Judge: Ronald F. Frank, Case: 23STCV06032, Date: 2024-04-24 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23STCV06032 Hearing Date: April 24, 2024 Dept: 8
HEARING DATE: April 24, 2024
CASE NUMBER: 23STCV06032
CASE NAME: Carlos E. Cornelius Sr., et al. v. Healthcare Investments Inc. dba Rosecrans Care Center, et al.
MOVING PARTY: Defendant, Livingright Health Care Management, Inc. (erroneously sued and served as LivingRight Healthcare Management & Consultation (DOE 1)
RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiffs, Carlos E. Cornelius Sr., Dwayne Corneliys, Jonathan L. Cornelius, Lamont Cornelius Sr., Christopher D. Cornelius Sr., individually and successors in interest to Earl Conelius Jr., deceased.
TRIAL DATE: Not Set.
MOTION: (1) Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings
Tentative Rulings: (1) GRANTED, with 20 days’ leave to amend
I. BACKGROUND
A. Factual
On March 20, 2023, Plaintiffs, Carlos E. Cornelius Sr., Dwayne Cornelius, Jonathan L. Cornelius, Lamont Cornelius Sr., Christopher D. Cornelius Sr., individually and successors in interest to Earl Conelius Jr., deceased (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed a Complaint against Defendants, Healthcare Investments Inc. dba Rosecrans Care Center, Interface Rehab, Inc. and DOES 1 through 100. On April 11, 2023, Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) against Defendants alleging causes of action for: (1) Wrongful Death; (2) Elder Abuse/Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act (“EADACPA”); and (3) Violation of Patient’s Bill of Rights. On August 4, 2023, Plaintiff filed an amendment to the complaint to substitute Defendant, LivingRight Healthcare Management & Consultation (“LivingRight”) as DOE 1.
Now, Defendant LivingRight files a Motion for Judgment on the Pleading.
B. Procedural
On March 18, 2024, Defendant, LivingRight filed a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. On April 9, 2024, Plaintiffs filed an opposition brief. On April 12, 2024, Defendant LivingRight filed a reply brief.
II. ANALYSIS
A. Legal Standard
The standard for ruling on a motion for judgment on the pleadings is essentially the same as that applicable to a general demurrer, that is, under the state of the pleadings, together with matters that may be judicially noticed, it appears that a party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. (Bezirdjian v. O'Reilly (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 316, 321-322, citing Schabarum v. California Legislature (1998) 60 Cal.App.4th 1205, 1216.) Matters which are subject to mandatory judicial notice may be treated as part of the complaint and may be considered without notice to the parties. Matters which are subject to permissive judicial notice must be specified in the notice of motion, the supporting points and authorities, or as the court otherwise permits. (Id.) The motion may not be supported by extrinsic evidence. (Barker v. Hull (1987) 191 Cal.App.3d 221, 236.)
When the moving party is a defendant, he must demonstrate either of the following exist:
(i) The court has no jurisdiction of the subject of the cause of action alleged in the complaint.
(ii) The complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against that defendant. (Code Civ. Proc., § 438, subd. (c)(a)(B)(i)-(ii).)
Additionally, a motion for judgment on the pleadings must be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration demonstrating an attempt to meet and confer in person or by telephone, at least five days before the date a motion for judgment on the pleadings is filed. (Code Civ. Proc., § 439.)
B. Discussion
Here, Defendant LivingRight was substituted into this case as DOE 1 on August 4, 2023. However, none of the causes of action in the FAC are as against a DOE 1. A pleading is uncertain if it is ambiguous or unintelligible. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subd. (f).) A demurrer for uncertainty may lie if the failure to label the parties and claims renders the complaint so confusing defendant cannot tell what he or she is supposed to respond to.¿ (Williams v. Beechnut Nutrition Corp. (1986) 185 Cal.App.3d 135, 139, fn. 2.) However, “[a] demurrer for uncertainty is strictly construed, even where a complaint is in some respects uncertain, because ambiguities can be clarified under modern discovery procedures.” (Khoury v. Maly's of California, Inc. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 612, 616.)¿¿
Each cause of action must specifically state the party or parties to whom the cause of action is directed. (California Rules of Court, Rule 2.112(4).) On review of the FAC, the Court finds that Plaintiffs’ failure to name the proper DOE defendant is not merely a clerical error the Court may overlook on demurrer. In fact, it appears that Plaintiffs acknowledge their error, noting that they have drafted a proposed Notice of Errata to change all the DOE numbering contained in the complaint to “1-100”. It also appears that Plaintiffs would like the ability to amend their pleading as they assert to have new facts they would like to add to such future pleading.
Plaintiffs’ opposition requested this Court’s opinion on whether the Notice of Errata could be sufficient. The Court’s opinion is that the Notice of Errata is not sufficient. Each separate cause of action is required by Rule of Court 2.112(4) to separately state the party or parties to whom the cause of action is directed. As currently pleaded, the Plaintiffs’ Complaint fails to do so if Plaintiffs are seeking to allege wrongful death, elder abuse, and/or statutory Patients Bill of Rights claims against LivingRight. While not “fatal” defects, these defects make the currently pleaded Complaint demurrable or subject to a MJOP by LivingRight.
The fact that a prior judge hearing this matter found the allegations against named defendant Interface survived a demurrer does not resolve the Doe defendant pleading issue raised by this MJOP. A review of the previous minute order on Interface’s demurrer notes that the demurring defendant requested the Court to consider outside facts beyond the four corners of the pleading. LivingRight makes no so such request directly here, but LivingRight’s moving and reply papers assert that it is not be a proper defendant as to the Third Cause of Action because it is not a licensed healthcare provider. Whether Plaintiffs will allege that LivingRight is or is not licensed is an issue not presently before the Court, and LivingRight’s MJOP stretches beyond the four corners of the pleadings to the extent that it seeks a ruling from the Court on the propriety of a statutory claim against LivingRight on that basis. However, Plaintiffs can take up that issue in their requested amended pleading. The Court will not require a motion for leave to amend but instead it will expressly grant the MJOP with leave to amend to expedite the progress of this case to a point beyond the pleading stage.
As such, the MJOP is GRANTED and this Court grants twenty (20) days leave to amend. Defendant LivingRight is ordered to give notice of the ruling unless all parties waive notice.