Judge: Daniel M. Crowley, Case: 21STCV42152, Date: 2022-08-25 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV42152    Hearing Date: August 25, 2022    Dept: 28

Defendants Oliver Caniga, M.D., Monica Deshmukh, M.D., and County of Los Angeles’s Demurrer

Having considered the moving, opposing and reply papers, the Court rules as follows. 

BACKGROUND

On November 15, 2021, Plaintiff Maryam Sanei (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Oliver Caniga, M.D. (“Caniga”), Serene Tareen, M.D. (“Tareen”), Monica Deshmukh, M.D. (“Deshmukh”), Olive View-UCLA Medical Center (“UCLA”) and Midvalley Comprehensive Health (“Midvalley”) for medical negligence/malpractice.

On May 9, 2022, Plaintiff filed the FAC.

On July 11, 2022, Caniga, Deshmukh and the County of Los Angeles (“County”), on behalf of UCLA, (Collectively “Moving Defendants”) filed a Demurrer to be heard on August 25, 2022. On August 12, 2022, Plaintiff filed an opposition. On August 18, 2022, Moving Defendants filed a reply.

Trial is scheduled for May 15, 2023.

PARTY’S REQUESTS

Moving Defendants request the Court sustain the demurrer to the complaint as Plaintiff has failed to state a cause of action because he failed to allege facts establishing either compliance with the Government Claims Act or excuse from compliance before filing suit.

Plaintiff requests the Court overrule the demurrer.

LEGAL STANDARD

CCP § 430.10 states: “The party against whom a complaint or cross-complaint has been filed may object, by demurrer or answer as provided in Section 430.30, to the pleading on any one or more of the following grounds: (a) The court has no jurisdiction of the subject of the cause of action alleged in the pleading; (b) The person who filed the pleading does not have the legal capacity to sue; (c) There is another action pending between the same parties on the same cause of action; (d) There is a defect or misjoinder of parties; (e) The pleading does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action; (f) The pleading is uncertain. As used in this subdivision, “uncertain” includes ambiguous and unintelligible; and (g) In an action founded upon a contract, it cannot be ascertained from the pleading whether the contract is written, is oral, or is implied by conduct.”

A demurrer for sufficiency tests whether the complaint states a cause of action.  (Hahn v. Mirda (2007) 147 Cal. App. 4th 740, 747.)  When considering demurrers, courts read the allegations liberally and in context.  (Taylor v. City of Los Angeles Dept. of Water and Power (2006) 144 Cal. App. 4th 1216, 1228.)  In a demurrer proceeding, the defects must be apparent on the face of the pleading or by proper judicial notice.  (CCP § 430.30(a).)  A demurrer tests the pleadings alone and not the evidence or other extrinsic matters.  (SKF Farms v. Superior Court (1984) 153 Cal. App. 3d 902, 905.)  Therefore, it lies only where the defects appear on the face of the pleading or are judicially noticed.  (Id.)  The only issue involved in a demurrer hearing is whether the complaint, as it stands, unconnected with extraneous matters, states a cause of action.  (Hahn, 147 Cal.App.4th at 747.)

Governmental Code §911.2 requires a Plaintiff bring a claim for personal injury not later than six months after the accrual of the cause of action to the appropriate governmental bodies. This is determined generally by looking to the date the claim is submitted with an applicable filling fee or fee waiver.

DISCUSSION

Judicial Notice

The Court takes judicial notice of the requested information.

Demurrer

Plaintiff filed suit against Caniga and Deshmukh, who are both county employees, for personal injuries she sustained from treatment at a County facility. Moving Defendants argue that Plaintiff fails to plead she presented a timely prelitigation claim to the County prior to filing suit, instead stating she presented a claim more than a year after the accrual of her cause of action.

The alleged incident occurred from March 8 to March 12, 2019. Plaintiff was first potentially made aware of malpractice in March of 2020, and states in the complaint that she first suspected Moving Defendants on or around August 2, 2020. She states she did not confirm as such until on or around September 22, 2020. However, confirmation is based upon the date at which Plaintiff discovers or should have discovered the injury, which, from the facts alleged, appears to be June 2020. Plaintiff was put on notice that her uterus was enlarged with multiple fibroids—a doctor confirmed later that month that her uterus was damaged.

Plaintiff states that prior to commencing this action, she served a notice upon Defendants with a POS dated June 18, 2021. After being informed that UCLA was a government entity in August 2021, Plaintiff submitted a claim which was subsequently rejected in September 2021.

Plaintiff’s complaint alleges that she complied with the required notice by providing a CCP §364 letter within the time allotted to put a government entity of notice. Plaintiff would have had approximately 6 months from the date of discovery, which she alleges was September 22, 2020—due to Executive Orders N-35-20 and N-65-20, the time period in which to bring a government claim was extended by additional 120 days. That would set the approximate cut-off at July 21, 2021, should the Court use the alleged September date. If the Court instead uses the more accurate June 18, 2020, date, the deadline was April 17, 2021.

According to Moving Defendants’ records, Plaintiff submitted her claim on August 24, 2021. She did not present an application for leave to file a late claim or any other correspondence to the board. Under GC §911.2, it is not sufficient for Plaintiff to simply give notice—Plaintiff needs to actually submit the claim with the applicable fee. Given that she did not submit the claim until past either deadline, the Court finds Moving Defendants have met their burden. Additionally, Plaintiff noticed the subject hospital, rather than the correct government entity.

Plaintiff also did not submit her application within the time period for late application. As Plaintiff’s cause of action accrued on June 21, 2020, her late application needed to be filed within a year of accrual—June 21, 2021. The time to file a late claim was not extended by the above referenced executive orders. (Coble v. Ventura County Health Care Agency (2021) 73 Cal.App.5^th 417, 425-426.) As such, Plaintiff did not a timely or late application. Plaintiff cannot bring a claim against a governmental entity when Plaintiff has failed to comply with the statutory requirements. As such, Moving Defendants have met their burden, which now shifts to Plaintiff.

 Plaintiff argues that UCLA never registered as a public entity, which absolves Plaintiff of needing to comply with the Government Claims Act filing requirements. However, UCLA, as a county facility that is part of the County’s Health Services division, is not a public agency. It is a County Facility, and thus does not need to be registered as a public agency. Plaintiff did not file a claim prior to the deadline—a §364 claim notice letter does not comply with the requirements of GC 911.2. The Court sustains the demurrer without leave to amend.

CONCLUSION

Defendants Oliver Caniga, M.D., Monica Deshmukh, M.D., and County of Los Angeles’s Demurrer is SUSTAINED, without leave to amend. The matter is dismissed as to these defendants without prejudice.  (Code of Civ. Proc. 581(f)(1) and (3).)

            Moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

Moving Party is ordered to file the proof of service of this ruling with the Court within five days.

The parties are directed to the header of this tentative ruling for further instructions.