Judge: Cherol J. Nellon, Case: 22STCV30030, Date: 2023-08-04 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV30030 Hearing Date: August 4, 2023 Dept: 14
(1) Krieger/Ramos-Platt/Erdreich-Epstein
Demurrer
Defendants
Krieger, Ramos-Platt, and Erdreich-Epstein demur, per code of Civil Procedure
§§ 430.10(e)-(f), to the First Amended Complaint, on the grounds that the
complaint is uncertain and fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a
cause of action.
Decision
The
demurrer is SUSTAINED, with 10 days leave to amend. This will be
Plaintiff’s final chance to amend.
Discussion
While the
First Amended Complaint is a significant improvement on the original complaint
in terms of size and complexity, it is still not a legally intelligible
document. Plaintiffs say that their claim sounds in fraud. But they do not
follow any of the rules of fraud pleading. See Stansfield v. Starkey
(1990) 220 Cal.App.3d 59, 73. Nor do they attempt to match their facts to the
elements of any fraud claim. See Mosier v.
(2) Children’s
Hospital Demurrer
Defendant
Children’s Hospital demurs, per code of Civil Procedure §§ 430.10(e)-(f),
to the First Amended Complaint, on the grounds that the complaint is uncertain
and fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.
Decision
For the reasons given above, the
demurrer is SUSTAINED, with 10 days leave to amend. This will be
Plaintiff’s final chance to amend.
(3) County
Demurrer
Defendant
County demurs, per code of Civil Procedure §§ 430.10(e)-(f), to the First
Amended Complaint, on the grounds that the complaint is uncertain and fails to
state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.
Decision
For the reasons given above, the
demurrer is SUSTAINED, with 10 days leave to amend. This will be
Plaintiff’s final chance to amend.
(4) Motion to
Strike
Defendant
County moves this court for an order striking the First Amended Complaint.
Decision
Given the rulings
above, the motion is TAKEN OFF-CALENDAR as MOOT.
(5) Motion to
Disqualify
Plaintiff moves
this court for an order disqualifying Judge Terry Green.
Decision
The motion is
DENIED as MOOT. Judge Green has retired for reasons wholly unrelated to this
case. The case has been reassigned pursuant to ordinary administration. The
present judicial officer’s decision on this motion should not be construed as
an admission of anything on Judge Green’s behalf.
(6) Motion to
Transfer
Plaintiff
moves this court for an order transferring the case to a venue outside of
Southern California.
Decision
The motion
is DENIED.
Discussion
Plaintiff’s
motion makes no reference to the statutes governing venue in the State of
California – Code of Civil Procedure §§ 395-397. Nor does it identify a
court to which transfer would be proper. The motion is not supported by
sufficient legal argument or admissible evidence.
(7) Motion to
Quash
Plaintiff
moves this court for an order quashing a deposition subpoena for medical
records.
Decision
The motion is
TAKEN OFF-CALENDAR. It does not attach or specifically identify the subpoena to
be quashed.
(8)-(9) Motion to
Deem Admissions Admitted
Defendants
Krieger, Ramos-Platt, and Erdreich-Epstein move this court for orders deeming
the Requests for Admissions served on Plaintiffs Kimberly Clisbee and
Christopher Co as admitted.
Decision
The motions
are GRANTED.
Governing Statute
Code of
Civil Procedure § 2033.280 provides in relevant part as follows:
“If a party to whom requests for
admission are directed fails to serve a timely response, the following rules
apply:
(a) The party to whom the requests
for admission are directed waives any objection to the requests, including one
based on privilege or on the protection for work product under Chapter 4 (commencing
with Section 2018.010). The court, on motion, may relieve that party from this
waiver on its determination that both of the following conditions are
satisfied:
(1) The party has subsequently
served a response that is in substantial compliance with Sections 2033.210,
2033.220, and 2033.230.
(2) The party's failure to serve a
timely response was the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect.
(b) The requesting party may move
for an order that the genuineness of any documents and the truth of any matters
specified in the requests be deemed admitted, as well as for a monetary
sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010).
(c) The court shall make this
order, unless it finds that the party to whom the requests for admission have
been directed has served, before the hearing on the motion, a proposed response
to the requests for admission that is in substantial compliance with Section
2033.220.”
Discussion
Defendants
served Plaintiffs with these Requests for Admissions on March 9, 2023. No
responses were timely served. Plaintiffs’ Opposition mentions a Motion to
Quash, but the only such motion on the court’s calendar appears to be a motion
to quash a deposition subpoena. In any event, a motion to quash is not a proper
response to Requests for Admissions.
Code of
Civil Procedure § 2033.280(c) requires that the court grant these motions.
(10)-(13) Motion
to Compel Responses to Interrogatories
Defendants Krieger, Ramos-Platt, and
Erdreich-Epstein move this court for orders compelling Plaintiffs Kimberly
Clisbee and Christopher Co to respond to Form and Special Interrogatories.
Decision
The motions
are GRANTED.
Governing Statute
Code of
Civil Procedure § 2030.290 provides in relevant part as follows:
“If a party to whom interrogatories
are directed fails to serve a timely response, the following rules apply:
(a) The party to whom the
interrogatories are directed waives any right to exercise the option to produce
writings under Section 2030.230, as well as any objection to the
interrogatories, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work
product under Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 2018.010). The court, on
motion, may relieve that party from this waiver on its determination that both
of the following conditions are satisfied:
(1) The party has subsequently
served a response that is in substantial compliance with Sections 2030.210,
2030.220, 2030.230, and 2030.240.
(2) The party's failure to serve a
timely response was the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect.
(b) The party propounding the
interrogatories may move for an order compelling response to the
interrogatories.”
Discussion
Defendants
served Plaintiffs with these Interrogatories on March 9, 2023. No responses
were timely served. Plaintiffs’ Opposition mentions the production of documents
and an intent to provide “all information relevant.” (Response filed July 6,
2023, p. 3:23). But the production of documents is not a substitute for
compliant discovery responses. And a promise to produce the information that
one side deems relevant is not sufficient to avert a motion to compel.
Code of
Civil Procedure § 2033.290 requires that the court grant these motions.
(14)-(15) Motion
to Compel Responses to Requests for Production
Defendants Krieger, Ramos-Platt,
and Erdreich-Epstein move this court for orders compelling Plaintiffs Kimberly
Clisbee and Christopher Co to respond to Requests for Production.
Decision
The motions
are GRANTED.
Governing Statute
Code of
Civil Procedure § 2031.300 provides in relevant part as follows:
“If a party to whom a demand for
inspection, copying, testing, or sampling is directed fails to serve a timely
response to it, the following rules shall apply:
(a) The party to whom the demand
for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling is directed waives any objection
to the demand, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work
product under Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 2018.010). The court, on
motion, may relieve that party from this waiver on its determination that both
of the following conditions are satisfied:
(1) The party has subsequently
served a response that is in substantial compliance with Sections 2031.210,
2031.220, 2031.230, 2031.240, and 2031.280.
(2) The party's failure to serve a
timely response was the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect.
(b) The party making the demand may
move for an order compelling response to the demand.”
Discussion
Defendants
served Plaintiffs with these Requests for Production on March 9, 2023. No
responses were timely served. Plaintiffs’ Opposition mentions the production of
documents and an intent to provide “all information relevant.” (Response filed
July 6, 2023, p. 3:23). But the production of documents is not a substitute for
compliant discovery responses. And a promise to produce the information that
one side deems relevant is not sufficient to avert a motion to compel.
Code of
Civil Procedure § 2033.290 requires that the court grant these motions.