Judge Ralph C. Hofer, Case Number: 24NNCV02088, Date: 2024-08-23 Tentative Ruling

Plaintiff Luoting Lin alleges that defendants Wendy Dang, Lonna Bennett, Arcadia Mental Health Center, Los Angeles General Medical Center and L.A. Downtown Medical Center on or around July 7, 2023, at Arcadia Mental Health Center, Los Angeles General Medical Center and L.A. Downtown Medical Center, were negligent whereby plaintiff was harmed and suffered injuries and damages. The complaint alleges that as a result of defendants’ negligence, plaintiff has incurred damages in an amount to be proven at the time of trial. A separate cause of action for general negligence against the entity defendants alleges that defendants breached their duty to use the skill, prudence, and diligence as other members of the profession commonly possess and exercise.

The complaint also alleges that at said time and place defendants’ conduct caused plaintiff to suffer severe emotional distress, that defendants’ conduct was outrageous, and that defendant intended to cause plaintiff emotional distress or acted with reckless disregard of the probability that plaintiff would suffer emotional distress, knowing that plaintiff was present when the conduct occurred.

Permitting demurrer for uncertainty is based on the policy which favors parties having notice of the liability alleged, and the pleading must be sufficiently certain to apprise the defendant of the basis upon which the plaintiff is seeking relief. Perkis v. Superior Court (1981) 117 Cal.App.3d 1, 6.

As an initial matter, a review of the pleading shows that plaintiff has not completed or checked any boxes in paragraphs 3-15 of the form complaint. It would appear that paragraphs 3, 5, 8, 10, 11, and 14 should be completed, particularly considering what is alleged in the causes of action, and the designation of the complaint in the caption as one for “Medical Negligence.” As argued in the demurrer, the complaint is incomplete particularly for failure to check boxes and provide information in connection with paragraph 10, which is supposed to identify the causes of action, paragraph 11, regarding the nature of the injury, and paragraph 14, concerning the prayer for damages.

More specifically, defendant argues that the pleading reveals nothing about the nature of this lawsuit, other than that on or around July 7, 2023, something happened that displeased plaintiff. The allegations in the three attached causes of action are asserted against all defendants, without differentiating between what appear to be separately positioned defendants, and first incorporate each of the allegations set forth in the first cause of action (as to the first cause of action, the preceding allegations are limited essentially to plaintiff’s name, and the number of pages of the complaint), and then alleges that on or around July 7, 2023, at three separately named what appear to be medical facilities, defendants “were negligent whereby Plaintiff was harmed and suffered injuries and damages.” [Complaint, paras. GN-1]. There are no details concerning what conduct any particular defendant engaged in or what harm was caused to plaintiff.

The third cause of action alleges that at “said time and place, Defendants had a duty to use such skill, prudence, and diligence as other members of the profession commonly possess and exercise,” and “breached said duty.” [Complaint, 3rd Cause of Action, para. GN-1].

Defendant argues that in this case the allegations in the complaint could not be any more uncertain or ambiguous, as they fail to offer even the most general characterization of the events, treatment, conduct, or injury that gave rise to this lawsuit. Defendant argues that this lack of substance fails to give the various defendants fair notice of what will be alleged against each of them at trial, which makes it difficult to prepare an effective defense, or even to propound meaningful discovery.

In Berkley v. Dowds (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 518, the Second District affirmed the trial court’s sustaining of a demurrer without leave to amend in an action against decedent’s physician, finding that, among other causes of action, the negligence cause of action in that case had not been sufficiently stated. The Second District noted:

“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.” (Guilliams v. Hollywood Hospital (1941) 18 Cal.2d 97, 101 [114 P.2d 1]; see Potter v. Richards (1955) 132 Cal. App. 2d 380, 384–385 [282 P.2d 113].) The FACC failed to describe Herron's injury in any manner, other than to allege that he was deprived of the “possibility of receiving proper rehabilitation therapies,” and concluding that he suffered a personal injury.”

Here, the complaint essentially consists of allegations that defendants’ negligence caused plaintiff injury; “Defendants were negligent whereby Plaintiff was harmed and suffered injuries and damages.” [Complaint, para. GN-1]. There is no description of the nature of the injuries, even with the detail found insufficient in Berkley. It is not clear what each defendant did or failed to do giving rise to a negligence claim and the complaint does not include even the barest description of what injury or harm plaintiff suffered.

Although demurrers for uncertainty are disfavored, this situation appears to be the rare case where the complaint is so vague that it fails to give defendants notice of what is being alleged against them. The demurrer is sustained with leave to amend to allege facts supporting the claim that moving defendant engaged in negligence and describing the nature of plaintiff’s alleged injury.

Defendant argues that the demurrer should be sustained without leave to amend unless plaintiff adduces at least some factual basis for maintaining a claim sufficient to give notice of what plaintiff is claiming defendants did and how she was wronged.

However, this is the initial pleading in the action, and the basis for sustaining the demurrer is that there are insufficient details, and it is not clear from the face of the pleading that such details cannot be easily provided.

It is held that in the case of an original complaint, plaintiff need not even request leave to amend: “unless [an original complaint] shows on its face that it is incapable of amendment, denial of leave to amend constituted an abuse of discretion, irrespective of whether leave to amend is requested or not.” King v. Mortimer (1948) 83 Cal.App.2d 153, 158, citations omitted. The court of appeal in King cited to CCP section 472c, which provides, in pertinent part, “the question as to whether or not such court abused its discretion in making such an order is open on appeal even though no request to amend such pleading was made.”

Demurrer to Plaintiff’s Complaint is SUSTAINED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND on the ground the complaint fails to plead facts sufficient to place moving defendant on notice of what conduct it has engaged in which plaintiff claims constitutes negligence or outrageous conduct and the nature of the injuries or harm plaintiff is claiming plaintiff suffered as a result of defendant’s conduct. The Judicial Council Form Complaint filed by plaintiff also fails to provide the information requested in paragraphs 3, 5, 8, 10, 11, and 14.

Please make arrangement in advance if you wish to appear via LACourtConnect by visiting www.lacourt.org to schedule a remote appearance. Please note that LACourtConnect offers free audio and video appearances. However, ADVANCE REGISTRATION IS REQUIRED.