Judge: Peter A. Hernandez, Case: 23PSCV03533, Date: 2024-04-22 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23PSCV03533    Hearing Date: April 22, 2024    Dept: K

1                 Defendant Sivaprasad Mullangi, M.D.’s Demurrer to Complaint is SUSTAINED, with 20 days’ leave to amend.

2.         Defendant Pomona Valley Hospital Medical Center’s Demurrer to Complaint is SUSTAINED, with 20 days’ leave to amend.

3.         Defendants Shahrukh Mohsin, M.D. and Hsin-Chen Liu, D.O.’s Demurrer to Complaint is SUSTAINED, with 20 days’ leave to amend.

Background[1]  

This is a medical malpractice lawsuit. On November 13, 2023, Plaintiff Irlanda De La Cruz (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint, asserting a cause of action against Pomona Valley Hospital Medical Center (“PVHMC”), Shahrukh Mohsin, M.D. (“Mohsin”), Sivaprasad Mullangi, M.D. (“Mullangi”), Hsin-Chen Liu, D.O. (“Liu”), Nadie A. Elatahir, M.D., Yu-Kai Su, M.D., Hamidreza Torshizy, M.D., Yanie Zhao, M.D., Jennifer Lynn McGinley, M.D., Heather Davis, M.D., Autar K. Wall, M.D., George Moran, M.D., Sudir Kumar Bezwa Reddy, M.D. and Does 1-100 for:

1.                  Professional Negligence

A Case Management Conference is set for April 22, 2024.

1.         Demurrer Re: Mullangi

Legal Standard

A demurrer may be made on the grounds that the pleading, inter alia, does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subd. (e).)

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.” (SKF Farms v. Superior Court (1984) 153 Cal.App.3d 902, 905 [citations omitted].) 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 placed on an instrument pleaded therein, or facts impossible in law, or allegations contrary to facts of which a court may take judicial knowledge.” (S. Shore Land Co. v. Petersen (1964) 226 Cal.App.2d 725, 732 [citations omitted].)

Discussion

Mullangi demurs, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 430.10, subdivision (e), to Plaintiff’s complaint, on the basis that it fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.

Mullangi’s demurrer is sustained. Code of Civil Procedure § 425.10 provides that a complaint should contain “[a] statement of the facts constituting the cause of action, in ordinary and concise language.” (Perkins v. Superior Court (1981) 117 Cal.App.3d 1, 6 [“What is important is that the complaint as a whole contain sufficient facts to apprise the defendant of the basis upon which the plaintiff is seeking relief”].) “Ordinarily, negligence may be alleged in general terms, without specific facts showing how the injury occurred, but there are limits to the generality with which a plaintiff is permitted to state his cause of action, and . . . the plaintiff must indicate the acts or omissions which are said to have been negligently performed. He may not recover upon the bare statement that the defendant's negligence has caused him injury.” (Berkeley v. Dowds (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 518, 527).

Here, Plaintiff has alleged that she underwent unspecified medical treatment performed by defendants (which include one hospital and twelve physicians) at an unspecified time and that she suffered an unspecified injury as a result. (See Complaint, ¶¶ 20, 24 and 26-28). The complaint is devoid of any allegations as to what acts or omissions Plaintiff claims Mullangi or any of the other defendants committed, when this occurred and what injury resulted.

2.         Demurrer Re: PVHMC

Legal Standard

See Demurrer #1.

Discussion

PVHMC demurs, per Code of Civil Procedure § 430.10, subdivision (e), to Plaintiff’s complaint, on the basis that it fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.

PVHMC’s demurrer is sustained, for the same reasons set forth in the analysis above.

3.         Demurrer Re: Mohsin and Liu

Legal Standard

See Demurrer #1.

Discussion

Mohsin and Liu demur, per Code of Civil Procedure § 430.10, subdivision (e), to Plaintiff’s complaint, on the basis that it fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.

Mohsin and Liu’s demurrer is sustained, for the same reasons set forth in the analysis above.