Judge: Teresa A. Beaudet, Case: 24STCV26308, Date: 2025-03-14 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV26308    Hearing Date: March 14, 2025    Dept: 50

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 50

Plaintiff Michelle Melany (“Plaintiff”) filed this action for medical negligence against defendants Mitchel Seruya, M.D., Robin Babadjouni, M.D., Peter Deptula, M.D., Laura C. Frese, PA-C, Harjyot Toor, D.O., Mitch Seruya, M.D., Inc., Los Angeles Nerve Institute, Cedars-Sinai Health System, and Cedars-Sinai Medical Center on October 9, 2024.

Defendants Laura C. Frese, PA-C and Harjyot Toor, D.O. (“Defendants”) demur to Plaintiff’s complaint. Plaintiff filed her opposition on March 3, 2025. On March 7, 2025, Defendants replied.

In the Demurrer, Defendants assert that the Complaint is uncertain and ambiguous and fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.

Demurrer

A.    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.) For the purpose of testing 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.)

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¿.)

B.    The Sole Cause of Action for Medical Negligence

Defendants’ names appear in four places in the complaint and only alongside all the other defendants collectively. (Compl., ¶¶ 5, 8-10.) Plaintiff alleges that all the defendants are “physicians, medical corporations, health maintenance organizations, surgeons, surgical nurses and technicians, office personnel, physical therapists and paramedical professionals”, without specifying which are which. (Compl., ¶¶ 5, 8.) (Compl., ¶ 16.) Plaintiff only ascribes specific medical care efforts to three doctors: defendants Seruya, Babadjouni, and Deptula. (Compl., ¶ 17.) As to all the rest, Plaintiff alleges they negligently handled her “examinations, diagnoses, surgery, follow up care and treatment, prescriptions of medicines and drugs, and the handling and control of the care and treatment”, or that they “failed to properly examine Plaintiff in the post-operative setting”, again without specifying which or how. (Compl., ¶¶ 16, 18.)

The demurring defendants cannot reasonably ascertain what facts are alleged against them so they can appropriately respond. Because the complaint is uncertain, the demurrer is sustained with leave to amend.

The Court orders Plaintiff to file and serve an amended complaint, if any, within 20 days of the date of this order. If no amended complaint is filed within 20 days, the Court orders Defendants to file and serve a proposed judgment of dismissal as to these Defendants. ¿¿ 

Defendants are ordered to give notice of this Order.¿ 

DATED:  March 14, 2025                                          ________________________________

Hon. Teresa A. Beaudet

Judge, Los Angeles Superior Court