Sanchez v. Sutter Medical Foundation CA3

Filed 2/4/15 Sanchez v. Sutter Medical Foundation CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento) ----

ALEXANDRA SANCHEZ,

Plaintiff and Appellant, C074947

v. (Super. Ct. No. 34201100102688CUPOGDS) SUTTER MEDICAL FOUNDATION et al.,

Defendants and Respondents.

Plaintiff Alexandra Sanchez sued defendant Mark I. Grijnsztein, M.D., alleging that he sexually assaulted and battered her during a medical examination. In the same complaint, she also sued defendants Sutter Medical Group (SMG), Sutter Medical Foundation (SMF), and Sutter Physicians Alliance for negligence. The trial court granted defendants’ motions for summary judgment. Sanchez now contends the trial court erred in granting the motion for summary judgment filed by Dr. Grijnsztein, SMG and SMF. But because she filed her notice of appeal more than 60 days after the notice of entry of judgment was served on her, we will dismiss the appeal as untimely.

1

BACKGROUND Sanchez, a part-time phlebotomist, saw Dr. Grijnsztein, an allergist, because she was having difficulty tolerating gloves on her hands. Dr. Grijnsztein recommended a blood test to determine latex allergies and patch and skin prick testing to determine sensitivity to rubber products. Sanchez returned to Dr. Grijnsztein’s office to undergo the recommended testing. Dr. Grijnsztein saw Sanchez in Exam Room 7 and spoke with her about the tests. Sanchez refused the tests and Dr. Grijnsztein left the room. Thereafter, Sanchez informed staff members she had changed her mind, but when Dr. Grijnsztein returned to the exam room to perform the tests, Sanchez again refused and Dr. Grijnsztein again left the room. More than a month later, Sanchez returned to Dr. Grijnsztein’s office and Dr. Grijnsztein completed the skin prick test. More than a year after the testing, Sanchez sued Dr. Grijnsztein for assault, battery and intentional infliction of emotional distress. She also sued SMG, SMF and Sutter Physicians Alliance for negligence. Sutter Physicians Alliance filed a motion for summary judgment. Sanchez did not file an opposition, but instead filed an ex parte application seeking a continuance of the summary judgment hearing so that she could file an opposition. The trial court denied the ex parte request for a continuance and ultimately granted the summary judgment motion brought by Sutter Physicians Alliance. Sutter Physicians Alliance was dismissed from the action and is not a party to this appeal. Later, Dr. Grijnsztein, SMG and SMF filed their own motion for summary judgment. Sanchez, representing herself by that point, did not file an opposition. When the trial court issued a tentative ruling granting summary judgment, Sanchez requested a hearing. At the hearing, the trial court admonished Sanchez for failing to file an opposition, but continued the hearing so that she could do so. Once again Sanchez did