Judge: Elaine W. Mandel, Case: 24SMCV03392, Date: 2025-02-27 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24SMCV03392    Hearing Date: February 27, 2025    Dept: P

Tentative Ruling

Packer v. Maddahi, Case No. 24SMCV03392

Hearing date: February 27, 2025

Kourosh Maddahi DDS’s Demurrer to the First Amended Complaint

Plaintiff Packer, in pro per, sues defendant Kourosh Maddahi D.D.S., alleging her veneers were not properly made. The first amended complaint asserts the following causes of action: (1) fraud; (2) dental malpractice; and (3) failure to get informed consent. Maddahi demurs. 

“The function of a demurrer is to test the sufficiency of the complaint as a matter of law.” Holiday Matinee, Inc. v. Rambus, Inc. (2004) 118 Cal.App.4th 1413, 1420. A complaint “is sufficient if it alleges ultimate rather than evidentiary facts.” Doe v. City of Los Angeles (2007) 42 Cal.4th 531, 550. Nevertheless, plaintiff must set forth the essential facts of the case “with reasonable precision and with particularity sufficient to acquaint [the] defendant with the nature, source and extent” of the plaintiff’s claim.  Doheny Park Terrace Homeowners Ass’n., Inc. v. Truck Ins. Exchange (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 1076, 1099.

Maddahi demurs, alleging: (1) the fraud cause of action is duplicative of the dental malpractice claim; (2) the fraud claim has not been alleged with the requisite specificity; and (3) the claims are not sufficiently alleged.

Fraud Cause of Action

Maddahi argues the claim amounts to a negligence claim because no misrepresentation was alleged. Plaintiff alleges Maddahi cemented the veneers permanently, as opposed to temporarily.  FAC ¶ 23. The FAC lacks allegations that Maddahi represented a temporary version of the veneers would (or should) have been placed. Plaintiff seemingly seeks to infer Maddahi’s conduct fell below the standard of care for Beverly Hills cosmetic dentists. This is not permissible.

The FAC alleges “Maddahi concealed the fact that he did not correct the cosmetic appearance” of the veneer (FAC ¶ 19), but this is controverted by other allegations. Packer alleges when Maddahi presented new veneers to her, they did not look different from the ones created at UCLA. FAC ¶ 10. Based on the allegations, Packer was aware Maddahi did not make significant changes to the veneers. The FAC fails to allege an actual misrepresentation or a concealment of material fact. SUSTAINED with leave to amend.

Malpractice and Lack of Informed Consent Causes of Action

Maddahi argues no allegations support the dental malpractice or lack of informed consent claims. The FAC states “The facts stated in the original Complaint remain the same. For the purpose of this First Amended Complaint, a briefer summary is provided with more details to substantiate the Cause of Action for Fraud.” FAC ¶ 4. While it seems Packer attempted to incorporate prior allegations by reference, this is improper because an amended pleading supersedes prior pleadings. Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 5.74(2). Any allegations intending to support the dental malpractice and lack of informed consent causes of action must be realleged. SUSTAINED. 10 days leave to amend.