Judge: Melvin D. Sandvig, Case: 23CHCV01045, Date: 2023-08-07 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23CHCV01045 Hearing Date: April 2, 2024 Dept: F47
Dept. F47
Date: 4/2/24
Case #23CHCV01045
DEMURRER TO THE
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT
Demurrer filed on 10/25/23.
MOVING PARTY: Henry Mayo Newhall Memorial Hospital
NOTICE: ok
Demurrer is to the 1st and 2nd
causes of action/entire complaint:
1. Health Care Provider Negligence Leading to
Injury or Death, Civil Code 3333.1/Professional Negligence
2. Survivorship
3. Corporate Negligence (although listed in the caption of the
complaint, this cause of action is not included in the body of the complaint)
RULING: The demurrer is sustained with 20 days
leave to amend.
SUMMARY OF FACTS & PROCEDURAL HISTORY
This action arises out of treatment provided to and the
subsequent death of decedent Ostin Demirjian on 4/1/22 by Defendants American
Medical Response of Southern California; Henry Mayo Newhall Memorial Hospital;
Steven Schafer, M.D.; Steven M. Schaefer, M.D., Inc.; Richard L. Goldman, M.D.;
Tower Imaging Medical Group; and Tower Imaging Medical Associates, Inc.
(collectively, Defendants).
On 3/30/23, Plaintiffs Choghik Chouhmalian, as the
Successor-in-Interest of the Estate of Ostin Demirjian, deceased; Choghik
Choulmalian, an individual; Garo Oshin Demirjian, a minor by and through his
Guardian Ad Litem, Lina Vartanian; Arman Souren Demirjian, a minor by and
through his Guardian Ad Litem , Lina Vartanian (collectively, Plaintiffs) filed
this action against Defendants for: (1) Health Care Provider Negligence Leading
to Death Per Civil Code 3333.1/Professional Negligence and (2) Survivorship. Although the caption of the complaint lists a
third cause of action for “Corporate Negligence,” no such cause of action
exists in the body of the complaint.
After meet and confer efforts failed to resolve the
issues, Defendant Henry Mayo Newhall Memorial Hospital (Henry Mayo) had with
the complaint, on 10/25/23, Henry Mayo filed and served the instant demurrer to
the entire complaint. Plaintiffs filed
an opposition to the demurrer and Henry Mayo filed a reply to the
opposition.
ANALYSIS
The complaint fails to allege facts sufficient to state
either of the causes of action therein because Plaintiffs merely allege
conclusory, factually devoid theories of liability against Henry Mayo. CCP 430.10(e); (See Complaint ¶¶53-65).
In the opposition, Plaintiffs do not dispute the
deficiencies in the complaint. Rather,
Plaintiffs state that even if the complaint fails to state sufficient facts to
support the causes of action alleged, Plaintiffs can amend their pleading to
address the issue.
In the reply, Henry Mayo indicates that it does not
oppose Plaintiffs filing a First Amended Complaint.
CONCLUSION
The demurrer is sustained with 20 days leave to
amend.