This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 08/27/2020 at 01:43:22 (UTC).

HONG GAN VS SAN GABRIEL VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER

Case Summary

On 09/16/2019 HONG GAN filed a Personal Injury - Medical Malpractice lawsuit against SAN GABRIEL VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Spring Street Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is JAMES E. BLANCARTE. The case status is Disposed - Dismissed.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *******8450

  • Filing Date:

    09/16/2019

  • Case Status:

    Disposed - Dismissed

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Medical Malpractice

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Spring Street Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Judge

JAMES E. BLANCARTE

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

GAN HONG

Defendant

SAN GABRIEL VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Defendant Attorney

OZERAN DAVID J.

 

Court Documents

Order Appointing Court Approved Reporter as Official Reporter Pro Tempore - Order Appointing Court Approved Reporter as Official Reporter Pro Tempore Lisa Augustine, CSR #10419

7/15/2020: Order Appointing Court Approved Reporter as Official Reporter Pro Tempore - Order Appointing Court Approved Reporter as Official Reporter Pro Tempore Lisa Augustine, CSR #10419

Notice of Ruling - Notice of Ruling

7/29/2020: Notice of Ruling - Notice of Ruling

Other - (name extension) - Injustice of Tentative Ruling

8/10/2020: Other - (name extension) - Injustice of Tentative Ruling

Other - (name extension) - Other - Injustice of the Tentative Ruling: Immunity Issue

8/21/2020: Other - (name extension) - Other - Injustice of the Tentative Ruling: Immunity Issue

Other - (name extension) - Other - Injustice of the Tentative Ruling - legal sufficiency issue

8/21/2020: Other - (name extension) - Other - Injustice of the Tentative Ruling - legal sufficiency issue

Order (name extension) - Order Proposed order of dismissal

8/26/2020: Order (name extension) - Order Proposed order of dismissal

Proof of Service by Mail - Proof of Service by Mail

7/13/2020: Proof of Service by Mail - Proof of Service by Mail

Motion re: (name extension) - Motion re: motion

7/14/2020: Motion re: (name extension) - Motion re: motion

Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for (Hearing on Demurrer - without Motion to Strike) of 07/15/2020

7/15/2020: Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for (Hearing on Demurrer - without Motion to Strike) of 07/15/2020

Notice (name extension) - Notice Of Continuance Of Demurrer

4/20/2020: Notice (name extension) - Notice Of Continuance Of Demurrer

Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Demurrer - without Motion to Strike)

3/2/2020: Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Demurrer - without Motion to Strike)

Opposition (name extension) - Opposition to Defendant's Reply

2/26/2020: Opposition (name extension) - Opposition to Defendant's Reply

Notice (name extension) - Notice of Continuance of Hearing of Demurrer

3/2/2020: Notice (name extension) - Notice of Continuance of Hearing of Demurrer

Notice (name extension) - Notice of Taking Off Calendar Hearing on Demurrer and Motion to Strike Portions of Complaint

1/2/2020: Notice (name extension) - Notice of Taking Off Calendar Hearing on Demurrer and Motion to Strike Portions of Complaint

Declaration (name extension) - Declaration FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE DEMURRER TO FIRST AMENDED COMLAINT

12/18/2019: Declaration (name extension) - Declaration FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE DEMURRER TO FIRST AMENDED COMLAINT

Motion to Strike (not initial pleading) - Motion to Strike (not initial pleading)

11/8/2019: Motion to Strike (not initial pleading) - Motion to Strike (not initial pleading)

Order on Court Fee Waiver (Superior Court) - Order on Court Fee Waiver (Superior Court)

9/16/2019: Order on Court Fee Waiver (Superior Court) - Order on Court Fee Waiver (Superior Court)

25 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 08/26/2020
  • DocketNotice of Ruling; Filed by: San Gabriel Valley Medical Center (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/26/2020
  • DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 03/15/2021 at 08:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25 Not Held - Vacated by Court on 08/26/2020

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/26/2020
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service scheduled for 09/19/2022 at 08:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25 Not Held - Vacated by Court on 08/26/2020

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/25/2020
  • DocketOrder Appointing Court Approved Reporter as Official Reporter Pro Tempore Mabel Hayek CSR #11815; Filed by:

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/25/2020
  • DocketMinute Order (Hearing on Demurrer - without Motion to Strike)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/25/2020
  • DocketHearing on Demurrer - without Motion to Strike scheduled for 08/25/2020 at 10:00 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25 updated: Result Date to 08/25/2020; Result Type to Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/21/2020
  • DocketOther - Injustice of the Tentative Ruling - legal sufficiency issue; Filed by: Hong Gan (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/21/2020
  • DocketOther - Injustice of the Tentative Ruling: Immunity Issue; Filed by: Hong Gan (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/21/2020
  • DocketOther - re: Continuance of 08/25/2020 Hearing; Filed by: Hong Gan (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/10/2020
  • DocketNotice of Rejection - Pleadings; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
37 More Docket Entries
  • 09/16/2019
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by: Hong Gan (Plaintiff); As to: San Gabriel Valley Medical Center (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/16/2019
  • DocketUpdated -- Amended Complaint (1st): Status Date changed from 11/19/2019 to 09/16/2019

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/16/2019
  • DocketUpdated -- Request to Waive Court Fees: Filed By: Hong Gan (Plaintiff); Result: Granted; Result Date: 09/16/2019; As To Parties: removed

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/16/2019
  • DocketOrder on Court Fee Waiver (Superior Court); Filed by: Clerk; As to: Hong Gan (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/16/2019
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service scheduled for 09/19/2022 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/16/2019
  • DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 03/15/2021 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/16/2019
  • DocketCase assigned to Hon. James E. Blancarte in Department 94 Stanley Mosk Courthouse

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/16/2019
  • DocketFirst Amended Standing Order; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/16/2019
  • DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/16/2019
  • DocketSummons on Complaint; Issued and Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: 19STLC08450    Hearing Date: August 25, 2020    Dept: 25

HEARING DATE: Tue., August 25, 2020 JUDGE /DEPT: Blancarte/25

CASE NAME: Gan v. San Gabriel Valley Medical Center

CASE NUMBER: 19STLC08450 COMP. FILED: 09-16-19

NOTICE: OK DISC. C/O: 02-13-21

MOTION C/O: 02-28-21

TRIAL DATE: 03-15-21

PROCEEDINGS: DEFENDANT’S DEMURRER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

MOVING PARTY: Defendant San Gabriel Medical Center

RESP. PARTY: Plaintiff Hong Gan, in pro per

DEMURRER

(CCP § 430.41, et seq.)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendant San Gabriel Medical Center’s Demurrer is SUSTAINED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND.

SERVICE:

[X] Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC, rule 3.1300) OK

[X] Correct Address (CCP §§ 1013, 1013a) OK

[X] 16/21 Court Days Lapsed (CCP §§ 12c, 1005(b)) OK

OPPOSITION: Filed on January 23, 2020 [ ] Late [ ] None

REPLY: Filed on February 11, 2020 [ ] Late [ ] None

ANALYSIS:

I. Background

On September 16, 2019, Plaintiff Hog Gan (“Plaintiff”) filed a Complaint, in pro per, against Defendant San Gabriel Valley Medical Center (“Defendant”). On November 11, 2019, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”).

On December 18, 2019, Defendant filed a Declaration for Extension of Time to File Demurrer to First Amended Complaint. On January 9, 2020, Defendant filed the instant Demurrer to First Amended Complaint (the “Demurrer”). On January 23, 2020, Plaintiff filed an Opposition, and on February 11, 2020, Defendant filed a Reply. Plaintiff also filed an “opposition to Defendant’s reply” on February 26, 2020 and March 10, 2020. However, as sur-replies are not permitted, the Court does not consider them here.

At the initial hearing on July 15, 2020, Plaintiff informed the Court she was unable to understand the tentative ruling and made an oral request for a continuance to allow her an opportunity to read and understand the tentative ruling. (7/15/20 Minute Order.) The Court granted Plaintiff’s request. (Id.) On August 10, 2020, Plaintiff filed a document entitled “Injustice of Tentative Ruling – The Immunity Issue,” discussing the reasons she disagreed with the Court’s July 15th tentative ruling. The Court rejected that document on August 12, 2020. (8/12/20 Notice of Rejection – Pleadings.)

II. Legal Standard

“The primary function of a pleading is to give the other party notice so that it may prepare its

case [citation], and a defect in a pleading that otherwise properly notifies a party cannot be said to

affect substantial rights.” (Harris v. City of Santa Monica (2013) 56 Cal.4th 203, 240.)

“A demurrer tests the legal sufficiency of the factual allegations in a complaint.” (Ivanoff v. Bank of

America, N.A. (2017) 9 Cal.App.5th 719, 725.) The Court looks to whether “the complaint alleges

facts sufficient to state a cause of action or discloses a complete defense.” (Id.) The Court does not

“read passages from a complaint in isolation; in reviewing a ruling on a demurrer, we read the

complaint ‘as a whole and its parts in their context.’ [Citation.]” (West v. JPMorgan Chase Bank,

N.A. (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 780, 804.) The Court “assume[s] the truth of the properly pleaded

factual allegations, facts that reasonably can be inferred from those expressly pleaded and matters of

which judicial notice has been taken.” (Harris, supra, 56 Cal.4th p. 240.) “The court does not,

however, assume the truth of contentions, deductions or conclusions of law. [Citation.]” (Durell v.

Sharp Healthcare (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 1350, 1358.)

Leave to amend must be allowed where there is a reasonable possibility of successful amendment. (Goodman v. Kennedy (1976) 18 Cal.3d 335, 348.) The burden is on the complainant to show the Court that a pleading can be amended successfully. (Id.)

Finally, Code of Civil Procedure section 430.41 requires that “[b]efore filing a demurrer pursuant to this chapter, the demurring party shall meet and confer in person or by telephone with the party who filed the pleading that is subject to demurrer for the purpose of determining whether an agreement can be reached that would resolve the objections to be raised in the demurrer.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.41, subd. (a).) The parties are to meet and confer at least five days before the date the responsive pleading is due. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.41, subd. (a)(2).) Thereafter, the demurring party shall file and serve a declaration detailing their meet and confer efforts. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.41, subd. (a)(3).)

III. Discussion

As an initial matter, the Court finds that the Demurrer is accompanied by a meet and confer declaration as required by Code of Civil Procedure section 430.41, subdivision (a). (Demurrer, DaSilva Decl., ¶ 3.)

Defendant demurs to the FAC on the basis that Defendant is immune from suit under Welfare and Institutions Code section 5278 or, in the alternative, that Plaintiff fails to allege facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. (Demurrer, pp. 1-2.)

In pertinent part, Plaintiff’s FAC alleges the following: On August 3, 2019, the San Gabriel Police Department sent Plaintiff to Defendant’s medical facilities on a 5150 hold. (FAC, p. 2.) Plaintiff admits she has a history of mental illness and alleges she was placed on a 5150 hold because police officers saw her walking on the road against traffic rather than on the sidewalk. (Id.) In addition, Plaintiff alleges Defendant’s hospital personnel acted improperly when they forcibly changed Plaintiff into a hospital gown and obtained a urine sample from her through catheterization. (Id.) The FAC contains causes of action for assault, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and criminal rape. (Id.)

A. Immunity Pursuant to Welfare & Institutions Code Section 5278

“When a person, as a result of a mental health disorder, is a danger to others, or to himself or herself, or gravely disabled, a peace officer, professional person in charge of a facility designated by the county for evaluation and treatment, member of the attending staff, as defined by regulation, of a facility designated by the county for evaluation and treatment…may, upon probable cause, take, or cause to be taken, the person into custody for a period of up to 72 hours for assessment, evaluation, and crisis intervention, or placement for evaluation and treatment in a facility designated by the county for evaluation and treatment and approved by the State Department of Health Care Service…” (Welf. & Inst. Code § 5150, subd. (a).) “Each person admitted to a facility for 72-hour treatment and evaluation under the provisions of this article shall receive an evaluation as soon as possible after he or she is admitted and shall receive whatever treatment and care his or her condition requires for the full period that he or she is held.” (Welf. & Inst. Code § 5152, subd. (a).) (Italics added.)

“[I]ndividuals authorized under this part to detain a person for 72-hour treatment and evaluation…shall not be held either criminally or civilly liable for exercising this authority in accordance with the law.” (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 5278.) This immunity also applies to entities. (Julian v. Mission Community Hospital (2017) 11 Cal.App.5th 360, 376.)

As noted above, Defendant argues it is entitled to immunity under Welfare & Institutions Code § 5278. (Demurrer, pp. 3-4.) First, Defendant states it needed to obtain a urine sample from Plaintiff in order to promptly complete its assessment of her, but Plaintiff was uncooperative. (Dem., p. 4; FAC, p. 2.) Specifically, because Plaintiff provided “a little bit of diarrhea” instead of a urine sample, Defendant obtained a urine sample through a catheter. (Id. at p. 4; FAC, p. 2.) Plaintiff also admits she “continued to refuse to change to [a hospital] gown,” because she wanted to change inside a restroom, on her own, and wanted three gowns instead of one. (FAC, p. 1.) Despite her admitted behavior, Plaintiff argues that nothing in the Welfare & Institutions Code implies that entities like Defendant “can do whatever they want to do,” without consequence. (Oppo., p. 2.)

The Court agrees. In Gonzalez v. Paradise Valley Hospital (2003) 111 Cal.App.4th 735, the Court clarified that Section 5278 immunity is inapplicable to causes of action for negligence arising from acts or omissions in evaluation or treatment during 72-hour holds. (Gonzalez v. Paradise Valley Hospital (2003) 111 Cal.App.4th 735, 741.) However, Plaintiff does not allege causes of action for negligence; she alleges intentional tort causes of action of assault, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and likely battery (as a criminal rape cause of action is not permitted in civil court.)

In addition, “[i]f there is probable cause for detention, [section 5278] therefore provides immunity for the decision to detain as well as for the detention and its inherent attributes, including the fact that the patient must necessarily be evaluated and treated without consent. These are all inherent aspects of the statutory scheme and thus cannot provide the basis for a civil suit.” (Jacobs v. Grossmont Hospital (2003) 108 Cal.App.4th 69, 78-79.) (Italics added.) The Court further explained that Section 5278 demonstrated “the Legislature’s intent to protect healthcare providers from any liability for intentional torts arising from the exercise of (1) the statutory authority to involuntary detain mentally ill persons, upon probable cause, and (2) the statutory mandate to promptly evaluate and treat detained persons.” (Ibid.) (Italics added.) Indeed, “[w]ithout the immunity provided by section 5278, an involuntary detention and treatment without consent would arguably constitute kidnapping, false imprisonment, or battery.” (Gonzalez v. Paradise Valley Hospital (2003) 111 Cal.App.4th, supra, at p. 741.)

Here, Plaintiff’s FAC does not allege Defendant lacked probable cause to detain and evaluate her. Defendant’s actions stem from its efforts to admit and evaluate Plaintiff for treatment. (Dem., p. 6:5-12.) Importantly, Plaintiff’s FAC itself demonstrates she was uncooperative during the admission and evaluation process. (FAC, pp. 2-3.)

Thus, because Defendant is an entity immune from liability for non-negligence causes of action under Welfare & Institutions Code section 5278, and because Plaintiff does not allege Defendant lacked probable cause to detain her, Defendant’s Demurrer is SUSTAINED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND.

IV. Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reasons, Defendant San Gabriel Medical Center’s Demurrer is SUSTAINED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.

Case Number: 19STLC08450    Hearing Date: July 15, 2020    Dept: 25

DEMURRER

(CCP § 430.41, et seq.)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendant San Gabriel Medical Center’s Demurrer is SUSTAINED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND.

SERVICE:

[X] Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC, rule 3.1300) OK

[X] Correct Address (CCP §§ 1013, 1013a) OK

[X] 16/21 Court Days Lapsed (CCP §§ 12c, 1005(b)) OK

OPPOSITION: Filed on January 23, 2020 [ ] Late [ ] None

REPLY: Filed on February 11, 2020 [ ] Late [ ] None

ANALYSIS:

I. Background

On September 16, 2019, Plaintiff Hog Gan (“Plaintiff”) filed a Complaint, in pro per, against Defendant San Gabriel Valley Medical Center (“Defendant”). On November 11, 2019, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”).

On December 18, 2019, Defendant filed a Declaration for Extension of Time to File Demurrer to First Amended Complaint. On January 9, 2020, Defendant filed the instant Demurrer to First Amended Complaint (the “Demurrer”). On January 23, 2020, Plaintiff filed an Opposition, and on February 11, 2020, Defendant filed a Reply. Plaintiff also filed an “opposition to Defendant’s reply” on February 26, 2020 and March 10, 2020. However, as sur-replies are not authorized, the Court does not consider them here.

On March 2, 2020, the Court continued the hearing to take additional time to review the parties’ moving and opposing papers. (3/2/20 Minute Order.)

II. Legal Standard

“The primary function of a pleading is to give the other party notice so that it may prepare its

case [citation], and a defect in a pleading that otherwise properly notifies a party cannot be said to

affect substantial rights.” (Harris v. City of Santa Monica (2013) 56 Cal.4th 203, 240.)

“A demurrer tests the legal sufficiency of the factual allegations in a complaint.” (Ivanoff v. Bank of

America, N.A. (2017) 9 Cal.App.5th 719, 725.) The Court looks to whether “the complaint alleges

facts sufficient to state a cause of action or discloses a complete defense.” (Id.) The Court does not

“read passages from a complaint in isolation; in reviewing a ruling on a demurrer, we read the

complaint ‘as a whole and its parts in their context.’ [Citation.]” (West v. JPMorgan Chase Bank,

N.A. (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 780, 804.) The Court “assume[s] the truth of the properly pleaded

factual allegations, facts that reasonably can be inferred from those expressly pleaded and matters of

which judicial notice has been taken.” (Harris, supra, 56 Cal.4th p. 240.) “The court does not,

however, assume the truth of contentions, deductions or conclusions of law. [Citation.]” (Durell v.

Sharp Healthcare (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 1350, 1358.)

Leave to amend must be allowed where there is a reasonable possibility of successful amendment. (Goodman v. Kennedy (1976) 18 Cal.3d 335, 348.) The burden is on the complainant to show the Court that a pleading can be amended successfully. (Id.)

Finally, Code of Civil Procedure section 430.41 requires that “[b]efore filing a demurrer pursuant to this chapter, the demurring party shall meet and confer in person or by telephone with the party who filed the pleading that is subject to demurrer for the purpose of determining whether an agreement can be reached that would resolve the objections to be raised in the demurrer.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.41, subd. (a).) The parties are to meet and confer at least five days before the date the responsive pleading is due. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.41, subd. (a)(2).) Thereafter, the demurring party shall file and serve a declaration detailing their meet and confer efforts. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.41, subd. (a)(3).)

III. Discussion

As an initial matter, the Court finds that the Demurrer is accompanied by a meet and confer declaration as required by Code of Civil Procedure section 430.41, subdivision (a). (Demurrer, DaSilva Decl., ¶ 3.)

Defendant demurs to the FAC on the basis that Defendant is immune from suit under Welfare and Institutions Code section 5278 or, in the alternative, that Plaintiff fails to allege facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. (Demurrer, pp. 1-2.)

In pertinent part, Plaintiff’s FAC alleges the following: On August 3, 2019, the San Gabriel Police Department sent Plaintiff to Defendant’s medical facilities on a 5150 hold. (FAC, p. 2.) Plaintiff admits she has a history of mental illness and alleges she was placed on a 5150 hold because police officers saw her walking on the road against traffic rather than on the sidewalk. (Id.) In addition, Plaintiff alleges Defendant’s hospital personnel acted improperly when they forcibly changed Plaintiff into a hospital gown and obtained a urine sample from her through catheterization. (Id.) The FAC contains causes of action for assault, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and criminal rape. (Id.)

A. Immunity Pursuant to Welfare & Institutions Code Section 5278

“When a person, as a result of a mental health disorder, is a danger to others, or to himself or herself, or gravely disabled, a peace officer, professional person in charge of a facility designated by the county for evaluation and treatment, member of the attending staff, as defined by regulation, of a facility designated by the county for evaluation and treatment…may, upon probable cause, take, or cause to be taken, the person into custody for a period of up to 72 hours for assessment, evaluation, and crisis intervention, or placement for evaluation and treatment in a facility designated by the county for evaluation and treatment and approved by the State Department of Health Care Service…” (Welf. & Inst. Code § 5150, subd. (a).) “Each person admitted to a facility for 72-hour treatment and evaluation under the provisions of this article shall receive an evaluation as soon as possible after he or she is admitted and shall receive whatever treatment and care his or her condition requires for the full period that he or she is held.” (Welf. & Inst. Code § 5152, subd. (a).) (Italics added.)

“[I]ndividuals authorized under this part to detain a person for 72-hour treatment and evaluation…shall not be held either criminally or civilly liable for exercising this authority in accordance with the law.” (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 5278.) This immunity also applies to entities. (Julian v. Mission Community Hospital (2017) 11 Cal.App.5th 360, 376.)

As noted above, Defendant argues it is entitled to immunity under Welfare & Institutions Code § 5278. (Demurrer, pp. 3-4.) First, Defendant states it needed to obtain a urine sample from Plaintiff in order to promptly complete its assessment of her, but Plaintiff was uncooperative. (Dem., p. 4; FAC, p. 2.) Specifically, because Plaintiff provided “a little bit of diarrhea” instead of a urine sample, Defendant obtained a urine sample through a catheter. (Id. at p. 4; FAC, p. 2.) Plaintiff also admits she “continued to refuse to change to [a hospital] gown,” because she wanted to change inside a restroom, on her own, and wanted three gowns instead of one. (FAC, p. 1.) Despite her admitted behavior, Plaintiff argues that nothing in the Welfare & Institutions Code implies that entities like Defendant “can do whatever they want to do,” without consequence. (Oppo., p. 2.)

The Court agrees. In Gonzalez v. Paradise Valley Hospital (2003) 111 Cal.App.4th 735, the Court clarified that Section 5278 immunity is inapplicable to causes of action for negligence arising from acts or omissions in evaluation or treatment during 72 holds. (Gonzalez v. Paradise Valley Hospital (2003) 111 Cal.App.4th 735, 741.) However, Plaintiff does not allege causes of action for negligence; she alleges intentional tort causes of action assault, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and likely battery (as a criminal rape cause of action is not permitted in civil court.)

In addition, “[i]f there is probable cause for detention, the [section 5278] therefore provides immunity for the decision to detain as well as for the detention and its inherent attributes, including the fact that the patient must necessarily be evaluated and treated without consent. These are all inherent aspects of the statutory scheme and thus cannot provide the basis for a civil suit.” (Jacobs v. Grossmont Hospital (2003) 108 Cal.App.4th 69, 78-79.) (Italics added.) The Court further explained that Section 5278 demonstrated “the Legislature’s intent to protect healthcare providers from any liability for intentional torts arising from the exercise of (1) the statutory authority to involuntary detain mentally ill persons, upon probable cause, and (2) the statutory mandate to promptly evaluate and treat detained persons.” (Ibid.) (Italics added.) Indeed, “[w]ithout the immunity provided by section 5278, an involuntary detention and treatment without consent would arguably constitute kidnapping, false imprisonment, or battery.” (Gonzalez v. Paradise Valley Hospital (2003) 111 Cal.App.4th, supra, at p. 741.)

Here, Plaintiff’s FAC does not allege Defendant lacked probable cause to detain and evaluate her. Defendant’s actions stem from its efforts to admit and evaluate Plaintiff for treatment. (Dem., p. 6:5-12.) Importantly, Plaintiff’s FAC itself demonstrates she was uncooperative during the admission and evaluation process. (FAC, pp. 2-3.)

Thus, because Defendant is an entity immune from liability for non-negligence causes of action under Welfare & Institutions Code section 5278, and because Plaintiff does not allege Defendant lacked probable cause to detain her, Defendant’s Demurrer is SUSTAINED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND.

IV. Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reasons, Defendant San Gabriel Medical Center’s Demurrer is SUSTAINED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.

Case Number: 19STLC08450    Hearing Date: March 02, 2020    Dept: 25

DEMURRER

(CCP § 430.41, et seq.)

OPPOSITION: Filed on January 23, 2020

REPLY: Filed on February 11, 2020 

CONTINUANCE:

The Court is taking additional time to review the parties’ moving and opposing papers.

On the Court’s own motion, the Defendant’s Demurrer to the First Amended Complaint is CONTINUED TO MAY 6, 2020, at 10:30 A.M. n Department 25 at the SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE.

Counsel need not appear at the hearing set previously for Monday, March 2, 2020.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.