Judge Gail Killefer, Case Number: 23STCV00327, Date: 2025-03-11 Tentative Ruling

PROCEEDING: Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings as to the Second Amended Complaint

TENTATIVE: Defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings is granted without leave to amend. The action is dismissed.

On January 6, 2023, Pamelia Bailey (“Plaintiff”), in pro per, filed a Complaint against Hollywood Presbyterian Hospital (“Defendant”). Defendant’s demurrer to the Complaint was sustained with leave to amend on June 30, 2023.

On September 19, 2023, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”). On June 11, 2024 the demurrer to the FAC was sustained with leave to amend.

Plaintiff filed the operative Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) on August 19, 2024 asserting two causes of action for “Negligence Medical Malpractice”

Defendant now moves for judgment on the pleadings as to the SAC. No opposition has been filed. The matter is now before the court.

motion for judgment on the pleadings[1]

“A motion for judgment on the pleadings performs the same function as a general demurrer, and hence attacks only defects disclosed on the face of the pleadings or by matters that can be judicially noticed.” (Burnett v. Chimney Sweep (2004) 123 Cal.App.4th 1057, 1064.) “In deciding or reviewing a judgment on the pleadings, all properly pleaded material facts are deemed to be true, as well as all facts that may be implied or inferred from those expressly alleged.” (Fire Ins. Exchange v. Superior Court (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 446, 452.) When considering demurrers and judgment on the pleadings, courts read the allegations liberally and in context. (Wilson v. Transit Authority of City of Sacramento (1962) 199 Cal.App.2d 716, 720-21.) A motion for judgment on the pleadings does not lie as to a portion of a cause of action. (Id.) “In the case of either a demurrer or a motion for judgment on the pleadings, leave to amend should be granted if there is any reasonable possibility that the plaintiff can state a good cause of action.” (Gami v. Mullikin Medical Ctr. (1993) 18 Cal.App.4th 870, 876.) A non-statutory motion for judgment on the pleadings may be made any time before or during trial. (Stoops v. Abbassi (2002) 100 Cal.App.4th 644, 650.)¿¿

The court may take judicial notice of records of any court of record of the United States. (Evid. Code, § 452(d)(2).) However, the court may only judicially notice the existence of the record, not that its contents are the truth. (Sosinsky v. Grant (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 1548, 1565.)

Exhibit A: Defendant, Hollywood Presbyterian Medical Center's, Requests for Admissions, Set One to Plaintiff. These Requests for Admissions, Set One, were attached as Exhibit A to Defendant's Motion to Deem Requests for Admissions, Set One, Admitted, filed on July 12, 2023 and are properly part of the Court's record. Defendant's Motion to Deem Requests for Admissions, Set One, Admitted, which contains the Requests for Admissions, Set One at issue in this Motion is attached hereto as Exhibit A.

Exhibit B: The Court's ruling to deem Defendant, Hollywood Presbyterian Medical Center's, Requests for Admissions, Set One, admitted. The Court's Minute Order from August 7, 2023 is attached hereto as Exhibit B.

Defendant asserts that it served Requests for Admission, Set One on Plaintiff but Plaintiff failed to respond. (Liu Decl., ¶¶ 3-5, Ex. A.) Defendant filed a Motion to Deem Requests for Admission, Set One Admitted, and the court granted the Motion on August 7, 2023. (Id. ¶¶ 5-6, Ex. B, C.) On November 13, 2024, Defendant’s counsel met and conferred with Plaintiff. (Id. ¶ 7.)

“Matters that are admitted or deemed admitted through RFA discovery devices are conclusively established in the litigation and are not subject to being contested through contradictory evidence.” (St. Mary v. Superior Court (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 762, 775.) “ ‘[A] deemed admitted order establishes, by judicial fiat, that a nonresponding party has responded to the requests by admitting the truth of all matters contained therein.’ ” (Id. at p. 776.) “[A] complaint's allegations may be disregarded when they conflict with judicially noticed discovery responses.” (Bockrath v. Aldrich Chemical Co., Inc. (1999) 21 Cal.4th 71, 83.)

Defendant now moves for judgment on the pleadings because “Plaintiff has admitted that Defendant, Hollywood Presbyterian Medical Center, and its employees/agents: (1) was not a substantial factor in causing Plaintiff's injuries; (2) was not a proximate cause of Plaintiff's injuries; and (3) at all times acted within the applicable standard of care.” (Motion at p. 3:22-25; Ex. A, Nos. 1-9.)

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s negligence claims fail because Plaintiff cannot stablish breach of the standard of care or causation. Plaintiff has also failed to oppose this Motion and show that the SAC is capable of successful amendment. Therefore, the judgment on the pleadings is granted.

Defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings is granted without leave to amend. The action is dismissed.

[1] CCP § 439 requires the moving party to meet and confer in person or by telephone with the party who filed the pleading before filing a motion for judgment on the pleadings. The meet and confer requirement has been met. (Liu Decl., ¶ 7.)