Judge: David B. Gelfound, Case: 23CHCV00240, Date: 2024-07-09 Tentative Ruling

Counsel wishing to submit on a tentative ruling may inform the clerk or courtroom assistant in North Valley Department F49, 9425 Penfield Ave., Chatsworth, CA 91311, at (818) 407-2249.  Please be aware that unless all parties submit, the matter will still be called for hearing and may be argued by any appearing/non-submitting parties. If the matter is submitted on the court's tentative ruling by all parties, counsel for moving party shall give notice of ruling. This may be done by incorporating verbatim the court's tentative ruling. The tentative ruling may be extracted verbatim by copying and pasting, as unformatted text, from the Los Angeles Superior Court’s website, http://www.lasuperiorcourt.org.
All hearings on law and motion and other calendar matters are generally NOT transcribed by a court reporter unless one is provided by the party(ies). 

Case Number: 23CHCV00240    Hearing Date: July 9, 2024    Dept: F49

LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT

NORTH VALLEY DISTRICT

DEPARTMENT F49

MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS

Motion filed: 2/1/24

MOVING PARTY: Defendant Prosper Benhaim (“Benhaim” or the “Defendant”)

RESPONDING PARTY: None.

NOTICE: OK.

RELIEF REQUESTED: A judgment on Plaintiff’s Complaint on the grounds that Plaintiff does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against Defendant.

TENTATIVE RULING: The motion is GRANTED without LEAVE TO AMEND.

BACKGROUND

On January 27, 2023, Plaintiff James Howard (“Howard” or “Plaintiff”) filed a Complaint against Defendant alleging Medical Malpractice. Subsequently, on March 8, 2023, Defendant filed his Answer to the Complaint.

On January 29, 2024, Department F51 Court granted Defendant’s unopposed motions to compel Plaintiff’s responses to discovery requests, and to deem admitted his Requests for Admission, Set One, filed on November 3, 2023. (1/29/24 Minute Order).

On February 1, 2024, Defendant filed the instant Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (the “Motion”).

No Opposition or Reply papers have been received by the Court.

ANALYSIS

“A motion for judgment on the pleadings is the equivalent of a demurrer made after the pleadings are in.” (Connerly v. Schwarzenegger (2007) 146 Cal.App.4th 739, 746 [quoting Columbia Casualty Co. v. Northwestern Nat. Ins. Co. (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 457, 463].) A party may move for a judgment on the pleadings as to an entire complaint or as to a particular cause of action in a complaint. (Code Civ. Proc., §¿438, subd. (c)(2)(A).) If a defendant moves for judgment on the pleadings and argues that a complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against that defendant, then the court should grant a defendant’s motion only if the court finds as a matter of law that the complaint fails to allege facts sufficient to constitute the cause of action. (Code Civ. Proc., §¿438, subd.(c)(1)(B)(ii); see also Mechanical Contractors Assn. v. Greater Bay Area Assn. (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 672, 677.) 

“The standard for granting a motion for judgment on the pleadings is essentially the same as that applicable to a general demurrer, that is, under the state of the pleadings, together with matters that may be judicially noticed, it appears that a party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” (Bezirdjian v. O’Reilly (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 316, 321.) A judgment on the pleadings attacks only defects disclosed on the face of the pleadings or by matters that can be judicially noticed. (Code Civ. Proc., § 438, subd. (d); Lance Camper Manufacturing Corp. v. Republic Indemnity Co. (1996) 44 Cal.App.4th 194, 198.) 

When considering a motion for judgment on the pleadings, the court should assume that all facts alleged are true and should liberally construe the alleged facts “with a view to attaining substantial justice among the parties.” (See Alliance Mortgage Co. v. Rothwell (1995) 10 Cal.4th 1226, 1232; Code Civ. Proc., § 452.) “Both a demurrer and a motion for judgment on the pleadings accept as true all material factual allegations of the challenged pleading, unless contrary to law or to facts of which a court may take judicial notice.” (Edwards v. Centex Real Estate Corp. (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 15, 27.) 

“Whether a motion for judgment on the pleadings should be granted with or without leave to amend depends on ‘whether there is a reasonable possibility that the defect can be cured by amendment…’” (Mendoza v. Rast Produce Co., Inc. (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 1395, 1402 [quoting Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318].) “When a cure is a reasonable possibility, the trial court abuses its discretion by not granting leave to amend…” (Ibid.) 

A.    Meet and Confer Requirement

Code of Civil Procedure section 439, subdivision (a) provides, “Before filing a statutory motion for judgment on the pleadings, the moving party must meet and confer in person or by telephone with the party who filed the pleading that is subject to the motion for judgment on the pleadings for the purpose of determining if an agreement can be reached that resolves the claims to be raised in the motion for judgment on the pleadings.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 439, subd. (a).) However, “determination by the court that the meet and confer process was insufficient is not grounds to grant or deny the motion for judgment on the pleadings.” 

            Furthermore, “[t]he moving party shall file and serve with the motion for judgment on the pleadings a declaration stating either of the following: (A) The means by which the moving party met and conferred with the party who filed the pleading subject to the motion for judgment on the pleadings, and that the parties did not reach an agreement resolving the claims raised by the motion for judgment on the pleadings. (B) That the party who filed the pleading subject to the motion for judgment on the pleadings failed to respond to the meet and confer request of the moving party or otherwise failed to meet and confer in good faith.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 439, subd. (a)(3).)

Here, Defendant’s counsel attests that on January 31, 2024, he called and spoke to Plaintiff in order to meet and confer regarding issues raised in the Motion. (Corson Decl. ¶ 7.) According to Defendant’s counsel’s declaration, during the meet and confer phone call, Plaintiff stated that he understood that Defendant would be seeking a dismissal based on matters deemed admitted, and Plaintiff indicated that he would try and get his case back in order. (Ibid.)

            Based on the above records, the Court determines that the requirements for meet and confer have been sufficiently met.

B.     Requests for Judicial Notice

Defendant requests that the Court take judicial notice of the following documents:

(1)   “This Court’s January 29, 2024 Minute Order Deeming the Truth of Matters Specified in Requests for Admission Propounded on Plaintiff JAMES HOWARD Admitted (attached hereto as Exhibit “A”).”

(2)   “Defendant PROSPER BENHAIM, M.D.’s Request For Admissions, Set No. 1, Propounded on Plaintiff JAMES HOWARD (attached hereto as Exhibit “B”).”

A court may take judicial notice of the contents of its own records. (Evid. Code, § 452, subd. (d); Dwan v. Dixon (1963) 216 Cal.App.2d 260, 265; Foster v. Gray (1962) 203 Cal.App.2d 434, 439.) 

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s Request for Judicial Notice.

C.    Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings

1)      Cause of Action – Medical Malpractice

A prima facie case for medical malpractice consists of (1) a duty to conform to the relevant standard of care; (2) a breach of that duty, i.e., the negligent conduct; (3) a proximate causal connection between the negligent conduct and the injury; and (4) resulting damage. (Lattimore v. Dickey (2015) 239 Cal.App.4th 959, 968.)¿A healthcare provider is negligent if he or she fails to use the level of skill, knowledge, and care in diagnosis and treatment that other reasonably careful healthcare providers of the same type would use in the same or similar circumstances. (Landeros v. Flood (1976) 17 Cal.3d 399, 408.) 

Here, Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s action is barred because Plaintiff was deemed to have admitted that he had no basis for his action against Defendant. Specifically, it was deemed admitted that “defendant PROSPER BENHAIM, M.D., complied with the STANDARD OF CARE at all times when rendering treatment to [Plaintiff],” that “any action taken by defendant PROSPER BENHAIM, M.D., was not a SUBSTANTIAL FACTOR in causing any INJURY to [Plaintiff],” that “any action which was not taken by defendant PROSPER BENHAIM, M.D. was not a SUBSTANTIAL FACTOR in causing any INJURY to [Plaintiff],” and that “to a reasonable degree of medical probability [Plaintiff] have not suffered any INJURY due to a breach of the STANDARD OF CARE by defendant PROSPER BENHAIM, M.D.” (RJN, Ex. “A,” and “B.”) Defendant contends that by these admissions, which demonstrate the absence of the necessary elements for the claim, Plaintiff cannot sufficiently state a cause of action for Medical Malpractice. (Mot. at pp. 4-5.)

The Court agrees. The Court notes that “a complaint's allegations may be disregarded when they conflict with judicially noticed discovery responses.” (Bockrath v. Aldrich Chemical Co. (1999) 21 Cal.4th 71, 83.) Accordingly, a pleading valid on its face may nevertheless be subject to demurrer when judicially noticed admissions render the complaint meritless. (Del E. Webb Corp. v. Structural Materials Co. (1981) 123 Cal.App.3d 593, 604.)

Here, in alignment with these established precedents, the judicial notice of the Minute Order dated January 29, 2024, deeming matters admitted by Plaintiff, is dispositive in this case. The admissions conclusively establish that Defendant did not act below the standard of care and that no act or omission by Defendant was a substantial factor in causing Plaintiff’s alleged injuries. As a result, Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate the essential elements of a medical malpractice claim.

Therefore, given that Plaintiff has admitted that his action against Defendant was meritless, the Court GRANTS the Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings.

2)      Leave to Amend

Leave to amend must be allowed where there is a reasonable possibility of successful amendment. (Goodman v. Kennedy (1976) 18 Cal.3d 335, 348.) The burden is on the complainant to show the Court that a pleading can be amended successfully. (Ibid.) 

            Here, Plaintiff does not submit any Opposition to the Motion or argue there is a reasonable possibility of successful amendment, failing to meet his burden. Moreover, even assuming that Plaintiff’s single-page Complaint may be amended to state a cause of action, it does not overcome the judicially noticed admissions rendering a valid complaint meritless. (See Del E. Webb Corp. v. Structural Materials Co., supra, 123 Cal.App.3d at p. 604.)

Accordingly, the Court DENIES leave to amend.

CONCLUSION

Defendant’s unopposed Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is GRANTED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND.

Moving party to give notice.