Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 23STCV31005, Date: 2025-02-03 Tentative Ruling
All parties are urged to meet and confer with all parties concerning this tentative ruling to see if they can reach an agreed-upon resolution of their matter. If you are able to reach an agreement, please notify the courtroom staff in advance of the hearing if you wish to submit on the tentative ruling rather than argue the motion by notifying the court by e-mailing the court at: SSCDEPT28@lacourt.org. Include the word "SUBMITS" in all caps and the Case Number in the Subject line. In the body of the email, please provide the date and time of the hearing, your name, your contact information, the party you represent, and whether that party is a plaintiff, defendant, cross-complainant, cross-defendant, claimant, intervenor, or non-party, etc.
Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may still appear at the hearing and argue the matter, and the court could change its tentative based upon the argument. Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue. If you submit, but still intend to appear, include the words "SUBMITS, BUT WILL APPEAR" in the Subject line. If you elect to argue your matter, you are urged to do so remotely, via Court-Connect.
Note that once the Court has issued a tentative, the Court has the inherent authority not to allow the withdrawal of a motion and to adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the court. This does not excuse a moving party's need to do one of the following: appear; submit; or take a matter off calendar by canceling the motion in the case reservation system before issuance of the tentative ruling if the matter moving party does not intend to proceed.
If you submitted a courtesy copy of your papers containing media (such as a DVD or thumb drive), unless you request the return of the media in your papers, the court will destroy it following the hearing of your matter.
Case Number: 23STCV31005 Hearing Date: February 3, 2025 Dept: 28
Having considered the moving, opposition, and reply papers, the Court rules as follows.
BACKGROUND
On December 19, 2023, Plaintiff M.C. (“Plaintiff”), a minor, by and through her guardian ad litem Rosalie Chavez, filed this action against Defendants County of Los Angeles (“County”), Deputy Probation Officer Joseph, Deputy Probation Officer Sepulveda, and Does 1-10 for negligence, violations of civil rights (42 U.S.C. § 1983), and failure to summon immediate medical care (Gov. Code, § 845.6).
On February 21, 2024, the Court appointed Rosalie Chavez to serve as Plaintiff’s guardian ad litem.
On April 10, 2024, the County removed the case to federal court. On July 29, 2024, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California granted the County’s motion to dismiss under Rule 60(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure with leave to file an amended complaint.
On August 19, 2024, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint in the U.S. District Court. The first amended complaint asserted claims for negligence (Gov. Code, § 815.2, subd. (a)), negligence (Gov. Code, § 815), violations of civil rights (42 U.S.C. § 1983), and failure to summon immediate medical care (Gov. Code, § 845.6).
On August 25, 2024, the County filed a motion to dismiss and strike the first amended complaint.
On September 26, 2024, the U.S. District Court granted the County’s motion, dismissed Plaintiff’s claims under 28 U.S.C. section 1983, and remanded Plaintiff’s state law claims to the Los Angeles County Superior Court.
On October 4, 2024, the County filed a demurrer to the first amended complaint and request for judicial notice. The motion was set for hearing on November 13, 2024. On November 1, 2024, Plaintiff filed a late opposition. (The Court exercises its discretion to consider the late opposition.) On November 4, 2024, the County filed a reply. The Court continued the hearing to February 3, 2025.
Trial is currently scheduled for June 17, 2025.
PARTIES’ REQUESTS
The County asks the Court to sustain the demurrer to the first amended complaint.
Plaintiff asks the Court to overrule the demurrer.
THE COUNTY’S REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE
Granted.
LEGAL STANDARD
A. Demurrer
Code of Civil Procedure section 430.10 provides in part:
“The party against whom a complaint or cross-complaint has been filed may object, by demurrer or answer as provided in Section 430.30, to the pleading on any one or more of the following grounds:
* * *
“(f) The pleading is uncertain. As used in this subdivision, “uncertain” includes ambiguous and unintelligible.”
(Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subds. (e), (f).)
In a demurrer proceeding, the defects must be apparent on the face of the pleading or by judicial notice. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.30, subd. (a) [“When any ground for objection to a complaint, cross-complaint, or answer appears on the face thereof, or from any matter of which the court is required to or may take judicial notice, the objection on that ground may be taken by a demurrer to the pleading”].)
“For the purpose of testing the sufficiency of the cause of action, the demurrer admits the truth of all material facts properly pleaded (i.e., all ultimate facts alleged, but not contentions, deductions, or conclusions of fact or law).” (L. Edmon and C. Karnow, Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial (Rutter 2024) ¶ 7:43, p. 7(l)-25, emphasis omitted.)
To assert statutory claims against public entities, plaintiffs must plead supporting facts with particularity. (See Keyes v. Santa Clara Valley Water Dist. (1982) 128 Cal.App.3d 882, 886 [a plaintiff must plead with particularity every fact essential to the existence of statutory liability].)
B. Government Code section 815
Government Code section 815 provides:
“Except as otherwise provided by statute:
“(a) A public entity is not liable for an injury, whether such injury arises out of an act or omission of the public entity or a public employee or any other person.
“(b) The liability of a public entity established by this part (commencing with Section 814) is subject to any immunity of the public entity provided by statute, including this part, and is subject to any defenses that would be available to the public entity if it were a private person.”
(Gov. Code, § 815.)
C. Government Code section 815.2
Government Code section 815.2 provides:
“(a) A public entity is liable for injury proximately caused by an act or omission of an employee of the public entity within the scope of his employment if the act or omission would, apart from this section, have given rise to a cause of action against that employee or his personal representative.
“(b) Except as otherwise provided by statute, a public entity is not liable for an injury resulting from an act or omission of an employee of the public entity where the employee is immune from liability.”
(Gov. Code, § 815.2.)
D. Government Code section 845.6
Government Code section 845.6 provides:
“Neither a public entity nor a public employee is liable for injury proximately caused by the failure of the employee to furnish or obtain medical care for a prisoner in his custody; but, except as otherwise provided by Sections 855.8 and 856, a public employee, and the public entity where the employee is acting within the scope of his employment, is liable if the employee knows or has reason to know that the prisoner is in need of immediate medical care and he fails to take reasonable action to summon such medical care. Nothing in this section exonerates a public employee who is lawfully engaged in the practice of one of the healing arts under any law of this state from liability for injury proximately caused by malpractice or exonerates the public entity from its obligation to pay any judgment, compromise, or settlement that it is required to pay under subdivision (d) of Section 844.6.”
(Gov. Code, § 845.6.)
Government Code section 845.6 “creates . . . a limited cause of action against a public entity for its employees’ failure to summon immediate medical care only.” (Castaneda v. Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation (2013) 212 Cal.App.4th 1051, 1070, original emphasis (“Castaneda”).) “The statute does not create liability of the public entity for malpractice in furnishing or obtaining that medical care.” (Ibid.)
“California cases have repeatedly limited liability under the statute temporally ‘to serious and obvious medical conditions requiring immediate care.’ ” (Castaneda, supra, 212 Cal.App.4th at p. 1074.)
DISCUSSION
A. The first amended complaint
The first amended complaint alleges the following:
In August 2022, Judge Hill at the Eastlake Juvenile Court ordered that Plaintiff be placed at Dorothy Kirby Center, a Los Angeles County Probation Department facility for detained youth. Plaintiff had been diagnosed with schizoaffective disorder, bipolar type.
In October 2022, Plaintiff complained of severe stomach pain and vomiting of blood. She was sent to Los Angeles County USC Medical Center on October 8, 2022, where she was given a urine test for pregnancy and no other treatment. She was returned to Dorothy Kirby Center. Plaintiff received no other medical treatment. As a result, Plaintiff experienced a weight loss of at least 35 pounds.
On December 12, 2022, Judge Hill ordered medical testing. However, no medical testing or treatment was performed.
On December 14, 2022, Plaintiff was released from custody.
On December 15, 2022, Memorial Care Miller Children’s and Women’s Hospital diagnosed Plaintiff with a urinary tract infection and infections of the gallbladder.
The first amended complaint currently asserts claims for negligence (Gov. Code, § 815.2, subd. (a)), negligence (Gov. Code, § 815), and failure to summon immediate medical care (Gov. Code, § 845.6) against the County.
B. The County’s demurrer
1. Failure to summon immediate medical care
The County argues it cannot be liable for allegedly failing to summon medical care because the first amended complaint does not plead with particularity facts showing that its employees (1) had notice of a serious and obvious medical condition requiring immediate care, (2) failed to take reasonable action to summon care, or (2) caused Plaintiff’s injuries.
The first amended complaint alleges that, in October 2022, Plaintiff “complained of severe stomach pain with the vomiting of blood.” (FAC ¶ 12.) This allegation adequately pleads that the County’s employees had notice of a serious and obvious medical condition requiring immediate care.
However, the first amended complaint also alleges that, on October 8, 2022, Plaintiff was sent to Los Angeles County USC Medical Center. (FAC ¶ 12.) The first amended complaint therefore pleads facts showing that the County fulfilled its duty to summon care. Although Los Angeles County USC Medical Center allegedly provided Plaintiff inadequate medical care (FAC ¶ 12), the County is not subject to liability for the inadequate care. (See Castaneda, supra, 212 Cal.App.4th at p. 1070 [Code Civ. Proc., § 845.6 “is very narrowly written to authorize a cause of action against a public entity for its employees’ failure to summon immediate medical care only, not for certain employee’s malpractice in providing that care”].)
The Court sustains the demurrer to the first amended complaint’s claim under Government Code section 845.6 with leave to amend.
2. Plaintiff’s negligence claims
Plaintiff has failed to state a claim for negligence under Government Code section 815 or Government Code section 815.2. Having failed to plead facts stating a claim under Government Code section 845.6 or pleading any other facts showing an employee is liable, Plaintiff has not pleaded facts showing the County is vicariously liable. In addition, Plaintiff has failed to assert a statutory basis for mandatory liability. The Court sustains the County’s demurrer to the negligence claims with leave to amend.
CONCLUSION
The Court SUSTAINS Defendant County of Los Angeles’s demurrer with 30 days leave to amend.
Moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling.
Moving party is ordered to file the proof of service of this ruling with the Court within five days.