[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: DEFENDANTS’ DEMURRER AND MOTION TO STRIKE
I. INTRODUCTION
On February 26, 2019, Plaintiff Michael V. (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Prohealth Medical Group, Inc., Prohealth-Glendale Occupational Medical Group, Inc., Ronald Glousman, M.D., Medical Corporation, and Ronald Glousman, M.D. (“Dr. Glousman”) for (1) negligence, (2) negligent hiring, supervision, and retention, (3) sexual battery, (4) intentional infliction of emotional distress, (5) medical malpractice, and (6) sexual harassment in defined relationship (Civ. Cod, § 51.9). Defendants Prohealth Medical Group Inc. and Prohealth-Glendale Occupational Medical Group, Inc. (collectively, “Defendants”) demur and move to strike portions of the complaint.
II. LEGAL STANDARDS
A demurrer tests the legal sufficiency of the pleadings and will be sustained only where the pleading is defective on its face. (City of Atascadero v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 44
Hearing Date
July 17, 2019
Type
Intentional Bodily Injury/Property Damage/Wrongful Death (e.g., assault, vandalism, etc.) (General Jurisdiction)
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: DEFENDANTS’ DEMURRER AND MOTION TO STRIKE
I. INTRODUCTION
On February 26, 2019, Plaintiff Michael V. (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Prohealth Medical Group, Inc., Prohealth-Glendale Occupational Medical Group, Inc., Ronald Glousman, M.D., Medical Corporation, and Ronald Glousman, M.D. (“Dr. Glousman”) for (1) negligence, (2) negligent hiring, supervision, and retention, (3) sexual battery, (4) intentional infliction of emotional distress, (5) medical malpractice, and (6) sexual harassment in defined relationship (Civ. Cod, § 51.9). Defendants Prohealth Medical Group Inc. and Prohealth-Glendale Occupational Medical Group, Inc. (collectively, “Defendants”) demur and move to strike portions of the complaint.
II. LEGAL STANDARDS
A demurrer tests the legal sufficiency of the pleadings and will be sustained only where the pleading is defective on its face. (City of Atascadero v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 44