Judge: Elaine W. Mandel, Case: 24SMCV05481, Date: 2025-04-15 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24SMCV05481    Hearing Date: April 15, 2025    Dept: P

Tentative Ruling

Dardashti v. IHS Medical Group, Case no. 24SMCV05481

Hearing date April 15, 2025

Defendant IHS Medical Group’s Demurrer to the Complaint

Plaintiff Dardashti sues defendant IHS Medical Group for negligence arising from burns sustained while receiving chiropractic treatment. Defendant demurs, arguing the negligence claim is time barred per Cal. Code Civ. Proc. §340.5. The demurrer is unopposed.

“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, but plaintiff must allege essential facts “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.

“In an action for injury […] against a health care provider based upon such person’s alleged professional negligence, the time for the commencement of action shall be […] one year after the plaintiff discovers, or through the use of reasonable diligence should have discovered, the injury, whichever occurs first.” Cal. Code Civ. Proc. §340.5.

Plaintiff alleges he sustained injuries during a chiropractic session with defendant’s employees on 11/8/22. Compl. paras. 7, 9. Plaintiff filed the complaint 11/7/24.

Plaintiff’s claim is against a health care provider for alleged professional negligence. Cal. Code Civ. Proc. §340.5 establishes a 1-year statute of limitations from the date plaintiff should have discovered the injury. By plaintiff’s own allegations, he was aware of the injury on the date sustained, 11/8/22. See Davis v. Marin (2000) 80 Cal.App.4th 380 (holding plaintiff’s chiropractic burn injury claim accrued on the date the injury occurred). The statute of limitations expired 11/8/23; the claim is time barred.

The demurrer is unopposed. Leave to amend would be futile, as plaintiff cannot cure the running of the statute of limitations and fact that the claim is time-barred. SUSTAINED without leave to amend.