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.
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.)