Judge: Mark A. Young, Case: 23SMCV04736, Date: 2024-10-09 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23SMCV04736    Hearing Date: October 9, 2024    Dept: M

CASE NAME:             Montcho v. UCLA Medical Center

CASE NO.:                   23SMCV04736

MOTION:                     Demurrer to the Complaint  

HEARING DATE:   10/9/2024

LEGAL STANDARD 

A demurrer for sufficiency tests whether the complaint states a cause of action. (Hahn v. Mirda (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 740, 747.) When considering demurrers, courts read the allegations liberally and in context. In a demurrer proceeding, the defects must be apparent on the face of the pleading or via proper judicial notice. (Donabedian v. Mercury Ins. Co. (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 968, 994.) A demurrer tests the pleadings alone and not the evidence or other extrinsic matters. Therefore, it lies only where the defects appear on the face of the pleading or are judicially noticed. (CCP §§ 430.30, 430.70.) At the pleading stage, a plaintiff need only allege ultimate facts sufficient to apprise the defendant of the factual basis for the claim against him. (Semole v. Sansoucie (1972) 28 Cal. App. 3d 714, 721.) A “demurrer does not, however, admit contentions, deductions or conclusions of fact or law alleged in the pleading, or the construction of instruments pleaded, or facts impossible in law.” (S. Shore Land Co. v. Petersen (1964) 226 Cal.App.2d 725, 732, internal citations omitted.) 

A special demurrer for uncertainty is disfavored and will only be sustained where the pleading is so bad that defendant cannot reasonably respond—i.e., cannot reasonably determine what issues must be admitted or denied, or what counts or claims are directed against him/her. (CCP § 430.10(f); Khoury v. Maly’s of Calif., Inc. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 612, 616.) Moreover, even if the pleading is somewhat vague, “ambiguities can be clarified under modern discovery procedures.” (Ibid.)  

“Liberality in permitting amendment is the rule, if a fair opportunity to correct any defect has not been given.” (Angie M. v. Superior Court (1995) 37 Cal.App.4th 1217, 1227.) It is an abuse of discretion for the court to deny leave to amend where there is any reasonable possibility that plaintiff can state a good cause of action. (Goodman v. Kennedy (1976) 18 Cal.3d 335, 349.) The burden is on plaintiff to show¿in what manner¿plaintiff can amend the complaint, and¿how¿that amendment will change the legal effect of the pleading.¿(Id.) 

ANALYSIS 

Defendant the Regents of the University of California demurs to Plaintiff Louis Frederick Montcho’s Complaint. Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s Complaint is uncertain and unintelligible. Indeed, the Complaint states a collection of facts which does not state any comprehensibly claim for relief. The Complaint alleges that Plaintiff noticed a painful lump on his chest and waited at the UCLA Reagan Medical Center for over 8 hours before seeing a doctor. The doctor was confused and lacked knowledge as to what the treatment should be. Since the first blood test was done incorrectly, Plaintiff underwent two blood tests. Plaintiff also underwent an MRI. Plaintiff was not offered any medication until after Plaintiff cried for relief. Plaintiff alleges a “mini surgery” was done. Plaintiff alleges that pictures will show that the wound was not covered properly and was exposed to bacteria. After he went home, Plaintiff continued to bleed heavily and had to wipe blood from his infected chest. As a result, Plaintiff was in pain for two weeks and lost one of his largest business accounts. 

Examining these allegations, Defendant cannot fairly tell what claims, if any, are directed against it and on what basis. Thus, the complaint runs afoul of section 430.10(f). Moreover, the formatting of the Complaint does not comply with California Rules of Court, rules 2.108 (spacing), 2.110 (footer), 2.1111 (format of first page), or 2.112 (delineation of separate causes of action). Accordingly, the demurrer is SUSTAINED with leave to amend.

Plaintiff has 30 days to file an amended complaint.