Judge: Gail Killefer, Case: 23STCV00327, Date: 2024-06-11 Tentative Ruling



Case Number: 23STCV00327    Hearing Date: June 11, 2024    Dept: 37

HEARING DATE:                 Tuesday, June 11, 2024

CASE NUMBER:                   23STCV00327

CASE NAME:                        Pamelia Bailey v. Hollywood Presbyterian Hospital

MOVING PARTY:                 Defendant Hollywood Presbyterian Hospital

OPPOSING PARTY:             None

TRIAL DATE:                        Not Set

PROOF OF SERVICE:           OK

                                                                                                                                                           

PROCEEDING:                      Demurrer to FAC

OPPOSITION:                        None

REPLY:                                  None

 

TENTATIVE:                         The demurrer to the entire FAC is sustained with leave to amend. Plaintiff is granted 30 days leave to amend. The court sets the OSC RE: Amended Complaint for July 19, 2024, at 8:30 a.m. Defendant to give notice.

                                                                                                                                                           

 

Background

 

On January 6, 2023, Pamelia Bailey (“Plaintiff”), in pro per, filed a Complaint against Hollywood Presbyterian Hospital (“Defendant”).

 

Defendant’s demurrer was sustained with leave to amend on June 30, 2023.

 

On September 19, 2023, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”). Defendant again demurs to the FAC. The demurrer remains unopposed.

 

Discussion

 

I.         Legal Standard

 

Where pleadings are defective, a party may raise the defect by way of a demurrer. (Coyne v. Krempels (1950) 36 Cal.2d 257, 262.) A demurrer tests the sufficiency of a pleading, and the grounds for a demurrer must appear on the face of the pleading or from judicially noticeable matters.¿ (CCP § 430.30(a); Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318.) In evaluating a demurrer, the court accepts the complainant’s properly pled facts as true and ignores contentions, deductions, and conclusory statements. (Daar v. Yellow Cab Co. (1976) 67 Cal.2d 695, 713; Serrano v. Priest (1971) 5 Cal.3d 584, 591.) Moreover, the court does not consider whether a plaintiff will be able to prove the allegations or the possible difficulty in making such proof. (Fisher v. San Pedro Peninsula Hospital (1989) 214 Cal.App.3d 590, 604.) 

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.)

 

II.        Demurrer[1]

 

In California, a complaint need only contain a “statement of the facts constituting the cause of action, in ordinary and concise language.” (CCP § 425.10, (a)(1)). Cal. Rules of Court , rule 2.112 requires that ach cause of action or count be separately stated by number, nature, party asserting the claim, and against whom the claim is directed at. The Complaint will be upheld “ ‘so long as [it] gives notice of the issues sufficient to enable preparation of a defense.’ ” (Doe v. City of Los Angeles (2007) 42 Cal.4th 531, 549–550.)

 

Here the FAC contains a statement of facts composed of about 63 facts, but the facts are not alleged nor incorporated into each cause of action alleged in the FAC.

 

The FAC states:

 

“Plaintiff submits this complaint against [Defendants] for negligence and alleged the following: PHYSICIAN ERROR, INTENTIONAL DISCRIMINATION BY [Defendants].”

 

(See FAC.)

 

Under “CAUSE OF ACTION” the FAC states:

 

Cause of Action, Negligence, and Discrimination. Plaintiff will present the fact to establish that the Defendant was negligent, Physicians Error, Discriminatory, Defamation of Character, and hatch as Scheme to deprive “Plaintiff” PAMELA BAILEY of her Full Access to her Medical Treatment by inflicting Emotional Distress and more pain and suffering upon Plaintiff unjustly.

 

(See FAC.)

 

The court agrees with Defendant that the FAC fails to apprise Defendant as to what specific causes of action are alleged against it such that the entire FAC is ambiguous and uncertain. (CCP § 430.10(f).) A demurrer for uncertainty may only be sustained when a defendant cannot reasonably determine to what he or she is required to respond. (See Khoury v. Maly’s of California, Inc. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 612, 616. A complaint is where it is not reasonably certain what issues must be admitted or denied, or what counts or claims are directed against the defendant. (See Williams v. Beechnut Nutrition Corp. (1986) 185 Cal.App.3d 135, 139, fn. 2.) Here, Defendant would have to guess what causes of action are alleged against it in order to respond to the FAC. 

 

Accordingly, Defendants’ unopposed demurrer to the FAC is sustained with leave to amend.

 

Conclusion

 

The demurrer to the entire FAC is sustained with leave to amend. Plaintiff is granted 30 days leave to amend. The court sets the OSC RE: Amended Complaint for July 19, 2024, at 8:30 a.m. Defendant to give notice.

 



[1] Pursuant to CCP § 430.41, the meet and confer requirement has been met. Defense counsel asserts they met with Plaintiff telephonically. (Liu Decl. ¶ 3.)