Ajanique D. Raven v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc.

knowledge of laypersons. " (Jambazian v. Borden (1994) 25 Cal.App. 4th 836, 844.) '" When a defendant moves for summary judgment and supports his motion with expert declarations that his conduct fell within the community standard of care, he is entitled to summary judgment unless the plaintiff comes forward with conflicting expert evidence."' (Munro v. Regents of University of California (1989) 215 Cal.App.3d 977, 984-985.)

First, Defendant provides the allegations brought against Defendant and explains the qualifications of Defendant's expert, Andrew R. Rothstein, D.P.M. (Rothstein Decl., P.P. 1- 8.) Defendant contends that the declaration of Andrew R. Rothstein, D.P.M., establishes that Defendant's care and treatment of Decedent was appropriate and well within the standard of care. (Defendant's Separate Statement of Undisputed Material Facts ("DSSUMF") Nos. 1-11.) Defendant also states that no act or omission on the part of the moving defendant caused or contributed to Decedent 's demise. (DSSUMF No s. 12-14.)

The declaration of Andrew R. Rothstein, D.P.M., is sufficient for Defendant to meet the Defendant's moving burden on summary judgment. (DSSUMF Nos. 1 - 1 4.) Plaintiff has filed a notice of non-opposition to the instant motion. Defendant has met the initial burden to show that Defendant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law as to the first cause of action.

Second Cause of Action - Wrongful Death based on Medical Malpractice (CCP Sec. 377.60) "A cause of action for wrongful death is ... a statutory claim. Its purpose is to compensate specified persons--heirs--for the loss of companionship and for other losses suffered as a result of a decedent's death. The elements of the cause of action for wrongful death are the tort (negligence or other wrongful act), the resulting death, and the damages, consisting of the pecuniary loss suffered by the heirs. " (Lattimore v.

Dickey (2015) 239 Cal.App.4th 959, 968 [cleaned up; internal citations omitted]) . As noted above, Defendant asserts that no act or omission on the part of the moving defendant caused or contributed to Decedent 's alleged injuries and damages and death. (DSSUMF No s. 12-1 4.) Defendant has met the initial burden to show Defendant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law as to the second cause of action. Again, no opposition has been filed and Plaintiff ha s filed a notice of non-opposition.

Tentative Ruling

Defendant Pegah Panirian, DPM's Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED.

Motor Co., Inc. 's Motion to Compel Vehicle Inspection M oving Part y: Defendant American Honda Motor Co., Inc. ("Defendant") Responding Part y: Plaintiff Ajanique D Raven ("Plaintiff") Tentative Ruling Defendant American Honda Motor Co., Inc.'s Motion to Compel Vehicle Inspection i s GRANTED. Plaintiff is ordered to provide the vehicle for inspection no later than September 3, 2026. Defendant does not seek monetary sanctions.

Motion: Defendant American Honda Motor Co., Inc.'s Motion to Quash Plaintiff Ajanique D Raven 's Trial Subpoena to Defendant's Custodian of Records Moving Party: Defendant American Honda Motor Co., Inc. ("Defendant") Responding Part y: Plaintiff Ajanique D Raven ("Plaintiff") Tentative Ruling This case is scheduled for trial on September 14, 20 26. Plaintiff propounded a subpoena duces tecum for production of documents at trial on Defendant. Defendant moves to quash.

No opposition has been filed. Defendant American Honda Motor Co., Inc.'s Motion to Quash Plaintiff Ajanique D Raven 's Trial Subpoena to Defendant's Custodian of Records is GRANTED. | Home -->)" -->