Sample v. Centinela Hosp. Med. Center CA2/5

Filed 9/18/14 Sample v. Centinela Hosp. Med. Center CA2/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

ALWENA SAMPLE, B251516

Plaintiff and Appellant, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. YC063573) v.

CENTINELA HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER,

Defendant and Respondent.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Cary Nishimoto, Judge. Dismiss in part and affirm in part. The Dorton Firm and Fred D. Dorton, Jr., for Plaintiff and Appellant. Carroll, Kelly, Trotter, Franzen, McKenna & Peabody, Michael J. Trotter, David P. Pruett, Matthew N. Trotter, for Defendant and Appellant. ___________________

Plaintiff and appellant Alwena Sample appeals from the judgment entered when the court granted a motion for summary judgment filed by defendant and respondent Centinela Hospital Medical Center (Centinela). Sample also appeals from a postjudgment order denying relief under Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (b).1 We dismiss Sample’s appeal from the judgment as untimely. We affirm the postjudgment order based on the inadequacy of the record on appeal.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Sample filed suit against Centinela and an individual doctor on November 5, 2010, after losing two fingers to gangrene during a six-day hospital stay. After successive demurrers, Sample filed a Second Amended Complaint on October 25, 2011, naming Centinela as the sole defendant. On January 24, 2012, the court set a trial date of November 15, 2012. On July 30, 2012, Centinela filed a motion for summary judgment, scheduled to be heard on October 15, 2012. Sample’s opposition to the motion for summary judgment included a declaration by expert Natasha Williams, but did not include the medical records relied upon by Ms. Williams. The court sua sponte continued the hearing three times to give Sample an opportunity to present facts necessary to oppose the summary judgment motion.2 The hearing was first continued from October 15, 2012 to November 5, 2012, then again to November 15, 2012, and finally to November 16, 2012, one day after the scheduled trial date. On November 9, 2012, Sample’s counsel filed declarations