Judge Ralph C. Hofer, Case Number: 24NNCV05053, Date: 2025-03-07 Tentative Ruling

Plaintiff Hung C Tran, Conservator for Henry Chi Tran, brings this action against defendants Efren Esparza, Martin Vera, Exclusive Services LLC and East LA Regional Center. The form complaint alleges a cause of action for general negligence, alleging that defendants Efren Esparza of Xclusive Services LLC was responsible for Henry Tran and was the legal cause of damages to plaintiff for the reasons of lack of supervision and that neglect of duty led to Henry Tran’s neglect and abuse. The complaint also states, “See Alhambra Police Report: 22-35939.”

Defendant Eastern Los Angeles Regional Center for the Developmentally Disabled, Inc. argues that the complaint appears to allege that defendants Efren Esparza and Xclusive Services LLC were somehow negligent in causing injury to Henry C. Tran, but the complaint identifies the plaintiff as Hung Tran, apparently Henry C. Tran’s conservator, and does not allege any injuries sustained by Hung Tran. Defendant also points out that the complaint’s single cause of action for negligence does not identify moving defendant Regional Center, and alleges nothing against it. Defendant argues that this makes it impossible for demurring defendant to ascertain who is the proper plaintiff and what that plaintiff is alleging, or against whom.

The complaint includes no charging allegations against the moving defendant, identifying that the defendants who negligently caused damage to plaintiff were “Efren Esparza, Xclusive Services LLC.” [Complaint, para. GN-1]. There is no mention of moving defendant in the cause of action. The pleading is also confusing, as it appears that the named plaintiff Hung Tran, is not the party who suffered injury, as the complaint appears to allege that it was Henry Tran who suffered neglect and abuse. [Complaint, para. GN-1]. The pleading should more clearly allege that the matter is being brought by the injured party, Henry Tran, through a conservator or representative.

Plaintiff in response to the demurrer has filed a Declaration of Marilyn M. Smith in Response to Demurrer of East LA Regional Center indicating that Smith is counsel for plaintiff Hung Tran, as conservator of Henry C. Tran, and substituted in as counsel on February 5, 2025. Plaintiff was previously self-represented. Counsel indicates that following entry into the case, counsel reviewed the pleadings and demurrers filed, and it became clear that an amended complaint needed to be filed with more substantive allegations, which counsel will be filing with sufficient allegations as to each defendant. [Smith Decl., paras. 1, 2].

Plaintiff’s counsel indicates counsel reached out to counsel for defendants to ask for the demurrer to be taken off calendar so plaintiff could file an amended complaint within thirty days. Counsel for defendants Xclusive and Esparza agreed, and took their demurrer off calendar, but counsel for defendant Regional Center would not take the demurrer off calendar, taking the position that there was plenty of time to file an amended pleading in the three weeks between the contact from counsel for plaintiff and the hearing on the demurrer. [Smith Decl., paras. 3-5]. Plaintiff’s counsel explains that during the period when a timely opposition could have been filed, new counsel was in a jury trial and all day mediation, and then, on the date opposition was due was scheduled to undergo a surgical procedure from an auto accident. [Smith Decl., para. 5].

In light of the recent involvement of counsel for plaintiff in this case, and the apparent impropriety of the conservator party proceeding on behalf of the conservatee without an attorney in the first place, the court finds that this result is the appropriate outcome.

Although defendant in the reply result requests that the demurrer be sustained without leave to amend, counsel for plaintiff has represented that sufficient allegations can be made in an amended complaint as to each defendant. [Smith Decl., para. 2].

Moreover, this is the original complaint in the action, and 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.

This instant is plaintiff’s first attempt to state these causes of action, and it is not clear from the face of the complaint that it cannot be amended to state a cause of action against the moving defendant, particularly when the basis of the demurrer is the failure to allege specific facts which would likely be within the personal knowledge of Hung Tran and Henry Tran.

Demurrer to Plaintiff’s Complaint is SUSTAINED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND for the reasons stated in the demurrer. There are no charging allegations stated against the moving defendant Eastern Los Angeles Regional Center for the Developmentally Disabled, Inc, and it is not clear from the designation of plaintiff and the allegedly neglected and abused person what exactly is being alleged in terms of standing.

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. Department D is now requiring either live or VIDEO appearances, not audio appearances. Please note that in the case of video appearances, ADVANCE REGISTRATION IS REQUIRED.