Judge: Maurice A. Leiter, Case: 22STCV08646, Date: 2023-02-16 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV08646    Hearing Date: February 16, 2023    Dept: 54

Hearing Date: February 16, 2023

Department 54, Judge Maurice A. Leiter

(2) Demurrers to First Amended Complaint

Moving Party: (1) Defendant Cedars-Sinai Medical Center; (2) Defendant Pedram Enayati

Responding Party: Plaintiff Homayoun Piltan

T/R:     DEFENDANTS’ DEMURRERS ARE SUSTAINED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND.

PLAINTIFF TO FILE AND SERVE A SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT WITHIN 30 DAYS OF NOTICE OF RULING. DEFENDANTS TO FILE AND SERVE RESPONSES WITHIN 30 DAYS THEREAFTER.

            DEFENDANTS TO NOTICE.

If the parties wish to submit on the tentative, please email the courtroom at¿SMCdept54@lacourt.org¿with notice to opposing counsel (or self-represented party) before 8:00 am on the day of the hearing.

The Court considers the moving papers, opposition, and reply.

BACKGROUND

            On March 10, 2022, Plaintiff Homayoun Piltan filed a complaint against Defendants Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Mohammad Ansari, M.D., Payam R. Yashar, M.D., Payam Shadi M.D., Alfred Rahban, M.D. and Pedram Enayati, M.D., asserting causes of action for (1) wrongful death; and (2) negligent infliction of emotional distress. The first amended complaint, filed on January 17, 2023, asserts the same causes of action. Plaintiff alleges Defendants’ negligence caused Plaintiff’s husband’s death while he was a patient at Cedar-Sinai Medical Center.

ANALYSIS

A demurrer to a complaint may be taken to the whole complaint or to any of the causes of action in it.  (CCP § 430.50(a).)  A demurrer challenges only the legal sufficiency of the complaint, not the truth of its factual allegations or the plaintiff's ability to prove those allegations.  (Picton v. Anderson Union High Sch. Dist. (1996) 50 Cal. App. 4th 726, 732.)  The court must treat as true the complaint's material factual allegations, but not contentions, deductions or conclusions of fact or law.  (Id. at 732-33.)  The complaint is to be construed liberally to determine whether a cause of action has been stated.  (Id. at 733.)

A. Defendant Cedars-Sinai Medical Center’s Demurrer to the First Amended Complaint

            CSMC demurs to the second cause of action for negligent infliction of emotional distress on the grounds that it is duplicative and fails to state sufficient facts. The Court will not sustain the demurrer on the grounds of duplicity; Plaintiff may allege alternative theories of recovery.

But Plaintiff has failed to allege sufficient facts. California courts have recognized that NIED is not an independent tort; the traditional negligence elements of duty, breach of duty, causation, and damages apply. (See, e.g., Spates v. Dameron Hospital Association (2003) 114 Cal.App.4th 208, 213; Marlene F. v. Affiliated Psychiatric Medical Clinic, Inc. (1989) 48 Cal.3d 583, 588.) To plead NIED, a plaintiff must plead negligence. There are two classifications for NIED claims: (1) bystander and (2) direct victim. (See Spates, supra, 114 Cal.App.4th at 213.) A plaintiff may make a bystander NIED claim if he or she is present at the scene of the injury-producing event at the time it occurs, witnesses the physical injury of someone closely related to him or her, and suffers emotional distress beyond that which would be anticipated in a disinterested witness. (See id.; Thing v. La Chusa (1989) 48 Cal.3d 644, 666.) To make a direct victim claim, the emotional distress suffered by the plaintiff must be a foreseeable consequence of the conduct directed at the plaintiff. (See Molien v. Kaiser Foundation Hospital (1980) 27 Cal.3d 916, 930.)  

            Here, Plaintiff alleges “Because of what she observed, what she heard and what she knew. Plaintiff Homayoun Piltan was contemporaneously aware and understood that the inadequate actions of the health care providers were causing harm to her husband.” (FAC p. 5.) Plaintiff does not allege what she observed, heard, or knew that caused her to be contemporaneously aware of decedent’s injuries. This is insufficient to support a cause of action for NIED.

            Defendant CSMC’s demurrer is SUSTAINED with leave to amend.

B. Defendant Pedram Enayati’s Demurrer to the First Amended Complaint

Defendant Enayati demurs to the FAC on the ground that Plaintiff has failed to allege facts against Enayati. Plaintiff refers to all Defendants collectively, leaving Enayati unable to discern the allegations against him. This is insufficient to state a claim against Enayati.

            Enayati also demurs to the cause of action for NIED on the ground that Plaintiff has failed to allege sufficient facts. As discussed, the Court agrees.

            Defendant Enayati’s demurrer is SUSTAINED with leave to amend.