Judge: Stephen Morgan, Case: 22AVCV00608, Date: 2023-04-18 Tentative Ruling

                                                                           Department A14 Tentative Rulings 

If parties are satisfied with the tentative ruling, parties may submit by emailing the courtroom at ATPDeptA14@LACOURT.ORG. 

If a matter is also scheduled for a CMC, TSC, OSC, etc., an appearance is still required even if the parties are willing to submit on the tentative ruling.

Case Number: 22AVCV00608    Hearing Date: April 18, 2023    Dept: A14

Background

This is a medical malpractice action. Plaintiffs Vada G. Cruz, a minor by and through her Guardian ad Litem, Daisy E. Orellana (“Cruz”), and Daisy E. Orellana (“Orellana” and collectively “Plaintiffs”) allege that one week prior to August 25, 2019, Orellana presented to Defendant Antelope Valley Medical District DBA Antelope Valley Medical Center (“AVMC”)’s hospital while she was pregnant with twins, including Cruz. Plaintiffs present that Cruz was the second twin delivered by cesarean section by Defendant Dina Margherita Echevarria, M.D. (“Dr. Echevarria” and collectively “Defendants”). Plaintiff contends that Defendants each owed Plaintiffs a duty of care to perform the care and treatment of Plaintiffs in conformance with the then existing standards of care applicable to each Defendant and that Defendants were negligent and breached their duty of care to Plaintiffs by failing to act reasonably and failing to abide by the applicable standards of care in rendering care and treatment to Plaintiffs. Specifically, Plaintiffs allege that during the course of treatment, including the delivery, of Plaintiffs Dr. Echevarria caused Plaintiffs to be injured in the form of (1) a five (5) centimeter laceration to Cruz’s left lateral chest wall that was at a depth that involved the latissimus dorsi and serratus anterior muscles and required an operative procedure to treat; (2) left arm bruising to Cruz; and (3) severe emotional distress to Orellana as a result of Defendants’ negligence.

On August 23, 2022, Plaintiff filed a Complaint alleging one cause of action for Medical Malpractice against Defendants.

On October 14, 2022, AVCM filed their Answer.

On March 22, 2023, AVCM filed this Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (“MJOP”).

No Opposition has been filed. “All papers opposing a motion so noticed shall be filed with the court and a copy served on each party at least nine court days, and all reply papers at least five court days before the hearing.” (Cal. Code Civ. Proc. §1005(b).) “Section 1013, which extends the time within which a right may be exercised or an act may be done, does not apply to a notice of motion, papers opposing a motion, or reply papers governed by this section.” (Ibid.) The hearing is scheduled for April 18, 2023. Accordingly, an Opposition was due by April 05, 2023. Should an Opposition be filed, it is now untimely.

On April 07, 2023, AVCM filed a Notice of Non-Opposition.

----- 

Analysis

Standard for MJOP – A defendant may move for judgment on the pleadings when the “complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against that defendant.” (Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 438(b)(1) and (c)(1)(B)(ii).)

“A motion for judgment on the pleadings may be made at any time either prior to the trial or at the trial itself. [Citation.]” (Ion Equipment Corp. v. Nelson (1980) 110 Cal.App.3d 868, 877.) “A motion for judgment on the pleadings performs the same function as a general demurrer, and hence attacks only defects disclosed on the face of the pleadings or by matters that can be judicially noticed. Presentation of extrinsic evidence is therefore not proper on a motion for judgment on the pleadings.” (Cloud v. Northrop Grumman Corp. (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 995, 999 (Citations Omitted).) 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).)

-----

Meet and Confer Requirement – Before filing a MJOP or a motion to strike, the moving party is required to meet and confer with the party who filed the pleading subject to the MJOP and/or the motion to strike for the purposes of determining whether an agreement can be reached through a filing of an amended pleading that would resolve the objections to be raised in the MJOP or Motion to Strike.  (Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 439 and § 435.5.)  The meet and confer is to be either in person or by telephone. (Ibid.)

Counsel for AVCM, Matthew N. Trotter (“Trotter”), declares that he attempted a meet and confer on March 10, 2023; March 13, 2023; and March 14, 2023. (Decl. Trotter ¶¶ 3-5.) It appears, a meet and confer did not occur.

A determination by the court that the meet and confer process was insufficient shall not be grounds to grant or deny the JMOP or Motion to Strike. (Cal. Code Civ. Proc. §§ 439(a)(4) and 435.5(a)(4).) The considers the motions on their merits.

-----

Discussion

Application – AVCM moves for a judgment on the pleadings as Plaintiff has failed to comply with the Torts Claims Act as they untimely filed a claim to AVCM, did not file an Application to Present a Late claim, and the time for such an application has passed. AVCM argues that the Torts Claims act must be complied with prior to filing a lawsuit against it and failure to do so prevents the Court from exercising jurisdiction over the matter.

Plaintiffs have not opposed this motion.

Cal. Gov. Code § 900.4 provides the definition for local public entity:

“Local public entity” includes a county, city, district, public authority, public agency, and any other political subdivision or public corporation in the State, but does not include the State.

AVCM presents that it falls under this definition as a local public entity. However, there is no citation to an exhibit or otherwise for this claim.

The Court takes judicial notice of AVCM’s status as a local entity under Cal. Evid. Code § 452(h).

The California Healthcare Foundation has provided the following:

First established in 1946, health care and hospital districts are a form of local government known as a “special district,” described under California state law. Special districts are designed to provide a particular function in a specific geographic area and are governed by an elected board of directors. Special districts are independent from city or county governments, which traditionally provide a variety of services in a larger geographic area. The districts provide such unique services as police, fire, sanitation, health care, water, waste disposal, lighting or landscaping services. They are created at the will of local residents to fulfill a particular need not being met by other governmental or private agencies.

[. . .]

Appendix A: Survey List of California Hospital Districts

Antelope Valley Hospital: Lancaster, Los Angeles County; full service hospital operated by the district; number of beds varies by source of data (from 309 to 336, 350, and 379).

 (California Healthcare Foundation, California Healthcare Foundation < https://www.chcf.org/wpcontent/uploads/2017/12/PDFCaliforniasHealthCareDistricts.pdf> [as of Apr. 07 2023].)

Further, the Court takes notice of its records under Cal. Evid. Code § 452(e). The Court’s records reflect that AVCM has a governmental fee waiver.

“A claim relating to a cause of action for death or for injury to person or to personal property or growing crops shall be presented as provided in Article 2 (commencing with Section 915) not later than six months after the accrual of the cause of action. A claim relating to any other cause of action shall be presented as provided in Article 2 (commencing with Section 915) not later than one year after the accrual of the cause of action.” (Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 911.2.)

Here, the incident occurred on August 25, 2019. AVCM provided a true and correct copy AVCM’s letter regarding Plaintiffs’ submitted claim. (See Exh. E, Decl. Trotter ¶ 7.) AVCM responded to Plaintiff’s claim on April 30, 2020. (Ibid.) The letter states that the claim was received on March 30, 2020, over six months after the event occurred and informed Plaintiff that their only recourse was to “apply without delay to this hospital district for leave to present a late claim” with citations to the relevant Cal. Gov. Code sections. (Ibid.)

Cal. Gov. Code § 911.4 allows an application to be made to the public entity for leave to present a claim that is not timely filed within a reasonable time not to exceed one year after the accrual of the cause of action. (See Cal. Gov. Code § 911.4(a)-(b).)

No such application was presented to AVCM.

As this case involves the claim of a minor, the Court notes that under former Cal. Gov Code §§ 714–716 (now Cal. Gov. Code §§ 910 et seq.), a minor has 100 days plus one year within which to file his petition for leave to file delayed claim against local public entity. (Morrill v. Santa Monica (1963), 223 Cal. App. 2d 703, 35; see also Hom v. Chico Unified School Dist., 254 Cal.App.2d 335, 339 [“In effect, Government Code sections 911.6 and 946.6 grant minors a period of claim filing consisting of 100 days plus a reasonable time, not exceeding one year, for filing an application for relief”].)

That deadline has, too, passed.

“Except as provided in Sections 946.4 and 946.6, no suit for money or damages may be brought against a public entity on a cause of action for which a claim is required to be presented in accordance with Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 900) and Chapter 2 (commencing with Section 910) of Part 3 of this division until a written claim therefor has been presented to the public entity and has been acted upon by the board, or has been deemed to have been rejected by the board, in accordance with Chapters 1 and 2 of Part 3 of this division.” (Cal. Gov. Code § 945.4.) “Conditions imposed by a state as a prerequisite to an action against it are jurisdictional in nature and must be strictly complied with.” (Fidelity & Deposit Co. v. Claude Fisher Co. (1958) 161 Cal.App.2d 431, 436-37.) “Without a proper filing, and rejection of the claims, no right accrues to seek relief in the courts.” (Ridley v. San Francisco (1969) 272 Cal.App.2d 290, 292.)

Here, the claim was returned, not rejected. (See Exh. E.) As such, Plaintiffs cannot seek relief in the courts due to the laws surrounding the Government Torts Claim Act.

Accordingly, the Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is GRANTED.

-----

Leave to Amend

A judgment on the pleadings may be granted with or without leave to amend. (Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 438(h)(1).)

Leave to amend must be allowed where there is a reasonable possibility of successful amendment. (Goodman v. Kennedy¿(1976), 18 Cal.3d 335, 348.) While under California  law leave to amend is liberally granted, “leave to amend should not be granted where, in all probability, amendment would be futile.” (Vaillette v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co. (1993), 18 Cal. App. 4th 680, 685). “A trial court does not abuse its discretion when it sustains a demurrer without¿leave to amend¿if either (a) the facts and the nature of the claims are clear and no liability exists, or (b) it is probable from the nature of the defects and previous unsuccessful attempts to plead that the plaintiff cannot state a claim.” (Cantu v. Resolution Trust Corp.¿(1992)¿4 Cal.App.4th 857, 889.)

Here, the deficiencies in the pleadings cannot be rectified by an amendment as (1) Plaintiffs did not file a claim to AVCM in the time allowed by Cal. Gov. Code §§ §§ 910 et seq., and (2) the time for a late-filed application allowed in Cal. Gov. Code §§ 910 et seq. has passed.

Accordingly, the Court does not grant leave to amend.

-----

Conclusion