Judge Blaine K. Bowman, Case 37-2023-00021374-CU-PA-NC 2023-09-08 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Blaine K. Bowman, Case: 37-2023-00021374-CU-PA-NC, Date: 2023-09-08 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

SOUTH BUILDING TENTATIVE RULINGS - September 07, 2023

09/08/2023 01:30:00 PM N-31 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Blaine K. Bowman

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited PI/PD/WD - Auto Demurrer / Motion to Strike 37-2023-00021374-CU-PA-NC NORTHCUTT VS. TRI-CITY MEDICAL CENTER [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Demurrer, 07/21/2023

The hearing on this matter is ADVANCED to Friday, September 8, 2023 at 10:30 a.m. in Department N-31.

The Demurrer to Complaint brought by plaintiff Diana Northcutt (Plaintiff) is SUSTAINED with leave to amend. The time to amend shall be as set forth in California Rules of Court, rule 3.1320.

Requests for Judicial Notice The Request for Judicial Notice brought by Plaintiff is DENIED without prejudice for failure to include a copy of the document for which judicial notice is being requested. While a Secretary of State Roster is something that is likely judicially-noticeable under Evidence Code § 452(h), Plaintiff failed to include a copy of the evidence and this Court cannot evaluate whether it is judicially noticeable without a copy of the actual document.

The Request for Judicial Notice brought by defendant Tri-City Healthcare District (dba Tri-City Medical Center) (Tri-City) is GRANTED in its entirety under Evidence Code §§ 451-452, but with the caveat that only the existence and legal effect of the documents are judicially-noticeable – not the truth of their content.

Admonishment The Court notes that a large portion of argument made by Tri-City is repeated verbatim in the reply brief (with the exception of the words 'Here' and 'In the instant case' in the final paragraph). (Compare Demurrer, pp. 8:14-9:18 with Reply, pp. 6:14-19.) The Court reads and reviews all legal arguments raised by the parties in their points and authorities. As such, lengthy verbatim repetition of this nature is both wasteful and judicially-inefficient when it demonstrates that a litigant has failed to meaningfully address the new angles or new issues – i.e. a reply brief should address the arguments raised in the opposition brief, not simply copy and paste the argument from the moving papers. Such blatant repetition discourages the Court from conducting substantive and meaningful review and consideration of a litigant's arguments as it becomes clear that a litigant has nothing new to add. Tri-City is admonished for this wholesale repetition.

Merits of Motion Plaintiff claims she was offered a ride on a 'golf cart type vehicle' by an employee of Tri-City who proceeded to operate the vehicle at an unsafe speed – thus negligently causing Plaintiff to fall off of the vehicle and suffer injuries. This accident allegedly occurred on June 3, 2021. Plaintiff is now suing Tri-City for motor vehicle negligence and for general negligence. Plaintiff's complaint is written on a Calendar No.: Event ID: TENTATIVE RULINGS

2997463 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE: NORTHCUTT VS. TRI-CITY MEDICAL CENTER [IMAGED] 37-2023-00021374-CU-PA-NC Judicial Council Form complaint. Plaintiff's complaint makes no reference to having complied with the presentation requirements imposed by the Government Claims Act. (Government Code §§ 911.2 and 945.4.) Tri-City demurs on grounds that Plaintiff has thus failed to state a claim for relief – arguing that presentation of a claim under the Government Claims Act is 'a condition precedent to maintain a cause of action and, thus, is an element of the plaintiff's cause of action.' Perez v. Golden Empire Transit Dist.

(2012) 209 Cal.App.4th 1228, 1236.

As a brief aside, the Court notes that Tri-City also argues, separate and apart from failure to state a claim, that '[t]he summons and complaint were improperly served on CSC Global, which is not an agent for service of process for the District...' (Demurrer, p. 5:8-10.) However, this appears to be an attack on proper service not stating a claim. The only ground upon which the instant demurrer is brought is failure to state a claim under Code of Civil Procedure § 430.10(e). Moreover, a motion to quash service of summons 'is the first line of defense against an improper summons or service. It is the only procedure which can be utilized at the outset of the action without waiving the objection, because filing an answer or demurrer or other motion constitutes a general appearance...' Weil and Brown, California Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial (The Rutter Group, 2023) ¶ 4:411, citing Code of Civil Procedure § 418.10.) As such, an objection to service has not been properly raised, and appears that it may now have been waived. In any event, consideration of the service issue is not properly before this Court.

Returning to the issue of whether Plaintiff has properly pled compliance with the presentation requirement of the Government Claims Act (compliance that is a required element and/or condition precedent of a cause of action against a public entity that must be pled), Tri-City is correct that, generally speaking, such compliance must be pled. See Perez v. Golden Empire Transit Dist. (2012) 209 Cal.App.4th 1228, 1236. Of course, the Perez case also stands for the proposition that compliance need only be pled in a general manner for purposes of surviving demurrer. Indeed, in the Perez case the allegation that 'On January 15, 2010, Plaintiff filed a timely claim complying with the required claims statute' was held sufficient to survive demurrer. As such, while it is appropriate to sustain the demurrer at this juncture, leave to amend is also appropriate, and, given the discussion of three letters that were sent to Tri-City, it appears that a general allegation of compliance with the presentation requirement can be made.

Tri-City notably seeks to delve more deeply into the particulars of those letters and whether they met each of the precise statutory requirements – requirements like who received the letters and whether they contained adequate notice of the claim being made. However, given that a general allegation of compliance is sufficient to survive demurrer, those particulars do not appear to be ripe for resolution on demurrer.

The Court notes that Plaintiff also argues that the presentation requirement does not even apply because Tri-City has not properly registered with the County of San Diego. This Court, being familiar with its own cases, recognizes this legal issue as having arisen in another case against Tri-City – the case of Jacobs, M.D. v. Tri-City Healthcare District (San Diego Superior Court Case No. 20-35222).

While the facts of the instant case may be different from the prior Jacobs case, the legal standards may not – and, for that matter, facts that are overarching (such as Tri-City's registration status with regard to the County of San Diego) as opposed to specific to the instant case (such as details of how fast the 'golf cart' vehicle in this case was driven) may not be different either. As the parties have raised a number of legal arguments about what constitutes compliance with the presentation requirement, as well as whether that requirement even applies (if Tri-City is barred from invoking the defense due to failing to register with the county), the Court directs the parties' attention to the ruling in the Jacobs case (which can be found as Register of Actions No. 74 in that case) in order to more efficiently resolve these issues during the process of amending, meeting and conferring, and possibly demurring a second time.

Ultimately, only a general allegation of compliance with the presentation requirement is needed to survive demurrer. And, as Jacobs demonstrates, some of these particular issues being raised cannot even be resolved via summary judgment.

Unless the ruling(s) above indicate that an appearance is necessary, parties who wish to submit, Calendar No.: Event ID: TENTATIVE RULINGS

2997463 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE: NORTHCUTT VS. TRI-CITY MEDICAL CENTER [IMAGED] 37-2023-00021374-CU-PA-NC who are satisfied with the above tentative ruling(s), and/or who do not otherwise wish to argue the motion(s) are encouraged to give notice to the Court and each other of their intention not to appear.

Calendar No.: Event ID: TENTATIVE RULINGS

2997463