A.Y.O. v. Enloe Medical Center ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 | A.Y.O., a minor, by and through his guardian No. 2:21-cv-00285-KJM-JDP ad litem, Francis Ocasio 12 ORDER B Plaintiff, 14 v: 15 Enloe Medical Center, doing business as Enloe Medical Center — Esplanade, 16 Defendant. 17 18 In this medical malpractice case, defendant Enloe Medical Center seeks leave to file a 19 | motion for summary judgment regarding whether Dr. Green was an actual agent of defendant. 20 | Mem. at 1, ECF No. 53-1. Plaintiff opposes. See Opp’n, ECF No. 58. Defendant has replied. 21 | See Reply, ECF No. 59. The court submitted this matter without a hearing. Min. Order, ECF 22 | No. 60. For the reasons below, the court denies the motion. 23 Under this case’s scheduling order, the deadline to file dispositive motions was January 24 | 21,2021. Mins., ECF No. 14. Whether the court permits defendant to file the late-stage motion 25 | for summary judgment turns on whether defendant shows “good cause” to do so. See Johnson v. 26 | Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 608 (9th Cir. 1992) (dates in scheduling order may be 27 | modified only for “good cause” under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4)). The focus of 1 the Rule 16 “good cause” inquiry is on defendant’s diligence in seeking leave; if defendant was 2 not diligent, request for leave should be denied. Id. at 608–09. 3 Here, defendant was not diligent in preparing to file a dispositive motion on the issue of 4 actual agency. As noted in this court’s previous order, defendant was on notice of plaintiff’s 5 actual agency theory before the dispositive motion deadline, as the complaint alleges that 6 “[d]efendant and its employees [including Dr. Green] were the agents of each other.” Order at 1– 7 2, ECF No. 52. Although defendant argues California Court of Appeal decision issued in 2022, 8 Franklin v. Santa Barbara Cottage Hospital, established an unforeseeable new law that warrants 9 granting the leave it requests, Franklin did not establish any new law on actual agency. See 10 Mem. at 1; Mot. Ex. D, ECF No. 53-6 (attaching copy of Franklin decision). Rather, Franklin 11 relied on a 2015 decision, Jackson v. AEG Live, LLC, which held a doctor is not an actual agent 12 of a hospital unless the hospital has control over how the doctor treats patients. See Mot. Ex. D at 13 10–11 (quoting 233 Cal.App.4th 1156, 1179 (2015)); Opp’n at 4. If allowed to file a dispositive 14 motion now, defendant, as did the hospital in Jackson, proposes to argue Dr. Green was not an 15 actual agent of defendant because defendant did not have control over Dr. Green’s medical 16 practice. Mem. at 3. Defendant does not explain why it could not have filed its dispositive 17 motion based on Jackson before the January 21, 2021 deadline. See generally Reply. Defendant 18 has not shown the required good cause. 19 For the reasons above, the court denies defendant’s motion. 20 This order resolves ECF No. 53. 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. 22 DATED: October 6, 2022.