Merits – BHC contends that it served Plaintiff with Request for Admissions, Set One on December 10, 2019, due by January 14, 2020 (Decl. Brennan, ¶ 4, Ex. A.) BHC further contends that after two 2-week extensions, Plaintiff failed to respond to discovery and provided no responses to BHC’s inquiries. (Decl. Brennan, ¶¶ 4-6.)
In opposition, Plaintiff’s counsel does not dispute BHC’s contentions, but contends that he has been sheltering in place since March 13, 2020 due to his vulnerability to COVID-19 infection.
The Court finds that Plaintiff’s counsel’s explanation does not comport with BHC’s discovery timeline, which Plaintiff does not refute. The Request for Production, Set One was due before March 13, 2020, even when factoring in the two 2-week extensions granted by BHC. Plaintiff makes no argument or explanation as to why it did not respond to discovery by the discovery deadline. The Court will thus grant the instant motion.
Sanctions – Counsel did not comply with CCP 2023.040: A request for a sanction shall, 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.
—
RULING : below,
In the event the parties submit on this tentative ruling, or a party requests a signed order or the court in its discretion elects to sign a formal order, the following form will be either electronically signed or signed in hard copy and entered into the court’s records.
ORDER
Defendant Universal Health Services, Inc.’s Motion to Quash Service of Summons and Defendant BHC Alhambra Hospital’s Motion to Compel Request for Production, Motion to Compel Form and Special Interrogatories, and Motion to Compel Request for Admissions came on regularly for hearing on December 11, 2020, with appearances/submissions as noted in the minute order for said hearing, and the court, being fully advised in the premises, did then and there rule as follows:
THE MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS IS GRANTED.
THE MOTION TO COMPEL REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION IS GRANTED. Plaintiff is ordered to provide code-compliant responses without objections within twenty days.
THE MOTION TO COMPEL FORM AND SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES IS GRANTED. Plaintiff is ordered to provide code-compliant responses without objections within twenty days.
THE MOTION TO COMPEL REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS IS GRANTED. Plaintiff is ordered to provide code-compliant responses without objections within twenty days.
NO SANCTIONS