Judge Mark C. Kim, Case 22LBCV00368 2023-05-25 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Mark C. Kim, Case: 22LBCV00368, Date: 2023-05-25 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22LBCV00368 Hearing Date: May 25, 2023 Dept: S27

1. Background Facts

Plaintiffs, Nancy Cintron, Ydsia Yesenia Maisonet-Cintron, and Jessica Jasmine Cintron-Ballou filed this action against Defendants, College Medical Center, College Health Enterprises, Inc., Kelly Flannigan Unger, M.D., Chok P. Wan, M.D., Ph.D., Gregory Vanley, M.D., and Ferleine Bautista-Beal, M.D. for medical malpractice/wrongful death arising out of the death of Decedent, Ernesto Cintron Cruz.

Plaintiffs, Maisonet-Cintron and Cintron-Ballou dismissed all claims on 5/05/23, and only Nancy Cintron remains as an active plaintiff in this case.

2. Demurrer/MJP

On calendar today are a demurrer, a motion for judgment on the pleadings, and a joinder to the demurrer and MJP. The issue posed by all of the pleading challenges is whether the statute of limitations bars Plaintiff’s actions.

The complaint alleges Decedent passed away on 7/20/21. The parties all agree that the statute of limitations for wrongful death is one year from the date of death, such that the SOL ran on 7/20/22. The complaint, on its face, shows that it was filed on 7/27/22.

Plaintiff, in opposition to the challenges, provides evidence that she filed her complaint on 7/20/22, that the Clerk rejected the filing because only one of the three plaintiffs had filed it, that the notice of rejection was given on 7/26/22, and that the pleading was re-filed the next day, on 7/27/22.

Plaintiff cites CRC 1010.6(e)(4)(E) (mis-cited as 1010.6(E) in the opposition papers), which provides, “If the clerk of the court does not file a complaint or cross complaint because the complaint or cross complaint does not comply with applicable filing requirements or the required filing fee has not been paid, any statute of limitations applicable to the causes of action alleged in the complaint or cross complaint shall be tolled for the period beginning on the date on which the court received the document and as shown on the confirmation of receipt described in subparagraph (A), through the later of either the date on which the clerk of the court sent the notice of rejection described in subparagraph (C) or the date on which the electronic filing service provider or electronic filing manager sent the notice of rejection as described in subparagraph (D), plus one additional day if the complaint or cross complaint is subsequently submitted in a form that corrects the errors which caused the document to be rejected. The party filing the complaint or cross complaint shall not make any change to the complaint or cross complaint other than those required to correct the errors which caused the document to be rejected.”

Notably, Defendants do not, in reply, challenge Plaintiff’s interpretation of the Rules of Court or the sufficiency of her showing that the filing was proper per the Rules of Court. Defendants, instead, contend Plaintiff’s declaration is outside the four corners of the complaint and therefore cannot be considered on demurrer. Defendants are technically correct. It is, however, difficult to reconcile the established rules re: pleading challenges with the impact of the above Rule of Court. The Rule of Court would be a nullity if it could not be invoked.

At most, the Court would be inclined to sustain the demurrer and grant the motion for judgment on the pleadings with leave to amend and permit Plaintiff to expressly plead facts showing her complaint was timely filed within the statute of limitations per the above Rule of Court. Requiring her to do this would not be in the interest of judicial economy, and it is apparent that any challenge to the FAC on statute of limitations grounds would be overruled. The Court is inclined, therefore, to overrule the demurrer, deny the motion for judgment on the pleadings, and require Defendants to file answers to the complaint within ten days.

Defendants are ordered to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at gdcdepts27@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org. If the department does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on the tentative and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion may be placed off calendar. If a party submits on the tentative, the party’s email must include the case number and must identify the party submitting on the tentative. If any party does not submit on the tentative, the party should make arrangements to appear remotely at the hearing on this matter.