Ibrahim Arno v. Ocean Breeze Apartments, LLC et al.

Plaintiff's claimed physical injuries that support her disability claim. Defendant does not dispute this in opposition. The ordinary purpose of discovering medical records is to disprove the allegation that the medical injuries occurred and/or are as bad as the plaintiff contends, or to show that they did occur but were due to some other cause. Most of the law in this regard has developed in the context of personal injury claims, which are not at issue here. Plaintiff herein is alleging disability discrimination, and if Defendant concedes the existence of the underlying conditions at issue in the lawsuit, it is unclear how the medical records could aid Defendant in its defense of the lawsuit.

Defendant's opposition centers on Plaintiff's recent amendment to her complaint, pursuant to which she seeks to recover emotional distress damages. Defendant's subpoenas, however, are not propounded on mental health providers. It seems Defendant is hoping to discover that Plaintiff had additional medical conditions, other than those that form the basis of her disability claim, that it can argue caused or contributed to her emotional distress damages. This is, however, far too attenuated to permit Defendant to overcome the Constitutional right to privacy in Plaintiff's own medical records. Defendant cites no authority permitting discovery of ten years' worth of primary, urgent, and orthopaedic medical records in order to determine a possible alternative source of claimed emotional distress.

Defendant has the burden, once Plaintiff makes a privacy objection, to show heightened good cause for production of the subject records. See Hill v. National Collegiate Athletic Assn. (1994) 7 Cal.4 th 1, 31. Defendant has not met that burden, and the motions to quash are granted. Plaintiff is ordered to give notice.

Crystle Caigoy and Simona Danesh of Slater Slater Schulman LLP seek to be relieved as counsel for Plaintiff, Jane Roe T.B., declaring there has been a breakdown of the attorney-client relationship such that further representation is not possible. Counsel declares Client's address was confirmed by telephone in the past month, and has filed proof of service on Client and all parties who have appeared in the action. There is no timely opposition to the motion. Trial is not scheduled until 12/07/26 and therefore there will be no prejudice to Client as a result of the granting of the motion. Notably, the same attorneys were relieved from their representation of Co-Plaintiff, Jane Doe P.W., on 7/28/26. The motion is granted; relief is effective upon filing proof of service of the final order on Client. Counsel is ordered to give notice.

Case Number: 25LBCV01093 Hearing Date: September 1, 2026 Dept: S27 1.

Background

Facts Plaintiff, Ibrahim Arno filed this action against Defendants, Ocean Breeze Apartments, LLC, Excel Residential Services, Inc., Southern California Gas Company, and Hansa Investments, Inc. for breach of the warranty of habitability, premises liability, IIED, breach of covenant of quiet enjoyment, private nuisance and negligence. The operative complaint is the First Amended Complaint, which Plaintiff filed on 5/12/26. The majority of the claims in the complaint are made against Plaintiff's landlord, and encompass a wide variety of habitability and other claims. As relevant to today's motion, Plaintiff's third and sixth causes of action are pled against SCGC, and center on SCGC's alleged failure to prevent gas from leaking into Plaintiff's apartment.

2. Motion for Summary Judgment a. 5/12/26 Hearing On 5/12/26, the Court heard SCGC's motion for summary judgment or adjudication. The Court granted the motion as to Plaintiff's cause of action for IIED. The Court denied the motion as to the negligence cause of action, finding there were triable issues of material fact concerning both duty and breach.

b. Current Hearing On 6/10/26, Defendant filed this motion for summary adjudication, contending it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law on the negligence cause of action because there is no evidence it breached any duty to Plaintiff. Plaintiff, in opposition to the motion, argues that the relief sought is expressly prohibited by CCP Sec.437c(f)(2), which provides, "A party shall not move for summary judgment based on issues asserted in a prior motion for summary adjudication and denied by the court unless that party establishes, to the satisfaction of the court, newly discovered facts or circumstances or a change of law supporting the issues reasserted in the summary judgment motion."

Defendant, in reply, contends CCP Sec.437c(4) expressly permits it to bring the motion. Sec.437c(4) does not exist. Defendant intended to cite Sec.437c(a)(4), which provides, "A party shall not bring more than one motion for summary judgment against an adverse party to the action or proceeding. This limitation does not apply to motions for summary adjudication." Defendant argues that, because Defendant styled this motion as one for summary adjudication instead of summary judgment, the limitation does not apply.

While Sec.437c(f)(2) refers to a motion for summary "judgment" and Defendant styled this as a motion for summary "adjudication," this motion is really a motion for summary judgment. The sole remaining cause of action against SCGC is for negligence, and thus, if this motion were granted, it would operate as a summary judgment in SCGC's favor. As the Rutter Guide on Civil Procedure Before Trial explains: A summary judgment terminates the action between the parties and leads to an immediate, appealable judgment (P. 10:384).

Summary adjudication orders do not terminate the action. The balance of the case remains to be tried. The summary adjudication simply eliminates the need to prove or disprove a particular claim or defense when the case comes to trial. After trial, judgment must be awarded "as established by the summary proceeding provided for in this section." [CCP Sec. 437c(k) (emphasis added)] A summary adjudication order is not appealable. Nor does an appeal lie where plaintiff dismisses the remaining claims without prejudice in exchange for a waiver of the statute of limitations.

Such "artifice" does not create an appealable judgment (see P. 10:385). But an order denying or granting summary adjudication is immediately reviewable, in the court of appeal's discretion, by petition for writ of mandate.

Defendant's motion, as noted above, would completely dispose of the case and result in a final judgment. It is therefore one for summary judgment, not summary adjudication, despite its title. While Defendant provides evidence with its motion that was not presented in connection with its prior motion, the evidence is not "newly discovered." The evidence is merely newly obtained, but because the evidence consists entirely of declarations from SCGC's employees, it is, by definition, not newly discovered. The Court finds the renewed motion is not permitted under Sec.437c(f)(2) and Sec.437c(a)(4), and the motion is summarily denied.

3. Motion for Relief from Jury Trial Waiver On 5/22/26, Plaintiff filed a motion for relief from jury trial waiver. Plaintiff was obligated to post jury fees prior to the holding of a CMC, and in no event more than 365 days after filing the case. Plaintiff failed to do so. Plaintiff argues he should be relieved of this failure per CCP Sec.631. Plaintiff notes that he posted the fees upon discovery of the failure to pay the fees.

The Rutter Guide on Civil Procedure Before Trial, Sec.12:325, et seq., explains that relief from failure to timely pay jury fees is favored, and that inadvertent failure to timely pay fees coupled with a timely motion for waiver must be granted absent prejudice to the opposing party. Defendant has not opposed the motion, and has therefore not shown prejudice. The 10/05/26 trial is scheduled as a jury trial, and will remain so scheduled. Defendant is ordered to give notice.

Case Number: 25LBCV01819 Hearing Date: September 1, 2026 Dept: S27 Defendant moves for summary judgment on Plaintiffs' complaint. Plaintiffs failed to timely file opposition papers, which were due on 8/12/26. Plaintiffs filed grossly untimely opposition papers on 8/19/26. Plaintiffs seek relief via CCP Sec.473(b) for their failure to file timely opposition papers. As this Court has repeatedly