Judge: Maurice A. Leiter, Case: 23STCV14818, Date: 2024-02-05 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV14818    Hearing Date: February 5, 2024    Dept: 54

Hearing Date: February 5, 2024

Department 54, Judge Maurice Leiter

Demurrer to First Amended Complaint

Moving Party: Defendant Wesley Health Clinic

Responding Party: None

T/R:     DEFENDANT’S DEMURRER IS SUSTAINED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND.

DEFENDANT 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. No opposition has been received.

BACKGROUND

 On September 19, 2023, Plaintiff Assetan Sylla filed the operative first amended complaint against Defendant Wesley Health Clinic for medical negligence. Plaintiff alleges she sought treatment at the Defendant clinic but was not seen despite having an appointment.

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.)

Defendant demurs to the FAC on the ground that it fails to state sufficient facts. The elements of a cause of action for medical malpractice are: (1) a duty to use such skill, prudence, and diligence as other members of the profession commonly possess and exercise; (2) a breach of the duty; (3) a proximate causal connection between the negligent conduct and the injury; and (4) resulting loss or damage.” (Lattimore v. Dickey (2015) 239 Cal.App.4th 959, 968; CACI 500.)

Plaintiff alleges she was made to wait for more than an hour for her appointment at the clinic, which led her to cancel her appointment. This is not medical negligence. There are no allegations that Defendant caused an injury in violation of the standard of care.

Defendant’s demurrer is SUSTAINED without leave to amend. Plaintiff has not opposed this motion to show how leave to amend could cure the defects of the complaint.