Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 50

KAMRAN EBNAY AMIN-RASHTI, Plaintiff, vs. LOS ANGELES GENERAL MEDICAL CENTER, Defendant.	Case No.:	24STCV11754
	Hearing Date:	April 9, 2025
	Hearing Time:	8:30 a.m.
	[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: DEMURRER OF DEFENDANT LOS ANGELES GENERAL MEDICAL CENTER TO COMPLAINT

Background

Plaintiff Kemran Ebnay Amin-Rashti (“Plaintiff”) filed this medical malpractice action against defendant the County of Los Angeles (“Defendant” or “the County”) on May 9, 2024, erroneously naming the County as its hospital facility, Los Angeles General Medical Center. Plaintiff asserts two causes of action: one for elder abuse, and a second for negligence.

As alleged in the complaint and accepted as true upon demurrer: Plaintiff is fifty-seven (57) years old. (Id., ¶ 4.) He was admitted to a hospital administered by the County, Los Angeles General Medical Center (“the Hospital”) on March 31, 2023, suffering from first and second degree burns covering forty percent (40%) of his body. (Id., ¶¶ 5, 21.) Due to his severe injuries, Plaintiff depended on Hospital staff for his basic needs while a patient at the Hospital. (Id., ¶¶ 5-6.) Due to Plaintiff’s medical history, he was at high risk for pressure ulcers (bedsores). (Id., ¶ 22.) The Hospital was aware of Plaintiff’s particular risk. (Id., ¶¶ 22-23.) Nonetheless, Hospital staff failed to attend to Plaintiff’s care. (Id., ¶ 25.) The Hospital’s neglect and/or understaffing caused Plaintiff to develop severe pressure ulcers and complications therefrom, including Pseudomonas pneumonia, acute GI bleeding requiring multiple transfusions, and fungal endophthalmitis that eventually rendered him blind in his left eye. (Id., ¶¶ 7, 24-26, 29-48.) Plaintiff was transferred from the Hospital to a different facility, UCLA Medical Center, on June 6, 2023. (Id., ¶ 26.) His doctors there discovered the various conditions that had arisen or worsened during his stay at the Hospital. (Ibid.) Plaintiff sued approximately eleven months later.

On December 27, 2024, the County demurred to and moved to strike portions of Plaintiff’s complaint. The County timely served Plaintiff via electronic mail on the same date.

Plaintiff filed no oppositions.

On April 2, 2025, the County filed a Notice of Not Receiving Opposition to its demurrer and motion.

Legal Standard

A demurrer can be used only to challenge defects that appear on the face of the pleading under attack or from matters outside the pleading that are judicially noticeable. ((Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318.) “To survive a demurrer, the complaint need only allege facts sufficient to state a cause of action; each evidentiary fact that might eventually form part of the plaintiff’s proof need not be alleged.” (C.A v. William S. Hart Union High School Dist. (2012) 53 Cal.4th 861, 872.) To test the sufficiency of the cause of action, the demurrer admits the truth of all material facts properly pleaded. ((Aubry v. Tri-City Hospital Dist. (1992) 2 Cal.4th 962, 966-967.) A demurrer “does not admit contentions, deductions or conclusions of fact or law.” ((Daar v. Yellow Cab Co. (1967) 67 Cal.2d 695, 713.)

/ / /

Meeting and Conference

Code of Civil Procedure section 430.41 requires a demurring party to meet and confer with its opponent in person or by telephone before filing. Section 435.5 requires the same for motions to strike.

The County’s counsel submits a declaration with exhibits showing she repeatedly emailed Plaintiff’s counsel attempting to schedule a telephonic conference. (Stepanyan Decl., ¶ 2 and Exhs. 1-2.) Plaintiff’s counsel did not make himself available to discuss the County’s objections. (Id., Exh. 2.) After reviewing the County’s written meet and confer correspondence, Plaintiff’s counsel refused to dismiss the complaint. (Id., Exh. 2.)

Sections 430.41 and 435.5 are satisfied.

Discussion

To file a claim for money or damages against a public entity, most plaintiffs must comply with the claims presentation requirements stated in the Government Claims Act (GCA), Government Code section 900 et seq. In relevant part, the GCA requires a plaintiff to present his claim for money or damages to a putative public-entity defendant within six (6) or twelve (12) months of the accrual of her cause of action. (See Gov. Code § 900, et seq.; Dicampli Mintz v. County of Santa Clara (2012) 55 Cal.4th 983, 989.) A plaintiff must plead and prove her compliance with the GCA’s claims presentation requirements to prevail on a claim against a public entity. ((Wood v. Riverside General Hospital (1994) 25 Cal.App.4th 1113, 1119-1120.)

Defendant is a government entity. Plaintiff does not plead he complied with government claims requirements. Plaintiff has not stated a claim against Defendant.

Because Plaintiff has yet to amend his complaint in response to demurrer, and the defect in his complaint should be simple to cure (if it can be), the Court grants him leave to amend.

The Court declines to rule on the matter of sovereign immunity, while noting that Government Code section 815.2 permits imposition of vicarious liability for torts committed by public employees in the scope of their employment: “A public entity is liable for injury proximately caused by an act or omission of an employee of the public entity within the scope of his employment if the act or omission would, apart from this section, have given rise to a cause of action against that employee or his personal representative.” (Gov. Code, § 815.2, subd. (a).)

The County’s motion to strike is moot, given the Court’s ruling on the demurrer.

Conclusion

For the reasons set forth above, the Court sustains the County’s demurrer to Plaintiff’s Complaint in its entirety, with leave to amend.

The Court orders Plaintiff to file and serve an amended complaint within 20 days of the date of notice of this order. If no amended complaint is filed within 20 days, the County may file a motion to dismiss and a proposed judgment of dismissal pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 581, subdivision (f)(2) within 30 days of the date of notice of this order. Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1320(h), such a motion may be made by ex parte application.

The County’s motion to strike is denied as moot.

The County is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

DATED: April 9, 2025 ________________________________

Hon. Teresa A. Beaudet

Judge, Los Angeles Superior Court