Esther Zavala Saldana v. Sanghyun An, et al.

failed to submit a response in substantial compliance with CCP Sec. 2031.210 et seq. The responses are inadequate, incomplete, and/or evasive. Instead, Plaintiff served substantially identical responses to each of the requests essentially asserting boilerplate objections and, thereafter, contending that documents would be produced pursuant to a protective order. In addition, Plaintiff failed to justify its objections. Plaintiff failed to file any written oppositions to the motions. Plaintiff is ordered to serve further responses to the discovery items at issue in these motions - Form Interrogatories Nos. 17.1, 50.1, and 50.2 and Request for Production of Documents 1 to 25, without objections, within 20 days of this date. Defendant is ordered to give notice of the Court's ruling.

DOCUMENT (For Judge and Court Staff Only) Honorable Amy N. Carter Wednesday, August 26, 2026 Department M Calendar No. PROCEEDINGS Esther Zavala Saldana v. Sanghyun An, et al.

1. Sanghyun An, M.D.'s Motion for Summary Judgment

Sanghyun An, M.D.'s Motion for Summary Judgment is denied.

Background

Plaintiff filed the Complaint on January 13, 2025. Plaintiff alleges the following facts. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants committed dental malpractice related to a root canal treatment causing Plaintiff's injuries.

Objections

Plaintiffs' Objections

Plaintiff's objections 1 to 9 are overruled. Plaintiff objected to statements made in the separate statement of facts. Plaintiff did not set forth objections to evidence in the manner required by Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1354(b). Plaintiff did not quote the specific objectionable piece of evidence, but, instead, quoted Defendant's statements made in the separate statement of facts.

Defendant's Objections

Defendant's objections 1 to 35 are overruled.

Motion for Summary Judgment

The purpose of a motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication "is to provide courts with a mechanism to cut through the parties' pleadings in order to determine whether, despite their allegations, trial is in fact necessary to resolve their dispute." (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 843.)

"Code of Civil Procedure section 437c, subdivision (c), requires the trial judge to grant summary judgment if all the evidence submitted, and 'all inferences reasonably deducible from the evidence' and uncontradicted by other inferences or evidence, show that there is no triable issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." (Adler v. Manor Healthcare Corp. (1992) 7 Cal. App. 4th 1110, 1119.)

"On a motion for summary judgment, the initial burden is always on the moving party to make a prima facie showing that there are no triable issues of material fact." (Scalf v. D. B. Log Homes, Inc. (2005) 128 Cal. App. 4th 1510, 1519.)

A defendant moving for summary judgment or summary adjudication "has met his or her burden of showing that a cause of action has no merit if the party has shown that one or more elements of the cause of action . . . cannot be established, or that there is a complete defense to the cause of action." CCP Sec. 437c(p)(2).

"Once the defendant . . . has met that burden, the burden shifts to the plaintiff . . . to show that a triable issue of one or more material facts exists as to the cause of action or a defense thereto." CCP Sec. 437c(p)(2).

"If the plaintiff cannot do so, summary judgment should be granted." Avivi v. Centro Medico Urgente Medical Center (2008) 159 Cal. App. 4th 463, 467.

"A plaintiff or cross-complainant has met his or her burden of showing that there is no defense to a cause of action if that party has proved each element of the cause of action entitling the party to judgment on the cause of action. Once the plaintiff or cross-complainant has met that burden, the burden shifts to the defendant or cross-defendant to show that a triable issue of one or more material facts exists as to the cause of action or a defense thereto." Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 437c(p)(1).

"When deciding whether to grant summary judgment, the court must consider all of the evidence set forth in the papers (except evidence to which the court has sustained an objection), as well as all reasonable inferences that may be drawn from that evidence, in the light most favorable to the party opposing summary judgment." (Avivi, 159 Cal.App.4th at 467; CCP Sec. 437c(c).)

Defendant moves for summary judgment as to Plaintiffs' Complaint. Defendant moves on the following grounds. "1. DR. AN met the standard of care in the community as it relates to his dental care and treatment of plaintiff; and 2. To a reasonable degree of medical probability, no act or omission on the part of DR. AN proximately caused or contributed to plaintiff's injuries." (Notice of Motion, p. 2, lines 7-10).

The motion is supported by the expert declarations of Barry Vilkin, D.M.D. and Howard Pitchon, M.D. Defendant has met his initial burden to show that Plaintiff's cause of action has no merit by showing that one or more elements of the cause of action cannot be established. (Defendant's Separate Statement of Facts and Supporting Evidence, 6-18.)

Plaintiff has met her burden to provide specific facts to show that a triable issue of material fact exists as to her cause of action. (Plaintiff's Response to Separate Statement of Facts and Supporting Evidence, 6, 7, 9, 10, 14-18; Plaintiff's Additional Facts and Supporting Evidence, 19-26; Decls., Andrew Pallos, D.D.S.; Alan H. Gluskin, D.D.S.; Michael Fitzgibbons, M.D.).

The standard of care with respect to acts of medical professionals is exclusively within the knowledge of experts, and, thus, whether the medical professional met or breached the standard of care can only be established by expert testimony. See Landeros v. Flood (1976) 17 Cal.3d 399, 410.

Here, Defendant submitted the competent expert declaration of Barry M. Vilkin, D.M.D., M.Sc.D. Dr. Vilkin opines that Defendant complied with the applicable standard of care and that no act or omission of Defendant caused or contributed to Plaintiff's injuries. (Decl., Barry M. Vilkin, D.M.D., M.Sc.D., P.P. 7-10.)

Defendant also submitted the competent expert declaration of Howard Pitchon, M.D to testify as to the matter of infectious diseases. Dr. Pitchon opines that no act or omission of Defendant caused or contributed to Plaintiff's injuries. (Decl., Howard Pitchon, M.D., P.P. 6-8.)

Plaintiff met her burden to provide competent expert testimony to controvert the opinions of Defendant's experts. Willard v. Hagemeister (1981) 121 Cal.App.3d 406, 412.

Andrew Pallos, D.D.S. opines that Defendants failed to comply with the applicable standard of care and that Defendant's breach of the standard of care was a substantial factor in causing or contributing to Plaintiff's injuries.. (Decl., Andrew Pallos, D.D.S., P.P. 6-18.)

Specifically, Dr. Pallos opines that the root canal treatment provided by Defendant fell below the standard of care and caused Plaintiff's injuries. Similarly, Alan H. Gluskin, D.D.S. also testifies that the care and treatment provided by Defendant fell below the standard of care and caused Plaintiff's injuries. (Decl., Alan H. Gluskin, D.D.S., P.P. 10-23).

Finally, Plaintiff's infectious disease expert, Michael Fitzgibbons, M.D., testified that Defendant's acts or omissions caused, to a reasonably degree of medical probability, Plaintiff's infection and resulting injuries. (Decl., Michael Fitzgiboons, M.D., P.P. 8-22).

Defendant argues that Plaintiff's experts ignored key evidence in drawing their conclusions. However, the credibility and persuasiveness of Plaintiff's evidence, based on her experts' declarations, are not for determination with a motion for summary judgment, but, for a trier of fact.

Defendant also objects to the declaration of Plaintiff's infectious disease expert arguing that he is not qualified to testify as to dentistry. However, the Court notes that Defendant also submitted the declaration of an infectious disease expert who was not a dentist to testify as to causation of infections.

Finally, Defendant's objections to Plaintiff's two dental experts are not meritorious as the experts have identified their qualifications to testify, the materials they relied upon, and set forth their opinions. Again, whether the experts should have drawn different conclusions based on materials that they should or should not have considered go toward their persuasiveness and credibility and cannot be the basis for a denial of a motion for summary judgment.

Therefore, Defendant's motion for summary judgment is denied. Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

Case Number: 25TRCV00895 Hearing Date: August 26, 2026 Dept: M LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT - SOUTHWEST DISTRICT Honorable Amy N. Carter Department M Wednesday - August 26, 2026 Calendar No. PROCEEDINGS Bryan A. Loaiza Palacios v. American Honda Motor Co., et al. 25TRCV00895

1. Brian A. Loaiza Palacios' Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set One, and Request for Sanctions

TENTATIVE RULING

Bryan A. Loaiza Palacios' Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set One, and Request for Sanctions is granted, in part, and denied, in part.

Background

Plaintiff's Complaint was filed on March 19, 2025. Plaintiff alleges the following facts. Plaintiff alleges violations of the Song-Beverly Act concerning defects to his 2024 Honda Accord.

Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production of Documents

A party responding to an inspection demand shall respond to each demand with one of the following: a statement the party will comply with the demand, a representation the party lacks the ability to comply with the demand, or an objection. (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 2031.210, subd. (a).)

A response to an inspection demand may be inadequate because it is evasive or incomplete; contains an incomplete statement of compliance; an inadequate, incomplete, or evasive representation of inability to comply; or meritless or overly general objections to a demand. (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 2031.310, subd. (a).)

If a demanding party believes the responding party responded inadequately, the demanding party may move for an order compelling further response. (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 2031.310, subd. (a).)

"Unless notice of this motion is given within 45 days of the service of the verified response, or any supplemental verified response, or on or before any specific later date to which the demanding party and the responding party have agreed in writing, the demanding party waives any right to compel a further response to the demand." (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 2031.310, subd. (c).)

Meet and Confer