Judge: Peter A. Hernandez, Case: 23STCV14999, Date: 2024-08-27 Tentative Ruling

The Court often posts its tentative several days in advance of the hearing. Please re-check the tentative rulings the day before the hearing to be sure that the Court has not revised the ruling since the time it was posted.

Please call the clerk at (213) 633-0154 by 4:00 pm. the court day before the hearing if you wish to submit on the tentative.

Case Number: 23STCV14999    Hearing Date: August 27, 2024    Dept: 34

Paul v. County of Los Angeles, et al. (23STCV14999)

Defendant Gurmit Paul’s Demurrer to the First Amended Complaint is SUSTAINED without leave to amend.  

Background   

Plaintiff Meera Paul (“Plaintiff”) alleges as follows:

Plaintiff is the sister of decedent Shoban Paul (“Decedent”). From about three months prior to Decedent’s death on June 28, 2022, Plaintiff lived with Decedent  at 31505 Pacific Coast Highway, Malibu, California 90265 (the “Property”). Decedent had invited Plaintiff to live with him at the Property. Plaintiff had lived with Decedent on the Property with no immediate plans to move, when, on June 28, 2022, Decedent unexpectedly died, after being engaged in one of his regular activities, swimming in the pool on Property.

Plaintiff was in the house on the Property when Decedent died in the swimming pool on the Property, she was the only other person home when he died, and she was the person who found his body and she called first responders.

Defendant Gurmit Paul (“Gurmit”) is Decedent’s widow, who resides at the Property. On June 30, 2022, Julie Huss-Bawab, M.D., a Deputy Medical Examiner at the Los Angeles County Department of Medical Examiner-Coroner (“County” and collectively with Gurmit as “Defendants”), performed the initial forensic examination of Decedent’s body, Case No. 2022-06697, and a created report dated January 11, 2023.

Plaintiff seeks a private autopsy of Decedent.

On June 23, 2023, Plaintiff filed a Complaint for Declaratory Relief against Defendants and Does 1-10. On October 12, 2023, the court sustained Defendant Gurmit’s demurrer without leave to amend. On May 8, 2024, the court granted Plaintiff’s motion for relief from dismissal pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 473(b).  Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint seeking Declaratory Relief against Defendants on May 18, 2024.

A Case Management Conference is set for August 27, 2024.

Demurrer to First Amended Complaint

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 and/or is uncertain. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subds. (e) and (f).)

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

Defendant Gurmit demurs, pursuant Code of Civil Procedure § 430.10, subdivision (e), to the Declaratory Relief cause of action on the basis that it fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.

Declaratory Relief

Under Code of Civil Procedure section 1060:

Any person interested under a written instrument … or under a contract, or who desires a declaration of his or her rights or duties with respect to another … may, in cases of actual controversy relating to the legal rights and duties of the respective parties, bring an original action … for a declaration of his or her rights and duties ….

(Code of Civil Procedure § 1060.)

A claim for declaratory relief requires two elements: (1) “a proper subject of declaratory relief” and (2) “an actual controversy involving justiciable questions relating to the rights or obligations of a party.” (Lee v. Silveira (2016) 6 Cal.App.5th 527, 546.)

Defendant Gurmit’s contention is that Plaintiff has failed to “plead the source of the ‘right’” that provides her the relief she is seeking. (Demurer, at p. 5.) Here, Plaintiff fails to plead an enforceable, legal obligation against Defendant Gurmit.[1] The FAC fails to demonstrate any relationship between Defendant Gurmit and Defendant County. A simple reading of the FAC demonstrates that Plaintiff is seeking to compel Defendant County to allow her to conduct a private autopsy.

Without more factual allegations alleging the rights and obligations of each party, the FAC does not provide “a proper subject of declaratory relief” against Defendant Gurmit to compel a private autopsy.