Judge: Holly J. Fujie, Case: BC551415, Date: 2022-12-29 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: BC551415    Hearing Date: December 29, 2022    Dept: 56

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

MOVING PARTY: Defendants (collectively, “Moving Defendants”)

RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff

The Court has considered the moving, opposition and reply papers.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff initiated this action on July 11, 2014.  The currently operative second amended complaint (the “SAC”), filed on November 1, 2022, alleges: (1) violation of Health and Safety Code section 1278.5; (2) tortious interference with prospective economic relations; (3) tortious interference with contractual relations; and (4) wrongful termination of hospital privileges. 

In relevant part, the SAC alleges that Plaintiff was disciplined after he reported unsafe hospital conditions. 

Moving Defendants filed a demurrer (the “Demurrer”) to the SAC on the grounds that the SAC fails to state a cause of action and the pleading is uncertain with respect to each cause of action.

REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE

            Moving Defendants’ Request for Judicial Notice is GRANTED.

DISCUSSION

Meet and Confer

The meet and confer requirement has been met.

Legal Standard

A demurrer tests the sufficiency of a complaint as a matter of law.  (Durell v. Sharp Healthcare (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 1350, 1358.)  The court accepts as true all material factual allegations and affords them a liberal construction, but it does not consider conclusions of fact or law, opinions, speculation, or allegations contrary to law or judicially noticed facts.  (Shea Homes Limited Partnership v. County of Alameda (2003) 110 Cal.App.4th 1246, 1254.)  With respect to a demurrer, the complaint must be construed liberally by drawing reasonable inferences from the facts pleaded.  (Rodas v. Spiegel (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 513, 517.)  A demurrer will be sustained without leave to amend if there exists no reasonable possibility that the defect can be cured by amendment.  (Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318.) 

Demurrers for uncertainty are disfavored.  (Chen v. Berenjian (2019) 33 Cal.App.5th 811, 822.)  A demurrer for uncertainty is strictly construed, even where a complaint is in some respects uncertain, because ambiguities can be clarified under modern discovery procedures.  (Id.)  

Sufficiency of Allegations of the SAC

            Moving Defendants’ anti-SLAPP motion (the “anti-SLAPP Motion”) to the claims asserted in Plaintiff’s first amended complaint (the “FAC”) was granted on February 27, 2015.[1]  On appeal, the Court of Appeal for the Second District found that the FAC alleged both protected and unprotected conduct under the anti-SLAPP statute.  (See RJN, Exhibit C at 39.)  The Court of Appeal then determined that Plaintiff had not established a probability of prevailing on the merits of the portions of his claims in the FAC that were based on protected activity.  (See RJN Exhibit C at 47, 49-50.) 

The SAC alleges retaliatory conduct that the Court of Appeal determined was not subject to the anti-SLAPP statute, including the suspension of Plaintiff’s staff privileges, hostility stemming from Moving Defendants’ disciplinary actions, failure to protect Plaintiff’s ability to continue his practice, and deprivation of Plaintiff’s property rights to use medical facilities.  (See SAC ¶ 20; RJN, Exhibit C at 39.) 

Moving Defendants argue that Plaintiff’s claims are barred by the applicable statute of limitations.  The SAC does not include alleged dates of wrongful conduct; therefore, the SAC is not facially barred by a statute of limitations period.  The Court of Appeal’s analysis of the anti-SLAPP Motion is not determinative of the sufficiency of Plaintiff’s claims at the pleading stage in the SAC since the Court of Appeal only evaluated evidence germane to the portions of Plaintiff’s claims in the FAC that were subject to the anti-SLAPP statute.  (See RJN, Exhibit C at 47, 49-50.) 

Further, although it does not contain detailed descriptions of the alleged wrongful conduct, the allegations of the SAC are not so factually bereft that ambiguities cannot be clarified during the discovery process.  (See Chen v. Berenjian (2019) 33 Cal.App.5th 811, 822.)  The Court thus OVERRULES the Demurrer.  Moving Defendants are ordered to file an answer within 20 days.

Moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

In consideration of the current COVID-19 pandemic situation, the Court¿strongly¿encourages that appearances on all proceedings, including this one, be made by LACourtConnect if the parties do not submit on the tentative.¿¿If you instead intend to make an appearance in person at Court on this matter, you must send an email by 2 p.m. on the last Court day before the scheduled date of the hearing to¿SMC_DEPT56@lacourt.org¿stating your intention to appear in person.¿ The Court will then inform you by close of business that day of the time your hearing will be held. The time set for the hearing may be at any time during that scheduled hearing day, or it may be necessary to schedule the hearing for another date if the Court is unable to accommodate all personal appearances set on that date.¿ This rule is necessary to ensure that adequate precautions can be taken for proper social distancing. 

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMC_DEPT56@lacourt.org as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  If the department does not receive an email and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion will be placed off calendar. 

  Dated this 29th day of December 2022