Judge: Daniel S. Murphy, Case: 22STCV25988, Date: 2023-05-17 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV25988    Hearing Date: May 17, 2023    Dept: 32

BACKGROUND

            This action for denial of medical care and wrongful death arises from the death of Celestina Echesirim (Decedent), who died while in custody inside a jail cell at Lynwood Correctional Facility. This action is brought by Decedent’s successor-in-interest and Decedent’s minor children through a guardian ad litem against County of Los Angeles, Deputy De La Rosa, and Deputy Mercedia Booza. The operative First Amended Complaint was filed on November 3, 2022.

            On February 8, 2023, Defendants filed the instant demurrer to the first cause of action in the FAC.  

LEGAL STANDARD

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. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.30, subd. (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. (Ibid.) 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, supra, 147 Cal.App.4th at 747.) A complaint will survive demurrer if it sufficiently apprises the defendant of the issues, and specificity is not required where discovery will clarify the ambiguities. (See Ludgate Ins. Co. v. Lockheed Martin Corp. (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 592, 608.) All reasonable inferences are drawn in favor of the complaint. (Kruss v. Booth (2010) 185 Cal.App.4th 699, 713.)

MEET AND CONFER

Before filing a demurrer or a motion to strike, the demurring or moving party is required to meet and confer with the party who filed the pleading demurred to or the pleading that is subject to the motion to strike for the purposes of determining whether an agreement can be reached through a filing of an amended pleading that would resolve the objections to be raised in the demurrer. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 430.41, 435.5.) The Court notes that Defendants have complied with the meet and confer requirement. (See Coleman Decl. ¶¶ 3-4)

DISCUSSION

            “Neither a public entity nor a public employee is liable for injury proximately caused by the failure of the employee to furnish or obtain medical care for a prisoner in his custody; but, except as otherwise provided by Sections 855.8 and 856, a public employee, and the public entity where the employee is acting within the scope of his employment, is liable if the employee knows or has reason to know that the prisoner is in need of immediate medical care and he fails to take reasonable action to summon such medical care.” (Gov. Code, § 845.6.)  

            The FAC alleges that Decedent was housed in a medical quarantine module for “high observation inmates with mental and health illnesses.” (FAC ¶ 18.) As a high observation inmate, Decedent required constant monitoring. (Id., ¶ 21.) The FAC alleges that on July 19, 2021, Defendant De La Rosa observed Decedent lying face down on the floor of her cell but continued without completing his safety check of Decedent. (Id., ¶ 22.) Fifteen minutes later, Defendant Booza allegedly observed Decedent lying on the floor on her stomach, not breathing, and not responding to her name being called. (Id., ¶ 23.) Nonetheless, Defendant Booza allegedly moved on to check on other inmates. (Ibid.) According to facility records, Defendant Booza returned approximately two minutes later with an assistant to conduct a safety check on Decedent, wherein they determined she was unresponsive, without pulse, and cold to the touch. (Id., ¶ 24.) An autopsy determined that Decedent died of a pulmonary embolism. (Id., ¶ 26.)

Defendants argue that the FAC fails to allege facts demonstrating Defendants’ actual or constructive knowledge of Decedent’s need for immediate medical care. Furthermore, Defendants contend that the facts establish they took reasonable action to provide medical care. To the contrary, the FAC supports a reasonable inference that Defendants ignored Decedent’s dire medical condition. The FAC alleges that Defendants observed Decedent lying face down, unresponsive and not breathing, and yet chose not to complete their safety checks, instead moving on to check other inmates. Despite Defendant De La Rosa’s initial observation at 1601 hours, it was not until 1617 hours, sixteen minutes later, that Defendant Booza returned with the assistant to physically check Decedent. This is sufficient at the pleading stage to establish that Defendants observed an immediate need for medical care but failed to render it. Whether Defendants’ observations were sufficient to place them on reasonable notice of Decedent’s need for immediate medical attention, and whether Defendants adequately summoned medical care, are factual issues beyond the scope of a demurrer.

CONCLUSION

            Defendants’ demurrer is OVERRULED.