Judge: Gary I. Micon, Case: 24CHCV02517, Date: 2024-10-18 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24CHCV02517    Hearing Date: October 18, 2024    Dept: F43

DEMURRER

 

MOVING PARTY: Defendant Providence Health System – Southern California dba Providence Holy Cross Medical Center

RESPONDING PARTY: No response has been filed.

 

RELIEF REQUESTED

Demurrer to the Complaint

·         1st Cause of Action for General Negligence

·         2nd Cause of Action for Medical Malpractice

·         3rd Cause of Action for Premises Liability

 

RULING: Demurrer is sustained with leave to amend.

 

SUMMARY OF ACTION

Plaintiff Adam Isai Palma (Plaintiff) has sued Defendant Providence Health System – Southern California dba Providence Holy Cross Medical Center (Defendant) for three causes of action for general negligence, medical malpractice, and premises liability. The basis for the suit is personal injury, property damage, and wrongful death.

 

It appears from Plaintiff’s complaint that he is alleging that Defendant caused or proximately caused Plaintiff’s “assisted fall” and injuries at Defendant’s facility on July 11, 2023.

 

Defendant filed its demurrer on September 18, 2024. No opposition has been filed.

 

ANALYSIS

A demurrer is an objection to a pleading, the grounds for which are apparent from either the face of the complaint or a matter of which the court may take judicial notice. (CCP § 430.30(a); see also Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318.) The purpose of a demurrer is to challenge the sufficiency of a pleading “by raising questions of law.” (Postley v. Harvey (1984) 153 Cal.App.3d 280, 286.) “In the construction of a pleading, for the purpose of determining its effect, its allegations must be liberally construed, with a view to substantial justice between the parties.” (CCP § 452.) The court “ ‘ “treat[s] the demurrer as admitting all material facts properly pleaded, but not contentions, deductions or conclusions of fact or law…” ’ ” (Berkley v. Dowds (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 518, 525.) In applying these standards, the court liberally construes the complaint to determine whether a cause of action has been stated. (Picton v. Anderson Union High School Dist. (1996) 50 Cal.App.4th 726, 733.)

 

All Causes of Action

Defendant demurs to all of Plaintiff’s causes of action on the basis that they fail to state sufficient facts constitute any cause of action.

 

CCP § 430.10(f) permits a demurrer to be sustained on the grounds that a complaint is vague, ambiguous, and uncertain. Though California has liberal pleading requirements, notice pleading requires that the basis for a plaintiff’s causes of action be set forth with sufficient specificity that defendant may be apprised of the nature of plaintiff's claims against it. (Hays v. Temple (1937) 23 Cal.App.2d 690, 695; Bauer v. County of Ventura (1955) 45 Ca1.2d 276, 291.)

 

The primary facts alleged in Plaintiff’s complaint are the following:

That at said time and place of the accident described in said complaint, and that the defendant and each of them named in the complaint, the defendant and each of them named did not exercise ordinary care caution or prudence to avoid or prevent said accident, and injuries sustained by plaintiff was actually and proximately caused by said fault, carelessness and negligence of defendants and each of them named in the complaint. More specifically, the defendants created and/or maintained a “dangerous condition” that caused Plaintiff an “assisted fall”.

(Plaintiff’s Comp.)

 

Under Plaintiff’s premises liability cause of action, Plaintiff has also alleged the following:

The plaintiff suffered a severe fall under the care and assitance [sic] of the healthcare professionsals [sic] at 1100 Indian Hills Rd., Mission Hills, CA 91345.

(Plaintiff’s Comp.)

 

Defendant argues that while Plaintiff has alleged that Defendants maintained a “dangerous condition” that caused Plaintiff an “assisted fall” and that defendants acted below the “standard of care” which caused Plaintiffs “assisted fall and injuries,” Plaintiff’s complaint contains no facts describing the dangerous condition and does not allege any facts as to how Defendant was below the standard of care. Defendant also argues that there are no facts connecting the dangerous condition to the assisted fall, and the complaint does not include any information as to where or how the fall occurred, who was involved in the assisted fall, or what injuries Plaintiff suffered.

 

Though some of the information not included in Plaintiff’s complaint may be gleaned through discovery, it is essential that Plaintiff include enough information that puts Defendant on notice of the nature of Plaintiff’s alleged fall and injuries. The complaint, in its current form, is too vague, ambiguous, and uncertain. The complaint also does not plead the required elements for each cause of action.

 

Though Plaintiff has not filed an opposition or otherwise indicated how he could amend his complaint, the Court will give Plaintiff a chance to amend his complaint. Accordingly, Defendant’s demurrer to Plaintiff’s three causes of action is sustained with leave to amend.

 

Duplicative Causes of Action

Alternatively, Defendant also demurs to Plaintiff’s negligence and premises liability causes of action on the basis that they are duplicative of his cause of action for medical malpractice. Defendant argues that these causes of action are based on the same facts as Plaintiff’s cause of action for medical malpractice, so they should be subject to demurrer. (See Shoemaker v. Myers (1990) 52 Cal.3d. 1, 14.)

 

Courts have held that professional negligence claims, such as medical malpractice, are not separate and independent from some ordinary form of negligence because “only one standard of care obtains under a particular set of facts, even if the plaintiff attempts to articulate multiple or alternate theories of liability.” (Flowers v. Torrance Memorial Medical Center (1994) 8 Cal.4th 992, 998.) In this case, Plaintiff has alleged the same set of facts for both his general negligence and medical malpractice causes of action. There is nothing in Plaintiff’s complaint indicating that these would be distinct causes of action. Accordingly, in its current form, Plaintiff’s general negligence cause of action is duplicative of his medical malpractice cause of action. Defendant’s demurrer to Plaintiff’s First Cause of Action for general negligence is also sustained with leave to amend on this basis.

 

As for Plaintiff’s premises liability cause of action, at this point, there are not enough facts under this cause of action to indicate whether it would be purely duplicative of Plaintiff’s medical malpractice cause of action. Furthermore, on the complaint form, Plaintiff checked off the boxes for negligence, willful failure to warn, and dangerous condition of public property, which suggests that Plaintiff’s premises liability cause of action may be based on more than just negligence. Defendant’s demurrer to this cause of action will not be sustained on the basis that it is duplicative, but it will still be sustained on the basis that it is vague, ambiguous, and uncertain.

 

CONCLUSION

Defendant’s demurrer to Plaintiff’s Second and Third Causes of Action are sustained with leave to amend on the basis that they are vague, ambiguous, and uncertain. Defendant’s demurrer to Plaintiff’s First Cause of Action is sustained with leave to amend on the basis that it is vague, ambiguous, and uncertain, as well as duplicative of Plaintiff’s Second Cause of Action.

 

Plaintiff is given 30 days leave to amend.

 

Moving party to give notice to all parties.