Judge: John J. Kralik, Case: 23BBCV01358, Date: 2024-08-09 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23BBCV01358 Hearing Date: August 9, 2024 Dept: NCB
North
Central District
|
deborah
harris,
Plaintiff, v. ucla health
systems,
et al., Defendants. |
Case No.:
23BBCV01358 Hearing Date: August 9, 2024 [TENTATIVE]
order RE: demurrer |
BACKGROUND
A.
Allegations
Plaintiff Deborah Harris (“Plaintiff”) alleges
that on March 23, 2022, Defendants UCLA Health Systems, UCLA Burbank Neurology
& Cardiology Care, Burbank Specialty Care, and Golden State Medical Plaza
(“Defendants”) owned, possessed, worked upon, managed, supervised, modified,
repaired, operated, maintained, directed, administered, or controlled a medical
specialty diagnostic facility located at 2625 W. Alameda Avenue, Suite 102 in
Burbank. Plaintiff alleges she was a
medical patient of Defendants and on Defendants’ premises at the time she sustained
bodily injuries as a result of the negligence of Defendants’ doctors, medical assistants,
and nurses. Plaintiff alleges that while
she was under the direct care and control of Defendants, she attempted to sit
down to remove her shoes for a weight check when the dangerous unsecured bench
tipped over, resulting in her falling onto the ground and sustaining bodily
harm and injuries.
The first amended complaint (“FAC”), filed
August 21, 2023, alleges causes of action for: (1) premises liability; and (2)
medical negligence/professional negligence.
On February 21, 2024, Plaintiff named The
Regents of the University of California as Doe 1 (“Regents”).
B.
Demurrer on Calendar
On May 29, 2024, Defendant Regents filed a
demurrer to the FAC.
On July 29, 2024, Plaintiff filed an
opposition brief.
On August 2, 2024, Regents filed a reply
brief.
DISCUSSION
Defendant Regents demurs to the 1st
cause of action for premises liability.
The elements of a premises liability claim
and negligence claim are the same: a legal duty of care, breach of that duty,
and proximate cause resulting in injury.
(Kesner v. Superior Court
(2016) 1 Cal.5th 1132, 1158.)
The FAC alleges that Does 1 through
100 are unknown to Plaintiff but that she believes they are in legally
responsible in some manner for the events and happenings referred to in the FAC
that caused Plaintiff to suffer injury.
(FAC, ¶3.) The 1st
cause of action alleges that Defendants owned, possessed, etc. the subject
premises where Plaintiff sat on an unsecured bench that tipped over and caused
her injuries. (Id.,
¶¶13-17.)
Regents argues that it was not named
in the original FAC, but instead Plaintiff named Regents as Doe 1. Thus, it argues that there are no facts
alleged against it in the FAC to indicate how Regents played a role with
respect to the incident, how it is connected with the medical facility, or
whether it is directly or vicariously liable.
As currently alleged, the FAC does not provide facts showing how Regents
is liable for the subject incident.
In the opposition brief, Plaintiff
states that while the “dots were not sufficiently connected” in the complaint,
she has attempted to now clarify the connections. She also argues that she will name the
correct facility where the incident occurred, UCLA Burbank Cardiology and
Cardiac Imaging. Thus, it appears
that Plaintiff can allege more facts against Regents in an amended
pleading.
The demurrer to the 1st
cause of action is sustained with leave to amend. Plaintiff may make the corrections and
clarifications to the pleadings.
CONCLUSION AND
ORDER
Defendant The Regents of the University of
California’s demurrer to the 1st cause of action is sustained with
20 days leave to amend.
Defendant shall provide notice of this
order.
DATED: August 9, 2024 ___________________________
John
Kralik
Judge of the Superior
Court