Judge William A. Crowfoot, Case Number: 24NNCV05608, Date: 2025-05-12 Tentative Ruling

Judge: William A. Crowfoot, Case: 24NNCV05608, Date: 2025-05-12 Tentative Ruling

On November 5, 2024, plaintiff Rafik Khudabhkhshyan (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against defendant Glendale Adventist Medical Center dba Adventist Health Glendale (“Defendant”, erroneously sued as “Adventist Health Glendale”). Plaintiff alleges causes of action for: (1) medical negligence and (2) negligent hiring/screening/supervision/retention (“negligent hiring”). The action arises from a surgical procedure that took place on September 1, 2023, during which Defendant’s agents and employees “caused Plaintiff, while unconscious, to fall from the surgical table onto the floor where he landed violently on his head, suffering injuries that included, among others, traumatic injury to his head and brain, traumatic fracture of his skull, traumatic brain injury, and traumatic injury to his eyes.” (Compl., ¶ 6.) Plaintiff further alleges that Defendant, as a hospital, is directly negligent for failing to “use reasonable care to select and periodically evaluate its medical staff.” (Compl., ¶ 14.) Plaintiff claims Defendant “knew or should have known that [its] staff … were unfit and incompetent, or became unfit and incompetent, to perform the work for which they were hired, screened, retained and/or supervised and that this created a particular risk to others, including [Plaintiff].” (Compl., ¶ 14.)

On December 17, 2024, Defendant filed this demurrer to Plaintiff’s second cause of action for negligent hiring. Defendant demurs on the grounds that Plaintiff fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action and that the negligent hiring claim is duplicative, uncertain, ambiguous, and unintelligible.

A demurrer may be brought if insufficient facts are stated to support the cause of action asserted. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subd. (e).) “We treat the demurrer as admitting all material facts properly pleaded but not contentions, deductions or conclusions of fact or law. We accept the factual allegations of the complaint as true and also consider matters which may be judicially noticed. [Citation.]” (Mitchell v. California Department of Public Health (2016) 1 Cal.App.5th 1000, 1007; Del E. Webb Corp. v. Structural Materials Co. (1981) 123 Cal.App.3d 593, 604 [“the facts alleged in the pleading are deemed to be true, however improbable they may be”].) Allegations are to be liberally construed. (Code Civ. Proc., § 452.) In construing the allegations, the court is to give effect to specific factual allegations that may modify or limit inconsistent general or conclusory allegations. (Financial Corporation of America v. Wilburn (1987) 189 Cal.App.3rd 764, 769.)

“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.) A demurrer for uncertainty will be sustained only where the complaint is so bad that the defendant cannot reasonably respond. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subd. (f).) Where the complaint contains substantial factual allegations sufficiently apprising defendant of the issues it is being asked to meet, a demurrer for uncertainty will be overruled or plaintiff will be given leave to amend. (Williams v. Beechnut Nutrition Corp. (1986) 185 Cal.App.3d 135, 139, fn. 2.)

“In California, an employer may be liable to a third party for negligently hiring or retaining an unfit employee. [Citation.] Negligent hiring/retention is a theory of direct liability—not vicarious liability. In a negligent hiring/retention cause of action, the neglect alleged is not that of the employee. The neglect pleaded is that of the employer itself. [Citation].” (J.W. v. Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc. (2018) 29 Cal.App.5th 1142, 1163.) “[T]he cornerstone of a negligent hiring theory is the risk that the employee will act in a certain way and the employee does act in that way.” (Doe v. Capital Cities (1996) 50 Cal.App.4th 1038, 1055.)

Defendant demurs to Plaintiff’s negligent hiring claim on the grounds that Plaintiff fails to identify how the hospital personnel were unfit or incompetent to perform the work for which they were hired, and how or why it knew or should have known of that unfitness or incompetence. (Demurrer, pp. 6-7.) Defendant also argues that Plaintiff’s negligent hiring claim is duplicative of his medical negligence claim. (Demurrer, p. 8.)

In opposition, Plaintiff correctly distinguishes a claim for negligent hiring from medical negligence as a theory of “direct liability” against the hospital, not vicarious liability. However, although Plaintiff argues that “negligence” may be pleaded generally, Plaintiff’s cited cases do not involve claims for negligent hiring or supervision. Rather, the case law appears to require a plaintiff to plead facts establishing an employer’s actual or constructive notice of the employee’s incompetence; not simply that the employee acted negligently. For example, in J.W., the California Supreme Court noted that the plaintiff adequately alleged that the defendant church organization knew of an employee’s “dangerous and exploitive propensities” yet “negligently failed to supervise [them] in the position of trust and authority.” (J.W., supra, 29 Cal.App.5th at p. 1164.) In contrast with J.W., in Doe v. Capital Cities (1996) 50 Cal.App.4th 1038, 1054, a plaintiff’s allegation that the employer knew of the employee’s drug use was insufficient to state a cause of action for negligent hiring because it was not foreseeable that the employee would drug a prospective employee and assault them. Here, Plaintiff only vaguely alleges that the employees were unfit or incompetent without identifying the particular unfitness or incompetence, the circumstances giving rise to Defendant’s actual or constructive knowledge of the unfitness/incompetence, or the acts or omissions negligently committed by Defendant despite the actual or constructive knowledge. In short, Plaintiff’s claim for negligent hiring is based purely on legal conclusions.

Accordingly, the demurrer is SUSTAINED as to the Second Cause of Action with 20 days’ leave to amend.

William A. Crowfoot

Judge of the Superior Court

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at ALHDEPT3@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org. Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the matter. Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue. If the Court does not receive emails from the parties indicating submission on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may, at its discretion, adopt the tentative as the final order or place the motion off calendar.