Judge: Upinder S. Kalra, Case: 22STCV06162, Date: 2022-07-25 Tentative Ruling
1. If you wish to submit on the tentative ruling, please email the clerk at SMCdept51@lacourt.org (and “cc” all other parties in the same email) and notify all other parties in advance that you will not be appearing at the hearing. Include the word "SUBMISSION" in all caps in the subject line and include your name, contact information, the case number, and the party you represent in the body of the email. If you do not have access to the internet, you may call the clerk at (213) 633-0351.
If you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear and argue the motion, and the Court may decide not to adopt the tentative ruling. Please note that the tentative ruling is not an invitation, nor an opportunity, to file any further documents relative to the hearing in question which are not authorized by statute or Rule of Court.
2. For any motion where no parties submit to the tentative ruling in advance, and no parties appear at the motion hearing, the Court may elect to either adopt the tentative ruling or take the motion off calendar, in its discretion.
3. DO NOT USE THE ABOVE EMAIL FOR ANY PURPOSE OTHER THAN TO SUBMIT TO A TENTATIVE RULING. The Court will not read or respond to emails sent to this address for any other purpose.
Case Number: 22STCV06162 Hearing Date: July 25, 2022 Dept: 51
Tentative Ruling
Judge Upinder S.
Kalra, Department 51
HEARING DATE: July
25, 2022
CASE NAME: CHA
Hollywood Medical Center, LP v. Local Initiative Health Authority for Los
Angeles County
CASE NO.: 22STCV06162
DEFENDANT’S
DEMURRER WITHOUT MOTION TO STRIKE
MOVING PARTY: Defendant L.A. Care Health Plan
RESPONDING PARTY(S): Plaintiff CHA Hollywood
REQUESTED RELIEF:
1. An
order sustaining the Demurrer as to the complaint in its entirety
TENTATIVE RULING:
1. Demurrer
is SUSTAINED without leave to amend.
2.
Request
for Judicial Notice is GRANTED.
STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:
Plaintiff CHA Hollywood Medical Center, L.P. (“Plaintiff”)
filed a complaint against Defendant Local Initiative Health Authority for Los
Angeles County dba L.A. Healthcare Plan, an independent entity and Does 1
through 25 (“Defendant”) on February 18, 2022. The complaint alleged three
causes of action: (1) Breach of Contract, (2) Breach of Implied in Fact
Contract, and (3) Quantum Meruit. Plaintiff alleges that the parties entered a
contract whereby Plaintiff would render medical services to members with an
L.A. Care health plan and Defendant would pay for those services at the
contracted rates. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant failed to pay for certain
claims of members enrolled in the health plan.
Defendant filed this current Demurrer on April 15, 2022, requesting
the complaint be sustained in its entirety and dismissed. Plaintiff filed its
Opposition on July 13, 2022. Defendant’s Reply was filed on July 18, 2022.
LEGAL STANDARD
Judicial Notice:
The Court may take judicial notice of the
existence of the records, but not the truth of matters asserted in such
records. (Sosinsky v. Grant (1992) 6
Cal.App.4th 1548, 1565). As a result, although the court may take judicial
notice that the documents exist, the Court may not take judicial notice of the
truth of the facts in the documents.
Additionally,
Evidence Code only allows the Court to take judicial notice of certain types of
documents. The court may take judicial notice of “official acts of the
legislative, executive, and judicial departments of the United States and of
any state of the United States,” “[r]ecords of (1) any court of this state or
(2) any court of record of the United States or of any state of the United
States,” and “[f]acts and propositions that are not reasonably subject to dispute
and are capable of immediate and accurate determination by resort to sources of
reasonably indisputable accuracy.” (Evid. Code § 452, subds. (c), (d), and
(h).) The Evidence Code does not allow the Court to take judicial notice of
discovery responses or parts of cases, such as depositions.
Defendant requests the Court take
judicial notice of the following documents:
A. Los
Angeles County Board of Supervisors Ordinance No. 94-0100
B. State
of California, Secretary of State, Statement of Facts Roster of Public Agencies
Filing
C. Plaintiff’s
Government Claim Regarding Patient 1
D. Plaintiff’s
Government Claim Regarding Patient 2
E. L.A.
Care’s Notice of Rejection of Plaintiff’s Government Claims Regarding Patients
1 and 2
F. Declaration
of William Seldeen in support of L.A. Care’s Demurrer to Plaintiff’s Complaint
The Request for Judicial Notice is
GRANTED.
Meet and Confer:
The Declaration of Nicholas Fine indicates that the parties
attempted to meet and confer regarding the perceived deficiencies in the
Complaint. The parties could not come to an agreement. (Dec. Fine Re: Meet and
Confer.)
Timeliness:
Under CCP § 430.40(a), a party can file a demurrer 30 days
after service, unless extended by stipulation or court order. The Proof of
Service of the Summons indicates that substituted service was attempted on
2/23/2022 in the morning, but the process server was unable to serve as the
documents were to be emailed. Later, on 2/23/2022, Sandra Felix emailed the documents
as per the requirements. The email was answered, indicating that to accept
service, the Notice and Acknowledge of Receipt was to be forwarded so the
Defendant could sign and return accepting service. However, there is no
indication that this Notice and Acknowledgement was forwarded. As such, there
is no indication when service was perfected. In any event, the trial court has
discretion to hear an untimely demurrer, especially where the plaintiff did not
obtain a default and did not affect the plaintiff’s substantial rights. (Jackson v. Doe (2001) 192 Cal.App.4th
742, 750.)
Additionally, Defendant contends
that since the Plaintiff’s opposition was untimely, the demurrer should be
considered unopposed and sustained on this alone. However, the opposition was one
day late, and Defendant still had an opportunity to substantively argue the
merits in the reply. Accordingly, the court will reach the merits of the
demurrer.
ANALYSIS:
Demurrer is Sustained
Defendant demurs generally to the entire
complaint on the grounds that the Plaintiff failed to state facts sufficient to
state a cause of action. The Act sets time requirements in which a claim must
be presented to a government agency and, if rejected, suit must be commenced.
Defendant contends that damage claims against public entities must specifically
allege facts indicating compliance with the Government Claims Act. (Govt. Code
§§ 810, et seq. (“Act”).). Defendant asserts that the allegation by Plaintiff
in paragraph 12 of the Complaint that “timely appeals and timely submission of
government claims,” however, was conclusory and factually insufficient.
Cohran
v. Herzog Engraving Co.
(1984) 155 Cal.App.3d 405, 410 Fn. 2, and Shields
v. County of San Diego (1984) 155 Cal.App.3d 103, 113, require setting
forth facts with sufficient detail to support liability against a public
agency. More specifically, Gong v. City
of Rosemead (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 363, holds that general allegations
that the time requirements of the Act were met are subject to attack by
demurrer. As such, Defendant’s position is well taken, Plaintiff’s decision to
generally allege that these requirements were met are subject to demurrer since
absent these specific dates, the Complaint fails to state a cause of action.
Accordingly, the Demurrer as to the entire
Complaint is SUSTAINED.
Leave to Amend
Leave to amend should
be liberally granted if there is a reasonable possibility an amendment could
cure the defect. (County of Santa Clara v. Superior Court (2022) 77 Cal.App.5th 1018,1035.)
The Plaintiff has the burden of demonstrating that leave to amend should be
granted. (Goodman v. Kennedy (1976)
18 Cal.3d 335, 349 [“Plaintiff must show in what manner he can amend his
complaint and how that amendment will change the legal effect of his pleading.”].)
Defendant argues that leave to amend would be futile because amendments cannot
cure the defects. Defendant asserts that Exhibits C-E demonstrate that as to
patients one and two, Plaintiff failed
to file this Complaint within six months after the claim was rejected on May
27, 2021. Defendant argues as to the remaining patients, public records
demonstrate that Plaintiff failed to present any claims at any time to Defendant.
Ordinarily judicial
notice only indicates that the documents exist, not the truth of what is stated
in the documents. However, there are exceptions. One such exception relates to
public records relating to compliance with the time requirements of the Act. In
particular, once a plaintiff alleges that they complied with the Act’s time
presentation and filing requirements, a court can properly take judicial notice
of the contents of the public records
that contravene the allegations and show non-compliance. (Gong v. City of Rosemead, supra,
226 Cal.App.4th at p. 376.) The court rejects Plaintiff’s
attempt to limit using such records only to timely presentation issues. The
court also rejects Plaintiff’s argument that since Defendant did not reject
patients claims within 45 days, that is akin to a non-response, so they get the
benefit of the two-year time limit under Government Code section 945.6,
subdivision (a)(2). A response, even an untimely response, is a response. As
such, the six-month statute of limitations applies under Government Code
section 945.6, subdivision (a)(1). Accordingly, since the contents of these
records that the court has taken judicial notice of demonstrate that Defendant
failed to comply with the filing requirements of patients one and two and the
presentation requirements as to the remaining patients, it does not appear that
there is reasonable possibility that Plaintiff can cure the defects of their Complaint.
Further, even absent
this court taking judicial notice of any records, there is another reason that
there is no possibility to cure the defects in the second and third causes of
action. In County of Santa Clara v. Superior Court,
supra, 77 Cal.App.5th at pp.
1028-1029, in facts strikingly similar to the facts here, the Court held that,
as a matter of law, a public entity is immune from causes
of action based on breach of an implied in fact contract claim and quantum
merit claim not based upon statute.
As such, the Demurrer is SUSTAINED,
without leave to amend.
Conclusion:
For
the foregoing reasons, the Court decides the pending motion as follows:
The Demurrer
is SUSTAINED, without leave to amend, as to the entire complaint.
Request for Judicial Notice is
GRANTED.
Moving party is to give notice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: July
25, 2022 __________________________________ Upinder
S. Kalra
Judge
of the Superior Court