Judge: Thomas Falls, Case: 22PSCV009771, Date: 2023-01-09 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22PSCV009771    Hearing Date: January 9, 2023    Dept: O

(1)   Defendant STRIDE ADULT RESIDENTIAL FACILITY’s Demurrer

(2)   Defendant STRIDE ADULT RESIDENTIAL FACILITY’s Motion to Strike

Tentative Ruling

(1)   Defendant STRIDE ADULT RESIDENTIAL FACILITY’s Demurrer is SUSTAINED with leave to amend.

(2)   Defendant STRIDE ADULT RESIDENTIAL FACILITY’s Motion to Strike is MOOT.

Background

This case arises from inpatient care at an adult residential facility. Plaintiff PRISCILLA SALCEDO, an individual, by and through her co-conservator SARAH GONZALEZ alleges the following against Defendants Stride Adult Residential Facility L-3 (“Defendant Stride”), Los Angeles County Regional Center, and Does 1 through 200: Plaintiff was admitted as an inpatient to a 24-hour Adult Residential Facility for the developmentally disabled. While under the care and treatment of DEFENDANTS, Plaintiff developed severe dental issues, including the need for full extraction of her teeth, rehabilitation of her gums, and will need permanent implants.

On September 2, 2022, Plaintiff filed suit for (1) Dependent Adult Abuse and (2) Negligence.

On October 26, 2022, AN GABRIEL POMONA VALLEYS DEVELOPMENTAL SERVICES, INC. dba SAN GABRIEL/PONOMNA REGIONAL CENTER (“SG/PRC”), a nonprofit corporation, erroneously sued herein as LOS ANGELES COUNTY REGIONAL CENTER filed its Answer.

On November 8, 2022, Defendant Stride filed the instant Demurrer and Motion to Strike.

On December 23, 2022, Plaintiff filed its Opposition.

On December 28, 2022, Defendant Stride filed its Reply.

Legal Standard

A demurrer may be asserted on any one or more of the following grounds: (a) The court has no jurisdiction of the subject of the cause of action alleged in the pleading; (b) The person who filed the pleading does not have legal capacity to sue; (c) There is another action pending between the same parties on the same cause of action; (d) There is a defect or misjoinder of parties; (e) The pleading does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action; (f) The pleading is uncertain (“uncertain” includes ambiguous and unintelligible); (g) In an action founded upon a contract, it cannot be ascertained from the pleading whether the contract is written, is oral, or is implied by conduct; (h) No certificate was filed as required by CCP §411.35 or (i) by §411.36.(Code Civ. Proc., §430.10.) Accordingly, a demurrer tests the sufficiency of a pleading, and the grounds for a demurrer must appear on the face of the pleading or from judicially noticeable matters.  (Code Civ. Proc., §430.30(a); Blank v. Kirwan, (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318.)

The face of the pleading includes attachments and incorporations by reference (Frantz v. Blackwell, (1987) 189 Cal.App.3d 91, 94); it does not include inadmissible hearsay. (Day v. Sharp, (1975) 50 Cal.App.3d 904, 914.)

The sole issue on demurrer for failure to state a cause of action is whether the facts pleaded, if true, would entitle the plaintiff to relief.  (Garcetti v. Superior Court, (1996) 49 Cal.App.4th 1533, 1547; Limandri v. Judkins, (1997) 52 Cal.App.4th 326, 339.) The ultimate facts alleged in the complaint must be deemed true, as well as all facts that may be implied or inferred from those expressly alleged.  (Marshall v. Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, (1995) 37 Cal.App.4th 1397, 1403.) Nevertheless, this rule does not apply to allegations expressing mere conclusions of law, or allegations contradicted by the exhibits to the complaint or by matters of which judicial notice may be taken. (Vance v. Villa Park Mobilehome Estates, (1995) 36 Cal.App.4th 698, 709.)

Discussion

Defendant Stride demurs on the grounds that the 1^st cause of action fails to state a cause of action and is uncertain. The court agrees that the pleading is uncertain because it lumps two Defendants into the same allegations.

As noted by Defendant Stride, it is unclear from the complaint the extent of Plaintiff's stay and which "Defendant" was purported to cause injury at Defendant's facility. And Plaintiff’s Opposition silent as to the uncertainty of the Complaint. Therefore, without pleading which Defendant did what, the complaint fails to adhere to basic pleading standards of establishing liability.

Conclusion