Judge: Douglas W. Stern, Case: 21STCV47548, Date: 2023-03-20 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV47548    Hearing Date: March 20, 2023    Dept: 68

Demurrer

This action was filed by Plaintiff Gregory Wong on December 30, 2021.  This action arises from the death of Plaintiff’s aunt in August 2011.  This is not the first lawsuit filed by Plaintiff related to that unfortunate event.  (Plaintiff Gregory Wong has previously been declared a vexatious litigant as a result of his filings regarding this event.

Plaintiff filed his most recent action alleging two causes of action against Burbank Healthcare for extrinsic fraud and violation of HIPAA and CIMA. 

Defendant Burbank Healthcare demurs to Plaintiff’s entire complaint for several reasons. First, Defendant demurs to the complaint because the causes of action fraud and violation of HIPAA are barred by the doctrine of res judicata and collateral estoppel because the issues and causes of action were fully and finally litigated when Defendant’s demurrer to Plaintiff’s 2019 Complaint were sustained without leave to amend. In that case, Plaintiff also alleged causes of action for violation of HIPAA and fraud against Defendant Burbank Healthcare.

Plaintiff’s causes of action were based on allegations that an employee of Burbank Healthcare faxed Cecilia Hoh’s Advance Healthcare Directive to Glendale Adventist Health in 2011.  Plaintiff asserts that this was a HIPPA violation and fraud. (Motion at p. 4.)

Additionally, Defendant demurs on the grounds that the 2021 lawsuit was filed years after the applicable statutes of limitations ran on these claims. The events of both causes of action would have taken place in 2011, and the statute of limitations for fraud and HIPAA and CIMA violations is three years. Defendant demurs for additional reasons, but the Court will only focus on these.

The doctrine of collateral estoppel holds that when an issue of ultimate fact has been determined by a valid and final judgment, that issue cannot again be litigated again between the same parties in any future lawsuit. (People v. Zavala(2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 772.) The doctrine of res judicata, or claim preclusion, bars the re-litigation of a cause of action that was previously adjudicated in another proceeding between the same parties or parties in privity with them. (Federation of Hillside & Canyon Assns. v. City of Los Angeles (2004) 126 Cal.App.4th 1180, 1202.)

Res judicata applies if (1) the decision in the prior proceeding is final and on the merits; (2) the present proceeding is on the same cause of action as the prior proceeding; and (3) the parties in the present proceeding or parties in privity with them were parties to the prior proceeding. (Busick v. Workmen’s Comp. Appeals Bd. (1972) 7 Cal.3d 967, 974.) Res judicata bars the litigation not only of issues that were actually litigated but also issues that could have been litigated. (Id. at p. 975.) Similarly, under the doctrine of collateral estoppel or issue preclusion, when an issue of ultimate fact has been determined by a valid and final judgment, that issue cannot be relitigated between the same parties in a future lawsuit. (California Logistics, Inc. v. State of California (2008) 161 Cal.App.4th 242, 249.)

In this case, the demurrer to Plaintiff’s 2019 Complaint related to causes of action for fraud and violation of HIPAA that arose from the same events as alleged in Plaintiff’s 2021 Complaint.  The sustaining of that demurrer without leave to amend serves as the final decision, barring the fraud and HIPAA violation causes of action from being relitigated between Plaintiff and Defendant.

Further, Plaintiff’s causes of action are time-barred because the applicable statute of limitations for HIPAA and/or CIMA violations is three years (CCP § 338(a)), and Plaintiff filed his current action against Defendant more than ten years after Cecilia Hoh’s death, which is when the alleged fraud and HIPAA/CIMA violations took place by the faxing of the Advance Healthcare Directive. Additionally, the cause of action for fraud is also three years. (CCP § 338(a).) There are also no circumstances present which would have allowed for the tolling of the statute of limitations.

Accordingly, Defendant’s demurrer as to Plaintiff’s Complaint is SUSTAINED without leave to amend.