Preview
Electronically Filed
1 DUMMIT, BUCHHOLZ & TRAPP 12/21/2020 12:25 PM
Attorneys At Law Superior Court of California
2
1661 Garden Highway County of Stanislaus
3 Sacramento, California 95833 Clerk of the Court
Telephone (916) 929-9600 By: Kimberly Mean, Deputy
4 Fax (916) 927-5368
5 Carolyn L. Northrop – State Bar No. 237989
Email: carolyn.northrop.@dbt.law
6 Thomas M. Gray – State Bar No. 265212
Email: thomas.gray@dbt.law
7 Attorneys for Defendant, DOCTORS MEDICAL
CENTER OF MODESTO, INC.
8
9
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
10
COUNTY OF STANISLAUS
11
12 MICAELA REYES, AN INDIVIDUAL, Case No.: CV-20-003725
AND MACARIO REYES, AN
13 INDIVIDUAL; AND AS A WRONGFUL
DEATH BENEFICIARY OF ELVIRA MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
14 REYES, AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF
DEFENDANT DOCTORS MEDICAL
15 Plaintiffs, CENTER OF MODESTO INC.’S
DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFFS’
16 v. FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
17 DOCTORS MEDICAL CENTER OF DATE: January 27, 2021
MODESTO, INC., A CALIFORNIA TIME: 8:30 a.m.
18 CORPORATION; AND DOES 1-100, DEPT.: 23
INCLUSIVE,
19
Defendants. Complaint Filed: 08/28/20
20 FAC Filed: 10/22/20
Trial Date: Not Set
21
22 ///
23 ///
24 ///
25 ///
26 ///
27 ///
28 ///
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT DOCTORS MEDICAL CENTER OF
MODESTO INC.’S DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES............................................................................... iii-ix
I. STATEMENT OF FACTS ....................................................................................... 1
II. DMC MAY OBJECT TO THE COMPLAINT BY DEMURRER ......................... 2
III. PLAINTIFFS’ 2ND CAUSE OF ACTION FAILS TO STATE A CAUSE OF
ACTION FOR INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS ... 3
IV. PLAINTIFFS’ 3RD, 10TH, & 16TH CAUSES OF ACTION FAIL TO STATE A
CLAIM FOR NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS ......... 5
V. PLAINTIFFS 4TH CAUSE OF ACTION FAILS TO STATE A CLAIM FOR
UNFAIR BUSINESS PRACTICES UNDER BUS. & PROF. CODE §17200 ........ 7
VI. PLAINTIFFS’ DUPLICATIVE 5TH CAUSE OF ACTION FAILS TO STATE A
CAUSE OF ACTION ............................................................................................... 8
VII. PLAINTIFFS’ 7TH CAUSE OF ACTION HAS FAILED TO STATE A CLAIM
FOR ABANDOMENT .............................................................................................. 8
VIII. PLAINTIFFS’ 8TH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR NEGLIGENCE IS
DUPLICATIVE OF THE 1ST, 5TH and 6TH CAUSES OF ACTION FOR
MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE AND/OR WRONGFUL DEATH............................... 9
IX. PLAINTIFFS’ 9TH CAUSE OF ACTION FAILS TO STATE A VIABLE CLAIM
FOR VIOLATIONS OF 22 CCR §§70231, 70233, and 70235 ................................ 9
X. PLAINTIFFS’ 10TH CAUSE OF ACTION FAILS TO STATE A CLAIM FOR
NEGLIGENCE PER SE AND NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL
DISTRESS .............................................................................................................. 10
XI. PLAINTIFFS’ 11TH CAUSE OF ACTION FAILS TO STATE A CLAIM FOR
BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY ....................................................................... 11
XII. PLAINTIFFS’ 12TH CAUSE OF ACTION FAILS TO STATE A CLAIM FOR
NELIGENT HIRING AND SUPERVISION AND IT IS UNCERTAIN ............. 12
XIII. PLAINTIFFS 13TH CAUSE OF ACTION FAILS TO STATE A CLAIM FOR
RES IPSA LOQUITUR .......................................................................................... 13
XIV. PLAINTIFFS’ 14TH CAUSE OF ACTION FAILS TO STATE A CAUSE OF
ACTION FOR UNJUST ENRICHMENT ............................................................. 14
[i]
TABLE OF CONTENTS
XV. PLAINTIFFS’ 15TH & 17TH CAUSES OF ACTION FAIL TO STATE
INDEPENDENT CLAIMS FOR “SURVIVAL” AND “SURVIVOR”
ACTIONS ............................................................................................................... 15
XVI. PLAINTIFFS’ 18TH CAUSE OF ACTION FAILS TO STATE A CLAIM FOR
WILLFUL MISCONDUCT ................................................................................... 16
XVII. PLAINTIFFS’ 19TH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR VIOLATION OF H&S §1430(b)
IS NOT A VIABLE CLAIM AGAINST DMC BECAUSE THE CLAIM DOES
NOT EXIST OR APPLY TO GENERAL ACUTE CARE HOSPITALS ............ 17
XVIII. PLAINTIFFS’ 20TH CAUSE OF ACTION IS UNCERTAIN AND FAILS TO
STATE A CLAIM FOR AGENCY/JOINT VENTURE, AIDING AND
ABETTING/CONSPIRACY & ALTER EGO ...................................................... 18
XIX. LEAVE TO AMEND MUST BE DENIED AS NO ABILITY TO CURE
DEFECT ................................................................................................................. 19
XX. CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................... 20
[ii]
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
CASES: PAGE:
Ankeny v. Lockheed Missiles & Space Co.
(1979) 88 Cal.App.3d 531, 537 ............................................................................................. 2, 3
Applied Equipment Corp. v. Litton Saudi Arabia Ltd.
(1994) 7 Cal.4th 503, 510 ........................................................................................................ 18
Arato v. Avedon
(1993) 5 Cal.4th 1172 ............................................................................................................. 11
Award Metals Inc. v. Superior Court
(1991) 228 Cal. App. 3d 1128, 1135............................................................................. 5, 8, 9, 10
Barquis v. Merchants Collection Assn.
(1972) 7 Cal.3d 94, 110............................................................................................................. 7
Berkley v. Dowds
(2007) 152 Cal. App. 4th 518, 528 .......................................................................................... 16
Black v. Bank of America
(1994) 30 Cal. App.4th 1, 4 ..................................................................................................... 18
Blank v. Kirwan
(1985) 39 Cal. 3d 311, 319 ...................................................................................................... 19
Burgess v. Superior Ct.
(1992) 2 Cal.4th 1064, 1071-72 ................................................................................................. 6
Calvillo-Silva v. Home Grocery
(1998) 19 Cal.4th 714, 729 ...................................................................................................... 16
Cantu v. Resolution Trust Corp.
(1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 857, 877 .................................................................................................. 3
Careau & Co. v. Security Pac. Bus. Credit, Inc.
(1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 1371, 1390............................................................................................ 3
Carter v. Prime Healthcare Paradise Valley LLC
(2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 396, 412 ............................................................................................ 16
Casey v. U.S. Bank Nat. Assn.
(2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 1138, 1144 ........................................................................................ 19
[iii]
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
CASES, Cont.
Cel-Tech Communications, Inc. v. Los Angeles Cellular Telephone Co.
(1999) 20 Cal.4th 163, 189 ........................................................................................................ 7
Christensen v. Sup. Ct.
(1991) 54 Cal.3d 868, 903, 904, 905 ......................................................................................... 4
Cobbs v. Grant
(1972) 8 Cal.3d 229, 242, 243-244 .......................................................................................... 11
Cochrum v. Costa Victoria Healthcare, LLC
(2018) 25 Cal.App.5th 1034, 1053 .......................................................................................... 18
Davidson v. City of Westminster
(1982) 32 Cal.3d 197, 209 ......................................................................................................... 4
Delfino v. Agilent Technologies, Inc.
(2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 790, 809 .............................................................................................. 4
Doctors' Co. v. Sup. Ct.
(1989) 49 Cal.3d 39, 44 ........................................................................................................... 18
Elam v. College Park Hospital
(1982) 132 Cal. App. 3d 332, 346 ........................................................................................... 12
Escola v. Coca Cola Bottling Co.
(1944) 24 Cal.2d 453, 458 ....................................................................................................... 14
Ess v. Eskaton Prop.
(2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 120, 128, 130......................................................................................... 4
Faulkner v. Cal. Toll Bridge Auth
(1953) 40 Cal.2d 317, 329, 330 ................................................................................................. 2
Fiol v. Doellstedt
(1996) 50 Cal.App.4th 1318, 1325–1326 ................................................................................ 19
Flores v. Arroyo
(1961) 56 Cal.2d 492, 497 ......................................................................................................... 2
Flowers v. Torrance Memorial Hospital Medical Center
(1994) 8 Cal.4th 992, 997-999................................................................................................... 9
Gorden v. Goldberg
(1935) 3 Cal. App. 2d 659 ....................................................................................................... 13
[iv]
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
CASES, Cont.
Hauger v. Gates
(1954) 42 Cal.2d 752, 755 ......................................................................................................... 2
Hensler v. City of Glendale
(1994) 8 Cal. 4th 1, 22-23 ......................................................................................................... 8
Hinds v. Wheadon
(1942) 19 Cal.2d 458, 461 ....................................................................................................... 13
Honea v. City Dairy, Inc.
(1943) 22 Cal.2d 614, 618 ....................................................................................................... 14
Hughes v. Pair
(2009) 46 Cal.4th 1035, 1050-1051 ........................................................................................... 4
Jameson v. Desta
(2013) 215 Cal.App.4th 1144, 1164 ........................................................................................ 11
Jansen v. Children’s Hospital Medical Center of the East Bay
(1973) 31 Cal.App.3d 22, 23 ..................................................................................................... 6
Jogani v. Superior Court
(2008) 165 Cal. App. 4th 901, 911 .......................................................................................... 14
Jones v. Grewe
(1987) 189 Cal.App.3d 950, 954 ............................................................................................... 2
Judson v. Giant Powder Co.
(1895) 107 Cal. 549, 556 ......................................................................................................... 13
Justus v. Atchison
(1977) 19 Cal.3d 564,584 .......................................................................................................... 6
Kiseskey v. Carpenters' Trust for So. Cal.
(1983) 144 Cal.App.3d 222, 229–230........................................................................................ 4
Larson v. UHS of Rancho Springs, Inc.
(2014) 230 Cal.App.4th at 347 .................................................................................................. 8
Leek v. Cooper
(2011) 194 Cal.App.2d 496, 499 ............................................................................................. 19
Marin v. Jacuzzi
(1964) 224 Cal.App.2d 549, 552 ............................................................................................... 3
[v]
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
CASES, Cont.
Meadows v. Emett & Chandler
(1950) 99 Cal.App.2d 496, 499 [222 P.2d 145] ....................................................................... 19
Melchior v. New Line Prods. Inc.
(2003) 106 Cal. App. 4th 779, 793 ..................................................................................... 14, 15
Mesler v. Bragg Management Co.
(1985) 39 Cal.3d at p. 301 ....................................................................................................... 19
Michener v. Hutton
(1928) 203 Cal. 604, 607, 609 ................................................................................................. 13
Molko v. Holy Spirit Assn.
(1988) 46 Cal.3d 1092, 1122 ..................................................................................................... 4
Moore v. Regents of University of California
(1990) 51 Cal.3d 120, 133-134 ................................................................................................ 11
Mosk v. National Research Co. of Cal.
(1962) 201 Cal.App.2d 765, 771 ............................................................................................... 7
Mox Inc. v. Woods
(1927) 202 Cal. 675, 677 ......................................................................................................... 18
Navarrete v. Meyer
(2015) 237 Cal.App.4th 1276, 1291 ........................................................................................ 18
Nelson v. Abraham
(1947) 29 Cal.2d 745, 749 ....................................................................................................... 18
Ochoa v. Superior Court
(1985) 39 Cal.3d at 165, fn. 5 .................................................................................................... 4
Olson v. Whitthorne & Swan
(1928) 203 Cal. 206, 208 ......................................................................................................... 13
Orosco v. Sun-Diamond Corp.
(1997) 51 Cal.App.4th 1659, 1666 .......................................................................................... 18
Palm Springs Villas II Homeowner’s Assn., Inc. v. Parth
(2016) 248 Cal. App. 4th 268, 290 ............................................................................... 5, 8, 9, 10
Payton v. Weaver
(1982) 131 Cal. App. 3d 38, 45 ................................................................................................. 8
[vi]
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
CASES, Cont.
People v. McKale
(1979) 25 Cal.3d 626, 631-632 .................................................................................................. 7
Perez v. Golden Empire Transit Dist.
(2012) 209 Cal. App. 4th 1228, 1235-1236................................................................................ 3
Peterson v. Celico Partnership
(2008) 164 Cal. App.4th 1583, 1593 ....................................................................................... 14
Potter v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co.
(1993) 6 Cal.4th 965, 1001, 1004 .............................................................................................. 4
Raber v. Tumin
(1951) 36 Cal.2d 654, 659 ....................................................................................................... 13
Rakestraw v. Cal. Physicians’ Srvs.
(2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 39 .......................................................................................................... 3
Rodrigues v. Campbell Industries
(1978) 87 Cal. App. 3d 494, 501 .................................................................................. 5, 8, 9, 10
Saunders v. Superior Court
(1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 832, 846 .............................................................................................. 19
Simmons v. S. Pac. Trans. Co.
(1976) 62 Cal. App. 3d at 360 ................................................................................................. 16
Skopp v. Weaver
(1976) 16 Cal.3d 432, 437 ......................................................................................................... 3
Smith v. Ben Bennett Inc.
(2005) 133 Cal.App.4th 1507, 1514, 1524 ................................................................................. 8
Smith v. McClary
(1938) 28 Cal.App.2d 468, 470 ..........................................................................................13, 14
Smith v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co.
(2001) 93 Cal.App.4th 700, 719 ................................................................................................ 7
So v. Shin
(2013) 212 Cal.App.4th 652, 668 ............................................................................................ 12
Spates v. Dameron Hospital Assn.
(2003) 114 Cal.App.4th 208, 213 .......................................................................................... 6, 7
[vii]
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
CASES, Cont.
Stanley v. Richmond
(1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 1070, 1086 .......................................................................................... 11
State Farm v. Superior Court
(1996) 45 Cal.App.4th 1093, 1104 ............................................................................................ 7
Stigall v. City of Taft
(1962) 58 Cal.2d 565, 567-568 .................................................................................................. 2
Thing v. La Chusa
(1989) 48 Cal.3d 644, 647 ......................................................................................................... 6
Unruh v. Truck Ins. Exchange
(1972) 7 Cal. 3d 616, 631 ........................................................................................................ 18
Vasey v. California Dance Co.
(1977) 70 Cal.App.3d 742, 749 ............................................................................................... 19
Wise v. Southern Pac. Co.
(1963) 223 Cal.App.2d 50, 72 ................................................................................................. 18
Wolf v. Superior Court
(2003) 107 Cal.App.4th 25, 29 ................................................................................................ 11
Worsham v. O’Connor Hospital
(2014) 226 Cal. App. 4th 331 .................................................................................................. 16
Zentz v. Coca Cola Bottling Co.
(1952) 39 Cal.2d 436, 443, 444 ............................................................................................... 13
STATUTES, Etc.
4 Witkin, Cal. Proc. (5th ed. 2008) Pleading,
§450, p. 584................................................................................................................... 3
22 California Code of Regulations
§70231 .....................................................................................................................9, 10
§70233 .....................................................................................................................9, 10
§70235 .....................................................................................................................9, 10
§72527(a) .................................................................................................................... 17
[viii]
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
STATUTES, Etc., Cont.
Business and Professions Code
§2400 et seq................................................................................................................. 12
§2700 et seq................................................................................................................. 12
§17200 .......................................................................................................................... 7
CACI
418 .............................................................................................................................. 10
426 .............................................................................................................................. 12
509 ................................................................................................................................ 8
516 .............................................................................................................................. 12
518 .............................................................................................................................. 13
1600 .............................................................................................................................. 4
1621 .............................................................................................................................. 6
Civil Code
§56 .............................................................................................................................. 12
Code of Civil Procedure
§377.20 ....................................................................................................................... 15
§377.30 ....................................................................................................................... 15
§377.32 ....................................................................................................................... 15
§377.34 ..................................................................................................................... 5, 7
§430.10(b)(e)(f) ............................................................................................................. 2
§430.30(a) ..................................................................................................................... 2
§430.50(a) ..................................................................................................................... 2
§430.70 ......................................................................................................................... 3
Health & Safety Code
§1250(a)(c)(d) ............................................................................................................... 17
§1430(b) ....................................................................................................................... 17
Health Insurance and Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) ........................................... 12
Rest.2d Torts,
§46, com. d. ..................................................................................................................... 4
§876 .............................................................................................................................. 19
Welfare and Institutions Code
§15657 ........................................................................................................................ 15
§15657(b) ...................................................................................................................... 5
[ix]
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
1 I. STATEMENT OF FACTS
2 Decedent, ELVIRA REYES was 51 years old in 2019. (FAC ¶8, 37.) MICAELA
3 REYES is the mother of decedent. (FAC ¶9.) MACARIO REYES is the father of decedent.
4 (FAC ¶10.) DMC is a California Corporation and general acute care hospital. (FAC ¶13, 28, 37-
5 42.)
6 On August 25, 2019, Decedent called her sister-in-law Ortencia Reyes to let her know
7 that she felt unwell with complaints of chest pain and vomiting. (FAC ¶37.) Decedent was
8 brought to the emergency room at DMC by family members. (FAC ¶28, 38.) Decedent was
9 examined and cared for by the emergency department who identified a UTI and chronic renal
10 insufficiency and no cardiac problems or history for decedent. (FAC ¶39.) Decedent was taken
11 in and placed into a room to stay overnight and be monitored by medical staff. (FAC ¶40.) On
12 August 26, 2019, Decedent’s sister visited and spent time conversing with decedent. (FAC ¶41.)
13 On August 27, 2019, Plaintiff MICAELA arrived at the hospital. (FAC ¶42.) MICAELA
14 felt that decedent was doing better, talking normal, and sitting up on her own. (FAC ¶42.)
15 MICAELA inquired about discharge and a nurse informed her that Decedent would be
16 discharged later that day or the next day. (FAC ¶43.) Decedent then complained of pain in heart
17 and chest and head behind her neck. (FAC ¶44.) The nurse took note of the condition and said
18 she would relay the information to see if there were additional medications decedent could be
19 provided for her condition. (FAC ¶45.) The nurse mentioned that decedent had been
20 administered medicine at 4:00 a.m. and 6:00 a.m. and would get another dose at 11:00 a.m., and
21 if ineffective the nurse would consult with primary doctor for new and stronger medication.
22 (FAC ¶45.) Decedent remained responsive and conversed with family in normal manner and
23 Plaintiffs felt Decedent was better. (FAC ¶46.) A different nurse came into the room later and
24 checked Decedent’s blood pressure and sugar levels and noted they were abnormal, and
25 decedent would be monitored and administered insulin. (FAC ¶47.)
26 At or about 12:00 p.m., Plaintiff MICAELA and other visitors left to go eat at the
27 hospital cafeteria. (FAC ¶48.) Decedent was to be getting food brought to her by hospital staff.
28 (FAC ¶48.) Decedent’s family ate quickly and returned to the room less than an hour later and
-1-
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT DOCTORS MEDICAL CENTER OF
MODESTO INC.’S DEMURRER AND DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
1 before 1:00 p.m. to find Decedent unresponsive in the room. (FAC ¶49.) MICAELA tried to get
2 Decedent to respond to no avail, while other family called for help. (FAC ¶50.) A code blue was
3 called, and all pertinent personnel rushed to the scene. (FAC ¶52.) Decedent was taken to ICU
4 in persistent vegetative state. (FAC ¶52.) DMC informed Plaintiffs nothing further could be
5 done. (FAC ¶53.) Decedent died on or about September 5, 2019. (FAC ¶8.) Plaintiffs allege that
6 monitoring should have been better. (FAC ¶55-57.)
7 II. DMC MAY OBJECT TO THE COMPLAINT BY DEMURRER
8 Code of Civil Procedure, Section 430.30, states in pertinent part: “(a) When any ground
9 for objection to a complaint … appears on the face thereof, or from any matter of which the
10 court is required to or may take judicial notice, the objection on the ground may be taken by a
11 demurrer to the pleading. …” (C.C.P. §430.30) Code of Civil Procedure, Section 430.50 states
12 in pertinent part: “(a) A demurrer to a complaint or cross-complaint may be taken to the whole
13 complaint …. or to any of the causes of action stated therein. …” (C.C.P. §430.50) Code of
14 Civil Procedure, Section 430.10, states in pertinent part:
15 “The party against whom a complaint … has been filed may
object, by demurrer or answer as provided in Section 430.30, to the
16
pleading on any one or more of the following grounds:
17 …
(b) the person who filed the pleading does not have the legal
18 capacity to sue
19 …
(e) The pleading does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause
20 of action.
21 (f) The pleading is uncertain. As used in this subdivision,
22 ‘uncertain’ includes ambiguous and unintelligible. …”
23 In California, a pleading must allege facts, not merely legal conclusions. (Jones v.
24 Grewe (1987) 189 Cal.App.3d 950, 954; Ankeny v. Lockheed Missiles & Space Co. (1979) 88
25 Cal.App.3d 531, 537.) A demurrer admits all material and issuable facts properly pleaded.
26 (Stigall v. City of Taft (1962) 58 Cal.2d 565, 567-568; Flores v. Arroyo (1961) 56 Cal.2d 492,
27 497; Hauger v. Gates (1954) 42 Cal.2d 752, 755.) However, it does not admit contentions,
28 deductions, or conclusions of fact or law alleged therein. (Faulkner v. Cal. Toll Bridge Auth
-2-
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT DOCTORS MEDICAL CENTER OF
MODESTO INC.’S DEMURRER AND DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
1 (1953) 40 Cal.2d 317, 329, 330; Marin v. Jacuzzi (1964) 224 Cal.App.2d 549, 552.) A plaintiff
2 must show the complaint alleges facts sufficient to establish every element of each cause of
3 action. (Rakestraw v. Cal. Physicians’ Srvs. (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 39.) The essential facts
4 upon which a determination of the controversy depends should be stated with clearness and
5 precision so that nothing is left to surmise. (Ankeny, 88 Cal.App.3d at 537.)
6 The court may take judicial notice of a party’s earlier pleadings and positions, as well as
7 established facts. (See Cantu v. Resolution Trust Corp. (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 857, 877; CCP
8 §430.70.) The complaint is thus read as containing the judicially noticeable facts, “even when
9 the pleading contains an express allegation to the contrary.” (Id.) Thus the plaintiff cannot avoid
10 a demurrer by “pleading facts or positions in an amended complaint that contradict facts
11 pleaded in the original complaint or by suppressing facts which prove the pleaded facts false.”
12 (Id.)
13 Further, “where a pleading includes a general allegation, such as an allegation of an
14 ultimate fact, as well as specific allegations that add details or explanatory facts, it is possible
15 that a conflict or inconsistency will exist between the general allegation and the specific
16 allegations. To handle these contradictions, California courts have adopted the principle that
17 specific allegations in a complaint control over an inconsistent general allegation.” (Perez v.
18 Golden Empire Transit Dist. (2012) 209 Cal. App. 4th 1228, 1235-1236 citing Skopp v. Weaver
19 (1976) 16 Cal.3d 432, 437; 4 Witkin, Cal. Proc. (5th ed. 2008) Pleading, § 450, p. 584.) “Under
20 this principle, it is possible that specific allegations will render a complaint defective when the
21 general allegations, standing alone, might have been sufficient.” (Perez, 209 Cal. App. 4th at
22 1235-1236; Careau & Co. v. Security Pac. Bus. Credit, Inc. (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 1371,
23 1390.)
24 III. PLAINTIFFS’ 2ND CAUSE OF ACTION FAILS TO STATE A CAUSE OF
25 ACTION FOR INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
26 The elements for a claim of Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (“IIED”) are (1)
27 extreme and outrageous conduct by the defendant; (2) with the intention of causing, or reckless
28 disregard of the probability of causing emotional distress; (3) the plaintiffs suffering severe or
-3-
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT DOCTORS MEDICAL CENTER OF
MODESTO INC.’S DEMURRER AND DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
1 extreme emotional distress; and (4) actual and proximate causation of the emotional distress by
2 the defendant’s conduct. (See Hughes v. Pair (2009) 46 Cal.4th 1035, 1050-1051; Potter v.
3 Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. (1993) 6 Cal.4th 965, 1001; Christensen v. Sup. Ct. (1991) 54
4 Cal.3d 868, 903; CACI 1600.) For the conduct to be outrageous, it “must be so extreme as to
5 exceed all bounds of that usually tolerated in a civilized community.” (Christensen, 54 Cal.3d at
6 903 quoting Davidson v. City of Westminster (1982) 32 Cal.3d 197, 209.) Liability for IIED
7 “‘does not extend to mere insults, indignities, threats, annoyances, petty oppressions, or other
8 trivialities.’ (Rest.2d Torts, §46, com. d.)” (Molko v. Holy Spirit Assn. (1988) 46 Cal.3d 1092,
9 1122; Delfino v. Agilent Technologies, Inc. (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 790, 809; see Kiseskey v.
10 Carpenters' Trust for So. Cal. (1983) 144 Cal.App.3d 222, 229–230.) “With respect to the
11 requirement that a plaintiff show severe emotional distress, this court has set a high bar. ‘Severe
12 emotional distress means ‘emotional distress of such substantial quality or enduring quality that
13 no reasonable [person] in civilized society should be expected to endure it.’” (Hughes, 46 Cal.
14 4th at 1050-1051 quoting Potter, 6 Cal.4th at 1004.)
15 Even if the conduct is termed outrageous, that itself is not sufficient, “the tort calls for
16 intentional, or at least reckless conduct—conduct intended to inflict injury or engaged in with
17 the realization that injury will result.” (Ess v. Eskaton Prop. (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 120, 130.) It
18 must be conduct “directed at the plaintiff, or occur in the presence of a plaintiff of whom the
19 defendant is aware.” “The requirement that defendant’s conduct be directed primarily at the
20 plaintiff is a factor which distinguishes intentional infliction of emotional distress from that of
21 negligent infliction of such injury.” (Id. quoting Christensen, supra, at 904.) Where plaintiff
22 seeks to recover for “emotional distress suffered as a result of conduct directed primarily at
23 another, recovery—to the extent it has been allowed at all – ‘has been limited to the most
24 extreme cases of violent attack, where there is some special likelihood of fright or shock.’” (Ess
25 97 Cal.App.4th at 130 citing Christensen, supra, at 905 quoting Ochoa v. Superior Court (1985)
26 39 Cal.3d at 165, fn. 5.) Thus, while courts have acknowledged that the likelihood that injury to
27 a patient will result in emotional distress to a family member, that relationship alone is not
28 sufficient to give rise to a claim. (Ess, 97 Cal. App. 4th at 128.)
-4-
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT DOCTORS MEDICAL CENTER OF
MODESTO INC.’S DEMURRER AND DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
1 Here, Plaintiffs cannot state a claim for intentional infliction of emotion distress because
2 (1) the conduct was not extreme or outrageous, (2) the conduct was not directed to Plaintiffs,
3 and (3) the emotional distress cannot be claimed on behalf of Decedent. First, the FAC’s
4 factual allegations (FAC ¶36-57) allege that decedent was receiving care and monitoring and
5 that Plaintiffs feel the monitoring was insufficient during a small window of time. This is a
6 straightforward medical negligence issue that is not extreme or outrageous. Second, the duty for
7 this claim runs only to the patient herself (decedent) and the care and monitoring were directed
8 to the decedent. This was not directed to the family members, and the family members admit
9 they had left the room. The conduct was not an act of extreme violence to allow for the family
10 members to claim severe emotional distress related to actions directed at another. Finally,
11 Plaintiffs, as successors in interest, cannot make a claim for emotional distress of the decedent
12 as the damages are not allowed under CCP §377.34. Plaintiffs’ attempt to use Welfare and
13 Institutions Code §15657(b) to work around CCP §377.34 is without merit because that specific
14 statute only applies to Dependent Adult/Elder Abuse claims, which is not alleged, and decedent
15 was neither an elder nor a dependent adult. As such, Plaintiffs, individually and as successors in
16 interest, cannot state a cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress, and
17 Defendant’s demurrer must be sustained.
18 IV. PLAINTIFFS’ 3RD, 10TH, & 16TH CAUSES OF ACTION FAIL TO STATE A
19 CLAIM FOR NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
20 Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim for Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress in
21 the duplicative Third, Tenth, and Sixteenth Causes of Action. California law provides a
22 demurrer is a proper method of objection against duplicative causes of action (See, Palm
23 Springs Villas II Homeowner’s Assn., Inc. v. Parth (2016) 248 Cal. App. 4th 268, 290;
24 Rodrigues v. Campbell Industries (1978) 87 Cal. App. 3d 494, 501; Award Metals Inc. v.
25 Superior Court (1991) 228 Cal. App. 3d 1128, 1135). In addition to being duplicative, the
26 allegations fail to set forth a viable claim of Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress.
27 Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress (“NIED”) is analyzed by reference to two
28 theories of recovery: (1) Bystander Theory or (2) Direct Victim Theory. (Spates v. Dameron
-5-
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT DOCTORS MEDICAL CENTER OF
MODESTO INC.’S DEMURRER AND DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
1 Hospital Assn. (2003) 114 Cal.App.4th 208, 213.) NIED is not an independent tort, but the tort
2 of negligence with the traditional elements of duty, breach of duty, causation, and damages. (Id.
3 quoting Burgess v. Superior Ct. (1992) 2 Cal.4th 1064, 1071-72.) In order to recover, the
4 plaintiff must prove that she: “(1) is closely related to the injury victim; (2) was present at the
5 scene of the injury-producing event at the time it occurs, and is then aware that it is causing
6 injury to the victim; and (3) as a result, suffers serious emotional distress…” (Thing v. La Chusa
7 (1989) 48 Cal.3d 644, 647. See CACI 1621.) NIED “requires more than mere physical
8 presence: …the shock must also result from a ‘direct emotional impact’ on the plaintiff caused
9 by ‘sensory and contemporaneous observance of the accident.’” (Justus v. Atchison (1977) 19
10 Cal.3d 564
Preview
Electronically Filed 1 DUMMIT, BUCHHOLZ & TRAPP 12/21/2020 12:25 PM Attorneys At Law Superior Court of California 2 1661 Garden Highway County of Stanislaus 3 Sacramento, California 95833 Clerk of the Court Telephone (916) 929-9600 By: Kimberly Mean, Deputy 4 Fax (916) 927-5368 5 Carolyn L. Northrop – State Bar No. 237989 Email: carolyn.northrop.@dbt.law 6 Thomas M. Gray – State Bar No. 265212 Email: thomas.gray@dbt.law 7 Attorneys for Defendant, DOCTORS MEDICAL CENTER OF MODESTO, INC. 8 9 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA 10 COUNTY OF STANISLAUS 11 12 MICAELA REYES, AN INDIVIDUAL, Case No.: CV-20-003725 AND MACARIO REYES, AN 13 INDIVIDUAL; AND AS A WRONGFUL DEATH BENEFICIARY OF ELVIRA MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND 14 REYES, AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT DOCTORS MEDICAL 15 Plaintiffs, CENTER OF MODESTO INC.’S DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFFS’ 16 v. FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 17 DOCTORS MEDICAL CENTER OF DATE: January 27, 2021 MODESTO, INC., A CALIFORNIA TIME: 8:30 a.m. 18 CORPORATION; AND DOES 1-100, DEPT.: 23 INCLUSIVE, 19 Defendants. Complaint Filed: 08/28/20 20 FAC Filed: 10/22/20 Trial Date: Not Set 21 22 /// 23 /// 24 /// 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT DOCTORS MEDICAL CENTER OF MODESTO INC.’S DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF AUTHORITIES............................................................................... iii-ix I. STATEMENT OF FACTS ....................................................................................... 1 II. DMC MAY OBJECT TO THE COMPLAINT BY DEMURRER ......................... 2 III. PLAINTIFFS’ 2ND CAUSE OF ACTION FAILS TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS ... 3 IV. PLAINTIFFS’ 3RD, 10TH, & 16TH CAUSES OF ACTION FAIL TO STATE A CLAIM FOR NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS ......... 5 V. PLAINTIFFS 4TH CAUSE OF ACTION FAILS TO STATE A CLAIM FOR UNFAIR BUSINESS PRACTICES UNDER BUS. & PROF. CODE §17200 ........ 7 VI. PLAINTIFFS’ DUPLICATIVE 5TH CAUSE OF ACTION FAILS TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION ............................................................................................... 8 VII. PLAINTIFFS’ 7TH CAUSE OF ACTION HAS FAILED TO STATE A CLAIM FOR ABANDOMENT .............................................................................................. 8 VIII. PLAINTIFFS’ 8TH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR NEGLIGENCE IS DUPLICATIVE OF THE 1ST, 5TH and 6TH CAUSES OF ACTION FOR MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE AND/OR WRONGFUL DEATH............................... 9 IX. PLAINTIFFS’ 9TH CAUSE OF ACTION FAILS TO STATE A VIABLE CLAIM FOR VIOLATIONS OF 22 CCR §§70231, 70233, and 70235 ................................ 9 X. PLAINTIFFS’ 10TH CAUSE OF ACTION FAILS TO STATE A CLAIM FOR NEGLIGENCE PER SE AND NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS .............................................................................................................. 10 XI. PLAINTIFFS’ 11TH CAUSE OF ACTION FAILS TO STATE A CLAIM FOR BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY ....................................................................... 11 XII. PLAINTIFFS’ 12TH CAUSE OF ACTION FAILS TO STATE A CLAIM FOR NELIGENT HIRING AND SUPERVISION AND IT IS UNCERTAIN ............. 12 XIII. PLAINTIFFS 13TH CAUSE OF ACTION FAILS TO STATE A CLAIM FOR RES IPSA LOQUITUR .......................................................................................... 13 XIV. PLAINTIFFS’ 14TH CAUSE OF ACTION FAILS TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR UNJUST ENRICHMENT ............................................................. 14 [i] TABLE OF CONTENTS XV. PLAINTIFFS’ 15TH & 17TH CAUSES OF ACTION FAIL TO STATE INDEPENDENT CLAIMS FOR “SURVIVAL” AND “SURVIVOR” ACTIONS ............................................................................................................... 15 XVI. PLAINTIFFS’ 18TH CAUSE OF ACTION FAILS TO STATE A CLAIM FOR WILLFUL MISCONDUCT ................................................................................... 16 XVII. PLAINTIFFS’ 19TH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR VIOLATION OF H&S §1430(b) IS NOT A VIABLE CLAIM AGAINST DMC BECAUSE THE CLAIM DOES NOT EXIST OR APPLY TO GENERAL ACUTE CARE HOSPITALS ............ 17 XVIII. PLAINTIFFS’ 20TH CAUSE OF ACTION IS UNCERTAIN AND FAILS TO STATE A CLAIM FOR AGENCY/JOINT VENTURE, AIDING AND ABETTING/CONSPIRACY & ALTER EGO ...................................................... 18 XIX. LEAVE TO AMEND MUST BE DENIED AS NO ABILITY TO CURE DEFECT ................................................................................................................. 19 XX. CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................... 20 [ii] TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CASES: PAGE: Ankeny v. Lockheed Missiles & Space Co. (1979) 88 Cal.App.3d 531, 537 ............................................................................................. 2, 3 Applied Equipment Corp. v. Litton Saudi Arabia Ltd. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 503, 510 ........................................................................................................ 18 Arato v. Avedon (1993) 5 Cal.4th 1172 ............................................................................................................. 11 Award Metals Inc. v. Superior Court (1991) 228 Cal. App. 3d 1128, 1135............................................................................. 5, 8, 9, 10 Barquis v. Merchants Collection Assn. (1972) 7 Cal.3d 94, 110............................................................................................................. 7 Berkley v. Dowds (2007) 152 Cal. App. 4th 518, 528 .......................................................................................... 16 Black v. Bank of America (1994) 30 Cal. App.4th 1, 4 ..................................................................................................... 18 Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal. 3d 311, 319 ...................................................................................................... 19 Burgess v. Superior Ct. (1992) 2 Cal.4th 1064, 1071-72 ................................................................................................. 6 Calvillo-Silva v. Home Grocery (1998) 19 Cal.4th 714, 729 ...................................................................................................... 16 Cantu v. Resolution Trust Corp. (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 857, 877 .................................................................................................. 3 Careau & Co. v. Security Pac. Bus. Credit, Inc. (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 1371, 1390............................................................................................ 3 Carter v. Prime Healthcare Paradise Valley LLC (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 396, 412 ............................................................................................ 16 Casey v. U.S. Bank Nat. Assn. (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 1138, 1144 ........................................................................................ 19 [iii] TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CASES, Cont. Cel-Tech Communications, Inc. v. Los Angeles Cellular Telephone Co. (1999) 20 Cal.4th 163, 189 ........................................................................................................ 7 Christensen v. Sup. Ct. (1991) 54 Cal.3d 868, 903, 904, 905 ......................................................................................... 4 Cobbs v. Grant (1972) 8 Cal.3d 229, 242, 243-244 .......................................................................................... 11 Cochrum v. Costa Victoria Healthcare, LLC (2018) 25 Cal.App.5th 1034, 1053 .......................................................................................... 18 Davidson v. City of Westminster (1982) 32 Cal.3d 197, 209 ......................................................................................................... 4 Delfino v. Agilent Technologies, Inc. (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 790, 809 .............................................................................................. 4 Doctors' Co. v. Sup. Ct. (1989) 49 Cal.3d 39, 44 ........................................................................................................... 18 Elam v. College Park Hospital (1982) 132 Cal. App. 3d 332, 346 ........................................................................................... 12 Escola v. Coca Cola Bottling Co. (1944) 24 Cal.2d 453, 458 ....................................................................................................... 14 Ess v. Eskaton Prop. (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 120, 128, 130......................................................................................... 4 Faulkner v. Cal. Toll Bridge Auth (1953) 40 Cal.2d 317, 329, 330 ................................................................................................. 2 Fiol v. Doellstedt (1996) 50 Cal.App.4th 1318, 1325–1326 ................................................................................ 19 Flores v. Arroyo (1961) 56 Cal.2d 492, 497 ......................................................................................................... 2 Flowers v. Torrance Memorial Hospital Medical Center (1994) 8 Cal.4th 992, 997-999................................................................................................... 9 Gorden v. Goldberg (1935) 3 Cal. App. 2d 659 ....................................................................................................... 13 [iv] TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CASES, Cont. Hauger v. Gates (1954) 42 Cal.2d 752, 755 ......................................................................................................... 2 Hensler v. City of Glendale (1994) 8 Cal. 4th 1, 22-23 ......................................................................................................... 8 Hinds v. Wheadon (1942) 19 Cal.2d 458, 461 ....................................................................................................... 13 Honea v. City Dairy, Inc. (1943) 22 Cal.2d 614, 618 ....................................................................................................... 14 Hughes v. Pair (2009) 46 Cal.4th 1035, 1050-1051 ........................................................................................... 4 Jameson v. Desta (2013) 215 Cal.App.4th 1144, 1164 ........................................................................................ 11 Jansen v. Children’s Hospital Medical Center of the East Bay (1973) 31 Cal.App.3d 22, 23 ..................................................................................................... 6 Jogani v. Superior Court (2008) 165 Cal. App. 4th 901, 911 .......................................................................................... 14 Jones v. Grewe (1987) 189 Cal.App.3d 950, 954 ............................................................................................... 2 Judson v. Giant Powder Co. (1895) 107 Cal. 549, 556 ......................................................................................................... 13 Justus v. Atchison (1977) 19 Cal.3d 564,584 .......................................................................................................... 6 Kiseskey v. Carpenters' Trust for So. Cal. (1983) 144 Cal.App.3d 222, 229–230........................................................................................ 4 Larson v. UHS of Rancho Springs, Inc. (2014) 230 Cal.App.4th at 347 .................................................................................................. 8 Leek v. Cooper (2011) 194 Cal.App.2d 496, 499 ............................................................................................. 19 Marin v. Jacuzzi (1964) 224 Cal.App.2d 549, 552 ............................................................................................... 3 [v] TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CASES, Cont. Meadows v. Emett & Chandler (1950) 99 Cal.App.2d 496, 499 [222 P.2d 145] ....................................................................... 19 Melchior v. New Line Prods. Inc. (2003) 106 Cal. App. 4th 779, 793 ..................................................................................... 14, 15 Mesler v. Bragg Management Co. (1985) 39 Cal.3d at p. 301 ....................................................................................................... 19 Michener v. Hutton (1928) 203 Cal. 604, 607, 609 ................................................................................................. 13 Molko v. Holy Spirit Assn. (1988) 46 Cal.3d 1092, 1122 ..................................................................................................... 4 Moore v. Regents of University of California (1990) 51 Cal.3d 120, 133-134 ................................................................................................ 11 Mosk v. National Research Co. of Cal. (1962) 201 Cal.App.2d 765, 771 ............................................................................................... 7 Mox Inc. v. Woods (1927) 202 Cal. 675, 677 ......................................................................................................... 18 Navarrete v. Meyer (2015) 237 Cal.App.4th 1276, 1291 ........................................................................................ 18 Nelson v. Abraham (1947) 29 Cal.2d 745, 749 ....................................................................................................... 18 Ochoa v. Superior Court (1985) 39 Cal.3d at 165, fn. 5 .................................................................................................... 4 Olson v. Whitthorne & Swan (1928) 203 Cal. 206, 208 ......................................................................................................... 13 Orosco v. Sun-Diamond Corp. (1997) 51 Cal.App.4th 1659, 1666 .......................................................................................... 18 Palm Springs Villas II Homeowner’s Assn., Inc. v. Parth (2016) 248 Cal. App. 4th 268, 290 ............................................................................... 5, 8, 9, 10 Payton v. Weaver (1982) 131 Cal. App. 3d 38, 45 ................................................................................................. 8 [vi] TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CASES, Cont. People v. McKale (1979) 25 Cal.3d 626, 631-632 .................................................................................................. 7 Perez v. Golden Empire Transit Dist. (2012) 209 Cal. App. 4th 1228, 1235-1236................................................................................ 3 Peterson v. Celico Partnership (2008) 164 Cal. App.4th 1583, 1593 ....................................................................................... 14 Potter v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. (1993) 6 Cal.4th 965, 1001, 1004 .............................................................................................. 4 Raber v. Tumin (1951) 36 Cal.2d 654, 659 ....................................................................................................... 13 Rakestraw v. Cal. Physicians’ Srvs. (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 39 .......................................................................................................... 3 Rodrigues v. Campbell Industries (1978) 87 Cal. App. 3d 494, 501 .................................................................................. 5, 8, 9, 10 Saunders v. Superior Court (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 832, 846 .............................................................................................. 19 Simmons v. S. Pac. Trans. Co. (1976) 62 Cal. App. 3d at 360 ................................................................................................. 16 Skopp v. Weaver (1976) 16 Cal.3d 432, 437 ......................................................................................................... 3 Smith v. Ben Bennett Inc. (2005) 133 Cal.App.4th 1507, 1514, 1524 ................................................................................. 8 Smith v. McClary (1938) 28 Cal.App.2d 468, 470 ..........................................................................................13, 14 Smith v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co. (2001) 93 Cal.App.4th 700, 719 ................................................................................................ 7 So v. Shin (2013) 212 Cal.App.4th 652, 668 ............................................................................................ 12 Spates v. Dameron Hospital Assn. (2003) 114 Cal.App.4th 208, 213 .......................................................................................... 6, 7 [vii] TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CASES, Cont. Stanley v. Richmond (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 1070, 1086 .......................................................................................... 11 State Farm v. Superior Court (1996) 45 Cal.App.4th 1093, 1104 ............................................................................................ 7 Stigall v. City of Taft (1962) 58 Cal.2d 565, 567-568 .................................................................................................. 2 Thing v. La Chusa (1989) 48 Cal.3d 644, 647 ......................................................................................................... 6 Unruh v. Truck Ins. Exchange (1972) 7 Cal. 3d 616, 631 ........................................................................................................ 18 Vasey v. California Dance Co. (1977) 70 Cal.App.3d 742, 749 ............................................................................................... 19 Wise v. Southern Pac. Co. (1963) 223 Cal.App.2d 50, 72 ................................................................................................. 18 Wolf v. Superior Court (2003) 107 Cal.App.4th 25, 29 ................................................................................................ 11 Worsham v. O’Connor Hospital (2014) 226 Cal. App. 4th 331 .................................................................................................. 16 Zentz v. Coca Cola Bottling Co. (1952) 39 Cal.2d 436, 443, 444 ............................................................................................... 13 STATUTES, Etc. 4 Witkin, Cal. Proc. (5th ed. 2008) Pleading, §450, p. 584................................................................................................................... 3 22 California Code of Regulations §70231 .....................................................................................................................9, 10 §70233 .....................................................................................................................9, 10 §70235 .....................................................................................................................9, 10 §72527(a) .................................................................................................................... 17 [viii] TABLE OF AUTHORITIES STATUTES, Etc., Cont. Business and Professions Code §2400 et seq................................................................................................................. 12 §2700 et seq................................................................................................................. 12 §17200 .......................................................................................................................... 7 CACI 418 .............................................................................................................................. 10 426 .............................................................................................................................. 12 509 ................................................................................................................................ 8 516 .............................................................................................................................. 12 518 .............................................................................................................................. 13 1600 .............................................................................................................................. 4 1621 .............................................................................................................................. 6 Civil Code §56 .............................................................................................................................. 12 Code of Civil Procedure §377.20 ....................................................................................................................... 15 §377.30 ....................................................................................................................... 15 §377.32 ....................................................................................................................... 15 §377.34 ..................................................................................................................... 5, 7 §430.10(b)(e)(f) ............................................................................................................. 2 §430.30(a) ..................................................................................................................... 2 §430.50(a) ..................................................................................................................... 2 §430.70 ......................................................................................................................... 3 Health & Safety Code §1250(a)(c)(d) ............................................................................................................... 17 §1430(b) ....................................................................................................................... 17 Health Insurance and Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) ........................................... 12 Rest.2d Torts, §46, com. d. ..................................................................................................................... 4 §876 .............................................................................................................................. 19 Welfare and Institutions Code §15657 ........................................................................................................................ 15 §15657(b) ...................................................................................................................... 5 [ix] TABLE OF AUTHORITIES 1 I. STATEMENT OF FACTS 2 Decedent, ELVIRA REYES was 51 years old in 2019. (FAC ¶8, 37.) MICAELA 3 REYES is the mother of decedent. (FAC ¶9.) MACARIO REYES is the father of decedent. 4 (FAC ¶10.) DMC is a California Corporation and general acute care hospital. (FAC ¶13, 28, 37- 5 42.) 6 On August 25, 2019, Decedent called her sister-in-law Ortencia Reyes to let her know 7 that she felt unwell with complaints of chest pain and vomiting. (FAC ¶37.) Decedent was 8 brought to the emergency room at DMC by family members. (FAC ¶28, 38.) Decedent was 9 examined and cared for by the emergency department who identified a UTI and chronic renal 10 insufficiency and no cardiac problems or history for decedent. (FAC ¶39.) Decedent was taken 11 in and placed into a room to stay overnight and be monitored by medical staff. (FAC ¶40.) On 12 August 26, 2019, Decedent’s sister visited and spent time conversing with decedent. (FAC ¶41.) 13 On August 27, 2019, Plaintiff MICAELA arrived at the hospital. (FAC ¶42.) MICAELA 14 felt that decedent was doing better, talking normal, and sitting up on her own. (FAC ¶42.) 15 MICAELA inquired about discharge and a nurse informed her that Decedent would be 16 discharged later that day or the next day. (FAC ¶43.) Decedent then complained of pain in heart 17 and chest and head behind her neck. (FAC ¶44.) The nurse took note of the condition and said 18 she would relay the information to see if there were additional medications decedent could be 19 provided for her condition. (FAC ¶45.) The nurse mentioned that decedent had been 20 administered medicine at 4:00 a.m. and 6:00 a.m. and would get another dose at 11:00 a.m., and 21 if ineffective the nurse would consult with primary doctor for new and stronger medication. 22 (FAC ¶45.) Decedent remained responsive and conversed with family in normal manner and 23 Plaintiffs felt Decedent was better. (FAC ¶46.) A different nurse came into the room later and 24 checked Decedent’s blood pressure and sugar levels and noted they were abnormal, and 25 decedent would be monitored and administered insulin. (FAC ¶47.) 26 At or about 12:00 p.m., Plaintiff MICAELA and other visitors left to go eat at the 27 hospital cafeteria. (FAC ¶48.) Decedent was to be getting food brought to her by hospital staff. 28 (FAC ¶48.) Decedent’s family ate quickly and returned to the room less than an hour later and -1- MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT DOCTORS MEDICAL CENTER OF MODESTO INC.’S DEMURRER AND DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 1 before 1:00 p.m. to find Decedent unresponsive in the room. (FAC ¶49.) MICAELA tried to get 2 Decedent to respond to no avail, while other family called for help. (FAC ¶50.) A code blue was 3 called, and all pertinent personnel rushed to the scene. (FAC ¶52.) Decedent was taken to ICU 4 in persistent vegetative state. (FAC ¶52.) DMC informed Plaintiffs nothing further could be 5 done. (FAC ¶53.) Decedent died on or about September 5, 2019. (FAC ¶8.) Plaintiffs allege that 6 monitoring should have been better. (FAC ¶55-57.) 7 II. DMC MAY OBJECT TO THE COMPLAINT BY DEMURRER 8 Code of Civil Procedure, Section 430.30, states in pertinent part: “(a) When any ground 9 for objection to a complaint … appears on the face thereof, or from any matter of which the 10 court is required to or may take judicial notice, the objection on the ground may be taken by a 11 demurrer to the pleading. …” (C.C.P. §430.30) Code of Civil Procedure, Section 430.50 states 12 in pertinent part: “(a) A demurrer to a complaint or cross-complaint may be taken to the whole 13 complaint …. or to any of the causes of action stated therein. …” (C.C.P. §430.50) Code of 14 Civil Procedure, Section 430.10, states in pertinent part: 15 “The party against whom a complaint … has been filed may object, by demurrer or answer as provided in Section 430.30, to the 16 pleading on any one or more of the following grounds: 17 … (b) the person who filed the pleading does not have the legal 18 capacity to sue 19 … (e) The pleading does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause 20 of action. 21 (f) The pleading is uncertain. As used in this subdivision, 22 ‘uncertain’ includes ambiguous and unintelligible. …” 23 In California, a pleading must allege facts, not merely legal conclusions. (Jones v. 24 Grewe (1987) 189 Cal.App.3d 950, 954; Ankeny v. Lockheed Missiles & Space Co. (1979) 88 25 Cal.App.3d 531, 537.) A demurrer admits all material and issuable facts properly pleaded. 26 (Stigall v. City of Taft (1962) 58 Cal.2d 565, 567-568; Flores v. Arroyo (1961) 56 Cal.2d 492, 27 497; Hauger v. Gates (1954) 42 Cal.2d 752, 755.) However, it does not admit contentions, 28 deductions, or conclusions of fact or law alleged therein. (Faulkner v. Cal. Toll Bridge Auth -2- MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT DOCTORS MEDICAL CENTER OF MODESTO INC.’S DEMURRER AND DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 1 (1953) 40 Cal.2d 317, 329, 330; Marin v. Jacuzzi (1964) 224 Cal.App.2d 549, 552.) A plaintiff 2 must show the complaint alleges facts sufficient to establish every element of each cause of 3 action. (Rakestraw v. Cal. Physicians’ Srvs. (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 39.) The essential facts 4 upon which a determination of the controversy depends should be stated with clearness and 5 precision so that nothing is left to surmise. (Ankeny, 88 Cal.App.3d at 537.) 6 The court may take judicial notice of a party’s earlier pleadings and positions, as well as 7 established facts. (See Cantu v. Resolution Trust Corp. (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 857, 877; CCP 8 §430.70.) The complaint is thus read as containing the judicially noticeable facts, “even when 9 the pleading contains an express allegation to the contrary.” (Id.) Thus the plaintiff cannot avoid 10 a demurrer by “pleading facts or positions in an amended complaint that contradict facts 11 pleaded in the original complaint or by suppressing facts which prove the pleaded facts false.” 12 (Id.) 13 Further, “where a pleading includes a general allegation, such as an allegation of an 14 ultimate fact, as well as specific allegations that add details or explanatory facts, it is possible 15 that a conflict or inconsistency will exist between the general allegation and the specific 16 allegations. To handle these contradictions, California courts have adopted the principle that 17 specific allegations in a complaint control over an inconsistent general allegation.” (Perez v. 18 Golden Empire Transit Dist. (2012) 209 Cal. App. 4th 1228, 1235-1236 citing Skopp v. Weaver 19 (1976) 16 Cal.3d 432, 437; 4 Witkin, Cal. Proc. (5th ed. 2008) Pleading, § 450, p. 584.) “Under 20 this principle, it is possible that specific allegations will render a complaint defective when the 21 general allegations, standing alone, might have been sufficient.” (Perez, 209 Cal. App. 4th at 22 1235-1236; Careau & Co. v. Security Pac. Bus. Credit, Inc. (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 1371, 23 1390.) 24 III. PLAINTIFFS’ 2ND CAUSE OF ACTION FAILS TO STATE A CAUSE OF 25 ACTION FOR INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS 26 The elements for a claim of Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (“IIED”) are (1) 27 extreme and outrageous conduct by the defendant; (2) with the intention of causing, or reckless 28 disregard of the probability of causing emotional distress; (3) the plaintiffs suffering severe or -3- MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT DOCTORS MEDICAL CENTER OF MODESTO INC.’S DEMURRER AND DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 1 extreme emotional distress; and (4) actual and proximate causation of the emotional distress by 2 the defendant’s conduct. (See Hughes v. Pair (2009) 46 Cal.4th 1035, 1050-1051; Potter v. 3 Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. (1993) 6 Cal.4th 965, 1001; Christensen v. Sup. Ct. (1991) 54 4 Cal.3d 868, 903; CACI 1600.) For the conduct to be outrageous, it “must be so extreme as to 5 exceed all bounds of that usually tolerated in a civilized community.” (Christensen, 54 Cal.3d at 6 903 quoting Davidson v. City of Westminster (1982) 32 Cal.3d 197, 209.) Liability for IIED 7 “‘does not extend to mere insults, indignities, threats, annoyances, petty oppressions, or other 8 trivialities.’ (Rest.2d Torts, §46, com. d.)” (Molko v. Holy Spirit Assn. (1988) 46 Cal.3d 1092, 9 1122; Delfino v. Agilent Technologies, Inc. (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 790, 809; see Kiseskey v. 10 Carpenters' Trust for So. Cal. (1983) 144 Cal.App.3d 222, 229–230.) “With respect to the 11 requirement that a plaintiff show severe emotional distress, this court has set a high bar. ‘Severe 12 emotional distress means ‘emotional distress of such substantial quality or enduring quality that 13 no reasonable [person] in civilized society should be expected to endure it.’” (Hughes, 46 Cal. 14 4th at 1050-1051 quoting Potter, 6 Cal.4th at 1004.) 15 Even if the conduct is termed outrageous, that itself is not sufficient, “the tort calls for 16 intentional, or at least reckless conduct—conduct intended to inflict injury or engaged in with 17 the realization that injury will result.” (Ess v. Eskaton Prop. (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 120, 130.) It 18 must be conduct “directed at the plaintiff, or occur in the presence of a plaintiff of whom the 19 defendant is aware.” “The requirement that defendant’s conduct be directed primarily at the 20 plaintiff is a factor which distinguishes intentional infliction of emotional distress from that of 21 negligent infliction of such injury.” (Id. quoting Christensen, supra, at 904.) Where plaintiff 22 seeks to recover for “emotional distress suffered as a result of conduct directed primarily at 23 another, recovery—to the extent it has been allowed at all – ‘has been limited to the most 24 extreme cases of violent attack, where there is some special likelihood of fright or shock.’” (Ess 25 97 Cal.App.4th at 130 citing Christensen, supra, at 905 quoting Ochoa v. Superior Court (1985) 26 39 Cal.3d at 165, fn. 5.) Thus, while courts have acknowledged that the likelihood that injury to 27 a patient will result in emotional distress to a family member, that relationship alone is not 28 sufficient to give rise to a claim. (Ess, 97 Cal. App. 4th at 128.) -4- MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT DOCTORS MEDICAL CENTER OF MODESTO INC.’S DEMURRER AND DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 1 Here, Plaintiffs cannot state a claim for intentional infliction of emotion distress because 2 (1) the conduct was not extreme or outrageous, (2) the conduct was not directed to Plaintiffs, 3 and (3) the emotional distress cannot be claimed on behalf of Decedent. First, the FAC’s 4 factual allegations (FAC ¶36-57) allege that decedent was receiving care and monitoring and 5 that Plaintiffs feel the monitoring was insufficient during a small window of time. This is a 6 straightforward medical negligence issue that is not extreme or outrageous. Second, the duty for 7 this claim runs only to the patient herself (decedent) and the care and monitoring were directed 8 to the decedent. This was not directed to the family members, and the family members admit 9 they had left the room. The conduct was not an act of extreme violence to allow for the family 10 members to claim severe emotional distress related to actions directed at another. Finally, 11 Plaintiffs, as successors in interest, cannot make a claim for emotional distress of the decedent 12 as the damages are not allowed under CCP §377.34. Plaintiffs’ attempt to use Welfare and 13 Institutions Code §15657(b) to work around CCP §377.34 is without merit because that specific 14 statute only applies to Dependent Adult/Elder Abuse claims, which is not alleged, and decedent 15 was neither an elder nor a dependent adult. As such, Plaintiffs, individually and as successors in 16 interest, cannot state a cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress, and 17 Defendant’s demurrer must be sustained. 18 IV. PLAINTIFFS’ 3RD, 10TH, & 16TH CAUSES OF ACTION FAIL TO STATE A 19 CLAIM FOR NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS 20 Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim for Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress in 21 the duplicative Third, Tenth, and Sixteenth Causes of Action. California law provides a 22 demurrer is a proper method of objection against duplicative causes of action (See, Palm 23 Springs Villas II Homeowner’s Assn., Inc. v. Parth (2016) 248 Cal. App. 4th 268, 290; 24 Rodrigues v. Campbell Industries (1978) 87 Cal. App. 3d 494, 501; Award Metals Inc. v. 25 Superior Court (1991) 228 Cal. App. 3d 1128, 1135). In addition to being duplicative, the 26 allegations fail to set forth a viable claim of Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress. 27 Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress (“NIED”) is analyzed by reference to two 28 theories of recovery: (1) Bystander Theory or (2) Direct Victim Theory. (Spates v. Dameron -5- MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT DOCTORS MEDICAL CENTER OF MODESTO INC.’S DEMURRER AND DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 1 Hospital Assn. (2003) 114 Cal.App.4th 208, 213.) NIED is not an independent tort, but the tort 2 of negligence with the traditional elements of duty, breach of duty, causation, and damages. (Id. 3 quoting Burgess v. Superior Ct. (1992) 2 Cal.4th 1064, 1071-72.) In order to recover, the 4 plaintiff must prove that she: “(1) is closely related to the injury victim; (2) was present at the 5 scene of the injury-producing event at the time it occurs, and is then aware that it is causing 6 injury to the victim; and (3) as a result, suffers serious emotional distress…” (Thing v. La Chusa 7 (1989) 48 Cal.3d 644, 647. See CACI 1621.) NIED “requires more than mere physical 8 presence: …the shock must also result from a ‘direct emotional impact’ on the plaintiff caused 9 by ‘sensory and contemporaneous observance of the accident.’” (Justus v. Atchison (1977) 19 10 Cal.3d 564