Judge: Stephen I. Goorvitch, Case: 20STCV12295, Date: 2023-02-02 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV12295    Hearing Date: February 2, 2023    Dept: 39

Sujey Tinoco v. Teresa Medical Center, Inc., et al.

Case No. 20STCV12295

Demurrer

Plaintiff Sujey Tinoco (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against her former employers, Defendant Teresa Medical Center, Inc. and Dr. Arjang Naim, following her termination.  Then, Plaintiff named “Arjang Naim M.D. Inc.” (“Defendant”).  Defendant now demurs to the first amended complaint.

“It is black letter law that a demurrer tests the legal sufficiency of the allegations in a complaint.”  (Lewis v. Safeway, Inc. (2015) 235 Cal.App.4th 385, 388.)  In ruling on a demurrer, the court must “liberally construe[]” the allegations of the complaint.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 452.)  “This rule of liberal construction means that the reviewing court draws inferences favorable to the plaintiff, not the defendant.”  (Perez v. Golden Empire Transit Dist. (2012) 209 Cal.App.4th 1228, 1238.)

Defendant’s counsel argues that Plaintiff’s claims are impermissibly vague because Plaintiff asserts claims against Defendant and all other Defendants collectively.  Plaintiff alleges Defendant is the alter ego of all other Defendants in this action.  (First Amended Complaint, ¶ 10.)  The California Supreme Court has criticized allegations like this as “egregious examples of generic boilerplate.”  (Moore v. Regents of University of California (1990) 51 Cal.3d 120, 134, fn. 12.)  However, “such allegations may be necessary, especially at the outset of a lawsuit, before discovery.”  (Barsegian v. Kessler & Kessler (2013) 215 Cal.App.4th 446, 451, internal quotations and citations omitted.)  Defendant may obtain further information about Plaintiff’s claims through discovery.  (See Lickiss v. Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (2012) 208 Cal.App.4th 1125, 1135.)  Accordingly, Defendant has notice of the claims at issue. 

Defendant also argues Plaintiff lacks evidence that Defendant employed Plaintiff.  U.S. The Court cannot rely on matters outside the complaint in ruling on the demurrer.  (Donabedian v. Mercury Ins. Co. (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 968, 994.)  While the Court may take judicial notice of unequivocally inconsistent statements in response to discovery, Defendant identifies only instances in which Plaintiff failed to mention Defendant.  (See Bockrath v. Aldrich Chemical Co., Inc. (1999) 21 Cal.4th 71, 83-84.)   This is insufficient.

Based upon the foregoing, Defendant’s demurrer is overruled.  Defendant shall file an answer within twenty (20) days.  Defendant’s counsel shall provide notice and file proof of such with the Court.