Zapanta v. Universal Care, Inc.

Christy Zapanta, her guardian ad litem, and her mother (Zapanta) (plaintiffs) filed a medical-malpractice claim against Universal Care, Inc., and Eddie Quan, (Universal) (defendants), claiming that a delay in diagnosing a pseudomonas bacterial infection resulted in neurological impairment of Zapanta and negligent infliction of emotional distress to her bystander-witness mother. Universal filed a motion for summary judgment and included an expert’s declaration that Universal complied with the applicable standard of care. One day before the opposition to the summary-judgment motion was due, Zapanta filed a request to voluntarily dismiss the case without prejudice. The clerk entered the dismissal the same day. Universal learned that the summary-judgment motion had been taken off the calendar upon receiving a copy of the dismissal. The clerk put the motion back on the calendar at the request of Universal that also asked the court to strike the request for dismissal and grant its motion for summary judgment. Zapanta filed a response with the sole contention that after the dismissal, the court lacked jurisdiction to rule on the motion. Both parties attended the hearing on the summary-judgment motion, and the court granted the motion. In its subsequent order, the court found (1) that the expert declaration established that the medical-malpractice claim lacked merit; (2) that, therefore, the emotional-distress claim also lacked merit; and (3) that precedent requires the court to strike the request for dismissal. Zapanta appealed.