Dr. Nayyer Ali, MD, et al. v. Dignity Health, et al.

(Stanley Mosk Courthouse: Dept. 512) August 25, 2026 DEPARTMENT 512 LAW AND MOTION RULINGS Effective May 4, 2026: Judge Karine Mkrtchyan Presiding Tentative Rulings are posted before the hearing.

If you desire to submit on the tentative ruling, you may do so by e-mailing Dept. 512 (formerly Dept. 54) at the Stanley Mosk Courthouse up until the morning of the motion hearing. The e-mail address is [email protected] . The heading on your e-mail must contain the case name, number, hearing date, and that you submit. The message should indicate your name, contact information, and the party you represent. The party submitting to the tentative must include to the e-mail all other counsel (or party if self-represented) to the action.

Please note that if a party fails to appear at a law and motion hearing without having given notice under California Rules of Court, rule 3.1204, subd. (c), the court may take the matter off calendar, to be reset only upon motion, or may rule on the matter. If only one party has submitted, the Court may still hear the motion at the hearing or adopt the tentative ruling. Please note that the above e-mail address is ONLY to inform the court of your submission on the tentative ruling. All other inquiries will not receive a response.

25, 2026 JUDGE /DEPT: Mkrtchyan/512 CASE NAME: Dr. Nayyer Ali, MD, et al. v. Dignity Health, et al. CASE NUMBER: 23STCV03405 TAC FILED: 08-19-25 NOTICE: OK PROCEEDINGS: MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL; MOTION TO VACATE JUDGMENT MOVING PARTIES: Defendants Dignity Health dba St. Mary Medical Center and Carolyn Caldwell RESP. PARTIES: Plaintiffs Dr. Nayyer Ali, M.D. and Dr. Mauricio Heilbron, M.D. MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL; MOTION TO VACATE JUDGMENT (CCP Sec.Sec. 657, 663) TENTATIVE RULING: Defendants Dignity Health dba St.

Mary Medical Center and Carolyn Caldwell's Motion for New Trial is DENIED. Defendants Dignity Health dba St. Mary Medical Center and Carolyn Caldwell's Motion to Vacate Judgment is DENIED. Moving parties are ordered to give notice. NEW TRIAL MOTION SERVICE: [X] Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC, rule 3.1300) OK [X] Correct Address (CCP Sec.Sec. 1013, 1013a) OK [X] 16/21 Court Days Lapsed (CCP Sec.Sec. 12c, 1005(b)) OK

OPPOSITION: Filed on August 10, 2026 [] Late [] None REPLY: Filed on August 17, 2026 [] Late [] None VACATE JUDGMENT MOTION SERVICE: [X] Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC, rule 3.1300) OK [X] Correct Address (CCP Sec.Sec. 1013, 1013a) OK [X] 16/21 Court Days Lapsed (CCP Sec.Sec. 12c, 1005(b)) OK OPPOSITION: Filed on August 10, 2026 [] Late [] None REPLY: Filed on August 17, 2026 [] Late [] None ANALYSIS: I.

Background

On August 19, 2025, Plaintiffs Dr. Nayyer Ali, M.D. ("Ali") and Dr. Mauricio Heilbron, M.D. ("Heilbron") ("Plaintiffs") filed a Third Amended Complaint against Defendants Dignity Health dba St. Mary Medical Center ("St. Mary"), Carolyn Caldwell, Charles Anderson, and Christopher Pook ("Defendants") and Does 1-10, alleging causes of action for Violation of Whistleblower Protections and Unfair Business Practices.

On January 23, 2026, the Honorable Judge Maurice A. Leiter issued a proposed Statement of Decision. On February 13, 2026, the Court held a Non-Appearance Case Review Re: Receipt of Objections to Proposed Statement of Decision and stated it was in receipt of the filed objections and took the hearing off calendar. (2/13/26 Order.) On February 18, 2026, Judge Leiter issued a Final Statement of Decision.

On July 15, 2026, Judgment was entered in favor of Plaintiffs and against St. Mary and Caldwell; in favor of Pook and against Plaintiffs; and in favor of Anderson and against Plaintiffs. In pertinent part: the Court awarded Ali against St. Mary and Caldwell, jointly and severally, $700,000 in reputational damages plus post-judgment interest. The Court also awarded Ali a new Adjunct Contract Faculty Agreement for teaching residents on the floor. The Court awarded Heilbron against St. Mary and Caldwell, jointly and severally, $700,000 in reputational damages; $850,000 in emotional distress damages; and post-judgment interest on the total damages awarded to Heilbron.

On July 21, 2026, Moving Defendants St. Mary and Carolyn Caldwell ("Moving Defendants") filed a Notice of Intention to Move for New Trial and a Notice of Intention to Move to Vacate Judgment. On July 23, 2026, Abstracts of Judgment were issued. On July 31, 2026, Moving Defendants filed memorandums, supporting documents, and a request for judicial notice in support of the Motion for New Trial ("New Trial Motion") and the Motion to Vacate Judgment ("Motion to Vacate"). On August 4, 2026, the Court set a hearing for the New Trial Motion. On August 5, 2026, the served Notice of Hearing on the New Trial Motion. On August 6, 2026, the Court set a hearing on the Motion to Vacate and served Notice of Hearing on the Motion to Vacate. On August 10, 2026, Plaintiffs filed Oppositions to the Motions. On August 17, 2026, Moving Defendants filed Replies to the Motions.

II. Procedural Issues

As an initial matter, the Court notes that the Rutenberg declaration accompanying the New Trial Motion represents that part of the New Trial Motion's supporting evidence is a thumbdrive which Moving "Defendants will lodge with the Court under separate cover." (New Trial Motion, Rutenberg Decl., P. 21.) However, the Court has not received a notice of lodging with the thumbdrive.

Further, the Court finds the trial transcript excerpts filed in support of the Motions are poorly labeled in the Rutenberg declaration and/or unclearly excerpted in the transcript exhibit itself, such that the Court is unable to ascertain who is speaking in certain of the exhibits. (See e.g., Motions, Rutenberg Decl., Exh. 4.) Also, Moving Defendants often fail to provide accurate page numbers in their memorandum to the pertinent portions of the trial transcript excerpts.

III. Request for Judicial Notice

In conjunction with the Motions, Moving Defendants request the Court take judicial notice of Assembly Bill No. 632 (2007-2008 Reg. Sess.) as introduced Feb. 21, 2007; various amendments to Assembly Bill No. 632; and a comment on Assembly Bill No. 632. (Motions, RJN, pp. 1-2, Exhs. 1-5.) The Court GRANTS the request pursuant to Evidence Code section 452, subdivisions (b) and (c).

IV. New Trial Motion

A. Parties' Arguments

Moving Defendants request a new trial under Code of Civil Procedure section 657 subdivisions (5), (6), and (7) on the following grounds: legal damages were impermissibly awarded in a bench trial; damages under Code of Civil Procedure section 1278.5 are allowed to be awarded only ancillary to equitable relief, which was not and could not be awarded here; reputational damages are not allowed to be awarded against Ali for wrongful nonrenewal of a contract absent specific statutory authority not found in Code of Civil Procedure section 1278.5; Code of Civil Procedure section 1278.5 does not permit reinstatement of an expired separate contract, and there was no diminution or impairment of Ali's privileges; reinstating Ali's contract violates Civil Code section 3390; and the judgment is not supported by sufficient evidence and the damages are excessive because the record contains no evidence that Plaintiffs experienced any reputational or emotional distress damages from the acts the Cout found retaliatory and damages as to certain acts are barred by law. (New Trial Motion, MPA, pp. 1-15.)

In Opposition, Plaintiffs contend there are no grounds for a new trial based on the remedies awarded under Code of Civil Procedure section 1278.5 for the following reasons: (1) Moving Defendants improperly seek reconsideration of the Court's prior ruling granting Plaintiff's leave to amend to add emotional distress remedies and reinstatement request; (2) Moving Defendants waived the affirmative defense that Plaintiffs are prohibited from recovering emotional distress and reputational damages for violations under Code of Civil Procedure section 1278.5 by failing to object to the pleading; and (3) Moving Defendants have neither challenged the legally sufficiency of the amount awarded by the Court nor challenged the Court of being prejudiced or corrupt. (Opp., pp. 7-12.)

Further, Plaintiffs contend the record contains sufficient evidence supporting the award for Heilbron's emotional distress damages, including expert testimony, Heilbron's testimony, and Heilbron's wife's testimony. (Opp., pp. 13-15.) Also, Plaintiffs contend the record contains sufficient evidence to support the award for Heilbron's reputational damages, including the nonrenewal of the adjunct faculty agreement and reappointments. (Opp., pp. 15-17.) Plaintiffs assert that Moving Defendants waived any statute of limitations defense as to Heilbron's claims by failing to assert it in their Answer or object. (Opp., p. 17-18.) Finally, Plaintiffs contend that none of the retaliatory acts against Ali are time-barred. (Opp., p. 19.)

In Reply, Moving Defendants emphasize arguments raised in the New Trial Motion. (Reply, pp. 3-10.) The Reply also addresses the Oppositions contentions - Moving Defendants assert that the Motion is not a reconsideration request and, moreover, the Court granting leave to amend to add damages is not dispositive proof that Code of Civil Procedure section 1278.5 permits such remedies. (Reply, p. 1.) Further, Moving Defendants contend they did not waive any assertions in the Motion and the arguments raised in the Motion are properly included. (Reply, p. 2.)

B.

Legal Standard

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 657, a motion for a new trial may be granted if there is any:¿¿

¿ 5. Excessive or inadequate damages.

6. Insufficiency of the evidence to justify the verdict or other decision, or the verdict or other decision is against law.

7. Error in law, occurring at the trial and excepted to by the party making the application. ¿ (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 657, subds. (5)-(7).)

Further: When a new trial is granted, on all or part of the issues, the court shall specify the ground or grounds upon which it is granted and the court's reason or reasons for granting the new trial upon each ground stated. A new trial shall not be granted upon the ground of insufficiency of the evidence to justify the verdict or other decision, nor upon the ground of excessive or inadequate damages, unless after weighing the evidence the court is convinced from the entire record, including reasonable inferences therefrom, that the court or jury clearly should have reached a different verdict or decision. (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 657.)

A motion for new trial "shall be heard and determined by the judge who presided at the trial; provided however, that in case of the inability of such judge or if at the time noticed for hearing thereon he is absent from the county where the trial was had, the same shall be heard and determined by any other judge of the same court." (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 661.)

In the context of a nonjury trial, a trial court "may, on such terms as may be just, change or add to the statement of decision, modify the judgment, in whole or in part, vacate the judgment, in whole or in part, and grant a new trial on all or part of the issues, or, in lieu of granting a new trial, may vacate and set aside the statement of decision and judgment and reopen the case for further proceedings and the introduction of additional evidence with the same effect as if the case had been reopened after the submission thereof and before a decision had been filed or judgment rendered. Any judgment thereafter entered shall be subject to the provisions of sections 657 and 659." (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 662.)

This power is slightly curtailed when a new judge--i.e., a judge who did not preside over the nonjury trial--hears the new trial motion. Specifically, " '[It] has been repeatedly held that the court retains power to amend or change the conclusions of law so as to point to a different judgment, and to enter a judgment different from the first announced, and that this power continues until the entry of the judgment and such change may be made by a judge other than the one who tried the cause.' " (Kelly v. Sparling Water Co. (1959) 52 Cal.2d 628, 633, emphasis in original.)

"The right to a new trial is purely statutory, and a motion for a new trial can be granted only on one of the grounds enumerated in the statute." (Fomco, Inc. v. Joe Maggio, Inc. (1961) 55 Cal.2d 162, 166.) Since new trial motions are " 'creatures of statute,' " the " ' "procedural steps for making and determining such a motion are mandatory and must be strictly followed," ' " or else the court acts in excess of jurisdiction. (Maroney v. Iacobsohn (2015) 237 Cal.App.4th 473, 484-485.)¿

C.

Discussion

Moving Defendants seek a new trial based on three of the statutory grounds outlined in Code of Civil Procedure section 657. Having considered all moving, opposing, and reply papers, the evidence presented, and the record, the Court finds that Moving Defendants have failed to show excessive or inadequate damages, insufficiency of the evidence, or error in law at trial. (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 667, subds. (5)-(7).)

An uncommon aspect of the subject motions is that they are decided not by the trial judge (J. Leiter, now retired) but by a successor judge (J. Mkrtchyan.) The law requires a new trial motion to be heard by the judge who presided over the trial. But upon the unavailability of the trial judge, the newly assigned judge undertakes the task, as in this instance. (See Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 661.)

First, the Court does not find that Plaintiffs were barred from seeking emotional distress and reputational damages in this matter under Health and Safety Code section 1278.5. While Moving Defendants rely on Shaw v. Superior Court (2017) 2 Cal.5th 983 to assert that tort damages are unavailable under Health and Safety Code section 1278.5 absent viable companion tort claims (see New Trial Motion, pp. 3-4), Moving Defendants fail to state what "companion tort claims" Plaintiffs could have moved for that would foreclose tort damages in this matter. Moving Defendants fail to offer any other legal authority to support their claims other than Shaw. As such, the Court finds this argument unpersuasive and unsupported as to the circumstances of this action.

Furthermore, the Court finds Shaw supports Judge Leiter's use of discretion in this matter to fashion an appropriate remedy, including emotional distress and reputational harm damages, under the "catchall provision that was added to [Health and Safety Code] section 1278.5(g) in 2007." (See Shaw, supra, 2 Cal.5th at pp. 1002-1003; Health & Saf. Code, 1278.5, subd. (g) [" An employee who has been discriminated against in employment pursuant to this section shall be entitled to reinstatement, reimbursement for lost wages and work benefits caused by the acts of the employer, and the legal costs associated with pursuing the case, or to any remedy deemed warranted by the court pursuant to this chapter or any other applicable provision of statutory or common law....

A member of the medical staff who has been discriminated against pursuant to this section shall be entitled to reinstatement, reimbursement for lost income resulting from any change in the terms or conditions of the member's privileges caused by the acts of the facility or the entity that owns or operates a health facility or any other health facility that is owned or operated by that entity, and the legal costs associated with pursuing the case, or to any remedy deemed warranted by the court pursuant to this chapter or any other applicable provision of statutory or common law"].)

Thus, the Court finds there was no error in law as to this issue.

Next, Moving Defendants rely on Shaw for the proposition that tort damages are only permissible in actions involving an "appropriate mix of equitable and legal remedies." (New Trial Motion, p. 4, citing Shaw, supra, 2 Cal.5th at p. 1000.) However, the Court's reading of Shaw differs from Moving Defendants. Indeed, the Court finds Shaw to hold that the trial court has discretion to authorize remedies pursuant to Health and Safety Code section 1278.5(g); Health and Safety Code section 1278.5(g) contains mostly equitable relief; and the trial court's discretion includes awarding a mix of legal and equitable remedies should a particular case pose such circumstances. (See Shaw, supra, 2 Cal.5th at p. 1000.)

The Court does not find that Shaw, contrary to Moving Defendants' assertion, stands for the proposition that, as a matter of law, tort damages are only allowed in cases that involve mixed remedies. Thus, the Court finds there was no error in law as to this issue.

Third, Moving Defendants assert that tort damages, such as damages for reputational harm, are unavailable for the end of a contract that has a fixed term and expires. (New Trial Motion, p. 5.) In the Final Statement of Decision, Judge Leiter addressed this exact issue as follows: An employer's decision simply not to renew a contract does not give rise to an action for wrongful termination. But not renewing a contract as retaliation for lodging a complaint is actionable under Section 1278.5, which prohibits retaliation "in any manner." (Section 1278.5(b)(1); see also Touchstone Tel.

Prod. v. Superior Court (2012) 208 Cal App. 4th 676, 678 [employee may allege cause of action under Labor Code section 6310]. (2/18/26 Final Statement of Decision, p. 7.) The Court finds Judge Leiter's statement and application of the law apt. In Touchstone Tel. Prod., supra, 208 Cal.App.4th at p. 678, the Second District Court of Appeal held that an employee is allowed to file a complaint in discrimination or retaliation against the employee when the employer, in retaliation, decides not to exercise its option to renew the employee's fixed-term employment contract. (See ibid.)

The Court finds that Touchstone supports the award of reputational damages under Health and Safety Code section 1278.5(g) here for Moving Defendants' retaliatory act, not tortious act, of terminating Ali's fixed-term contract. Thus, the Court finds there was no error in law as to this issue.

Fourth, Moving Defendants contend Health and Safety Code section 1278.5 does not permit reinstatement of an expired contract, only a medical staff member's privileges. (New Trial Motion, pp. 5-7, RJN, Exh. 1.) Not so. The express terms of Health and Safety Code section 1278.5 state that "reinstatement" is a permissible remedy for discrimination against a member of the medical staff (Health & Saf. Code, 1278.5, subd. (g)), and the parties do not dispute that Ali is a member of the medical staff.

The Court is unpersuaded by Moving Defendants' unsupported interpretation of Health and Safety Code section 1278.5, subdivision (g)'s terms and their limitations and/or Moving Defendants' interpretation of Health and Safety Code section 1278.5, subdivision (g)'s legislative history. (See New Trial Motion, pp. 5-7, RJN, Exh. 1.) Furthermore, the Court notes that our high court has held that " '[b]ecause the physician and medical staff are most likely not employees of a hospital, the remedies available to them could be entirely different, depending on the retaliatory action that was taken.' " (Shaw, supra, 2 Cal.5th at p. 1001.)

Thus, the Court finds there was no error in law as to this issue.

Fifth, Moving Defendants assert that ordering reinstatement of Ali's contract violates Civil Code section 3390. (New Trial Motion, pp. 7-8, citing Barndt v. County of Los Angeles (1989) 211 Cal. App. 3d 397, 403 ["It has long been established that a contract to perform personal services cannot be specifically enforced, regardless of which party seeks enforcement"].) However, the Court finds that the instant case differs in kind from that of Barndt, and the Second District Court of Appeal expressly held in Barndt that reinstatement of a position was appropriate in a "case involving the discharge of an employee in violation of antidiscrimination or other statutes which mandate reinstatement." (Id., at p. 406.)

These circumstances are directly present here - Health and Safety Code section 1278.5, subdivision (g), should it apply, mandates reinstatement for a medical staff member such as Ali. Thus, the Court finds there was no error in law as to this issue.

Finally, Moving Defendants contend the emotional distress and reputational damages awards are unsupported by the evidence and are excessive. (New Trial Motion, pp. 8-14.) As to Heilbron, Moving Defendants assert any emotional distress suffered by Heilbron was caused by non-retaliatory acts of Moving Defendants, and there is no evidence supporting reputational damages to Heilbron. (New Trial Motion, pp. 8-12.) As to Ali, Moving Defendants state there is no evidence that the nonrenewal of the Residency Agreement harmed Ali's reputation, and there is no evidence that shows reappointments harmed Ali's reputation. (New Trial Motion, pp. 12-14.) The Court finds any statute of limitations defenses have been waived by Moving Defendants' failure to object on these grounds.

Upon review of the record, the Court finds there is sufficient facts to support that Moving Defendants committed various retaliatory acts against Plaintiffs, and Heilbron suffered emotional distress and both Plaintiffs suffered reputational harm as a result. For instance, the Court finds that the Heilbrons' testimony coupled with the testimony of Dr. Nolan and Dr. Dupree support the award of emotional distress and reputational harm damages as to Heilbron. (See Opp., Exhs. 14-16.) The Court finds that Ali's testimony supports the award of reputational harm damages as to Ali. Most importantly, the Court does not find that the evidence in this action clearly shows Judge Leiter should have reached a different result in this action. (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 657.)

Thus, the Court finds there was sufficient evidence to support the damages awarded, the damages were not excessive, and no error in law occurred as to this issue. Based on the above, the New Trial Motion is DENIED.

V. Motion to Vacate

" '[A] motion to vacate lies only where a "different judgment" is compelled by the facts found. [Citation.] A motion to vacate under section 663 may only be brought when "the trial judge draws an incorrect legal conclusion or renders an erroneous judgment upon the facts found by it to exist." ' " (Garibotti v. Hinkle (2015) 243 Cal.App.4th 470, 477.) Code of Civil Procedure section 663 states: A judgment or decree, when based upon a decision by the court, or the special verdict of a jury, may, upon motion of the party aggrieved, be set aside and vacated by the same court, and another and different judgment entered, for either of the following causes, materially affecting the substantial rights of the party and entitling the party to a different judgment: 1.

Incorrect or erroneous legal basis for the decision, not consistent with or not supported by the facts; and in such case when the judgment is set aside, the statement of decision shall be amended and corrected.

2. A judgment or decree not consistent with or not supported by the special verdict. (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 663.) "Courts have long interpreted section 663 to require that when a court grants a motion to set aside and vacate the judgment, it must contemporaneously enter a new judgment." (Stop C-19, LLC v. Tooling Express, Inc. (2025) 111 Cal.App.5th 803, 811.) "An order of vacation, without directing entry of a new judgment, is void." (Ibid.)

Here, the Motion to Vacate brings identical grounds and supporting evidence for vacating the judgment as those addressed supra in the Court's discussion of the New Trial Motion. Given that the Court determined there is not an incorrect legal basis for all the above issues, which are identical to the issues raised in the Motion to Vacate, the Court finds the Motion to Vacate is likewise meritless. For this and all the aforementioned reasons, the Motion to Vacate is DENIED.

VI. Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reasons, Defendants Dignity Health dba St. Mary Medical Center and Carolyn Caldwell's Motion for New Trial is DENIED. Defendants Dignity Health dba St. Mary Medical Center and Carolyn Caldwell's Motion to Vacate Judgment is DENIED. Moving parties are ordered to give notice.

Case Number: 24STCV33191 Hearing Date: August 25, 2026 Dept: 512 HEARING DATE: Tues., August 25, 2026 JUDGE /DEPT: Mkrtchyan/512 CASE NAME: Choice Foods, Inc. v. Shoreline Foods, Inc. et al. COMP. FILED: 12-17-24 CASE NUMBER: 24STCV33191/25STCV24957 FAC FILED: 08-22-25 NOTICE: OK PROCEEDINGS: MOTION TO STRIKE MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Choice Foods, Inc. RESP. PARTY: Defendants Herbort Hudson, Sam White, and La Breafo, Inc. MOTION TO STRIKE (CCP Sec.Sec. 435; 436) TENTATIVE RULING: Plaintiff Choice Foods, Inc.'s Motion to Strike Defendants/Cross-Complainants Shoreline Foods, Inc., Freeway Foods, Inc., and La Breafo, Inc.'s Answers, Affirmative Defenses, and Cross-Complaint is CONTINUED to October 29, 2026 at 9:00 a.m. in Department 512 of the Stanley Mosk Courthouse.

At least 16 court days prior to the continued hearing date, Plaintiff must file and serve supplemental briefing solely to address the issue of waiver discussed herein. At least 9 court days prior to the continued hearing date, any Opposition must be filed and served. At least 5 court days prior to the continued hearing date, any Reply must be filed and served. Also at least 9 court days prior to the next scheduled hearing, Shoreline Foods, Freeway Foods, and La Breafo must file and serve status updates as to revival/reinstatement. Order to Show Cause re: Status of Defendant Freeway Food, Inc.'s and Shoreline Food, Inc.'s is CONTINUED to October 29, 2026 at 9:00 a.m. in Department of the Stanley Mosk Courthouse. Moving party is ordered to give notice.