HONG GAN VS SAN GABRIEL VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: 20STLC07641    Hearing Date: February 22, 2021    Dept: 25

HEARING DATE: Mon., February 22, 2021 JUDGE /DEPT: Blancarte/25

CASE NAME: Gan v. San Gabriel Valley Medical Center COMPL. FILED: 09-09-20

CASE NUMBER: 20STLC07641 DISC. C/O: 02-07-22

PROCEEDINGS: (1) DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT

(2) MOTION TO HAVE PLAINTIFF DECLARED A VEXATIOUS LITIGANT

MOVING PARTY: Defendant San Gabriel Valley Medical Center, LP

RESP. PARTY: Plaintiff Hong Gan, in pro per

DEMURRER

(CCP § 430.10, et seq.)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendant San Gabriel Valley Medical Center, LP’s (1) Demurrer to Complaint and (2) Motion to Have Plaintiff Declared a Vexatious Litigant are CONTINUED TO APRIL 19, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. in Department 25 at the SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE to allow Plaintiff an opportunity to respond to documents presented in Defendant’s reply papers. Plaintiff must file and serve any responsive documents at least 16 court days before the next scheduled hearing.

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

Demurrer

OPPOSITION: Filed on November 30, 2020 [ ] Late [ ] None

REPLY: Filed on February 9, 2021 [ ] Late [ ] None

Declare Vexatious Litigant

OPPOSITION: None filed as of February 17, 2021 [ ] Late [X] None

REPLY: None filed as of February 17, 2021 [ ] Late [X] None

ANALYSIS:

1. Background

On September 9, 2020, self-represented Plaintiff Hong Gan (“Plaintiff”) filed a Complaint alleging sexual abuse, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligence, false imprisonment, and civil rights violations against Defendant San Gabriel Valley Medical Center (“Defendant”).

Defendant filed the instant Demurrer to Complaint (the “Demurrer”) on November 17, 2020. Plaintiff filed an Opposition on November 30, 2020, and Defendant filed a Reply on February 9, 2021.

Also on November 17, Defendant filed the instant Motion to Have Plaintiff Declared a Vexatious Litigant (the “Motion”). Plaintiff did not file an opposition to this Motion.

1. Request for Judicial Notice

Defendant requests judicial notice of the following documents filed in Gan v. San Gabriel Valley Medical Center, LASC Case No. 19STLC08450 (the “First Action”): (1) the First Amended Complaint filed on November 19, 2019; (2) the August 25, 2020 Minute Order sustaining Defendant San Gabriel Valley Medical Center’s demurrer to Plaintiff’s first amended complaint without leave to amend; (3) the August 26, 2020 order of dismissal; and (4) the Notice of Entry of Order of Dismissal filed on September 22, 2020. (Dem., RJN, pp. 1-2, Exhs. A-D.)

Defendant’s request is GRANTED. (Evid. Code, § 452, subd. (d).)

1. Demurrer

A. 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.)

A general demurrer may be brought under Code of Civil Procedure section 430.10, subdivision (e) if insufficient facts are stated to support the cause of action asserted or under section 430.10, subdivision (a), where the court has no jurisdiction of the subject of the cause of action alleged in the pleading. All other grounds listed in Section 430.10, including uncertainty under subdivision (f), are special demurrers. Special demurrers are not allowed in limited jurisdiction courts. (Code Civ. Proc., § 92, subd. (c).)

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).)

B. Discussion

The Demurrer is accompanied by a meet and confer declaration as required by Code of Civil Procedure section 430.41, subdivision (a). (Dem., Ozeran Decl., ¶ 7.)

Plaintiff alleges (1) sexual abuse and criminal rape, (2) intentional infliction of emotional distress; (3) negligence; (4) false imprisonment; and (5) a civil rights violation. (Compl., p. 2.)

Defendant demurs to Plaintiff’s Complaint on the basis that it is barred by the doctrine of res judicata. (Dem., pp. 5:27-6:4.) Specifically, Defendant argues that this action arises from the same allegations of wrongdoing set forth in the first amended complaint filed in the First Action. (Id.)

“ “‘Res judicata’ describes the preclusive effect of a final judgment on the merits. Res judicata, or claim preclusion, prevents relitigation of the same cause of action in a second suit between the same parties or parties in privity with them.” [Citation.] “A predictable doctrine of res judicata benefits both the parties and the courts because it ‘seeks to curtail multiple litigation causing vexation and expense to the parties and wasted effort and expense in judicial administration.” [Citation.]” (Consumer Advocacy Group, Inc. v. ExxonMobil Corp. (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 675, 683.)

“A prior judgment is not res judicata on a subsequent action unless three elements are satisfied: ‘(1) the issues decided in the prior adjudication are identical with those presented in the later action; (2) there was a final judgment on the merits in the prior action; and (3) the party against whom the plea is raised was a party or was in privity with a party to the prior adjudication. [Citation.]” (Id. at p. 685-86.) “To prevent piecemeal litigation, the doctrine of res judicata also applies to bar a second suit arising out of the same factual situation involving matters which were relevant and within the same scope of the first action, which thus could have been raised in the first suit. [Citation.]” (Duffy v. City of Long Beach (1988) 201 Cal.App.3d 1352, 1257-58.) (Italics in original.)

“ ‘A judgment is on the merits for purposes of res judicata “if the substance of the claim is tried and determined…” [Citation.]’ [Citations.] This may include a judgment of dismissal following a general demurrer or a dismissal motion if the disposition was plainly reached ‘on a ground of substance.’ [Citations.]” (Association of Irritated Residents v. Department of Conservation (2017) 11 Cal.App.5th 1202, 1220.)

First, the Court notes that this action involves the same parties as the First Action. (Dem., RJN, Exh. A.)

As to the second element, the Court entered a judgment of dismissal on August 26, 2020. (Id., Exh. C.) The judgment of dismissal in the First Action was entered after the Court sustained Defendant’s demurrer without leave to amend, finding that Defendant was immune from suit for non-negligence claims. (Id., Exh. B.) In Opposition, Plaintiff argues the doctrine of res judicata does not apply because there is a pending preliminary appeal and because a complaint was filed against Judge Blancarte for his handling of the First Action. (Oppo., p. 2.) Plaintiff did not request judicial notice of any documents demonstrating an appeal was filed. In Reply, Defendant explains that it filed a motion to dismiss the appeal in the Appellate Division on the basis that it was untimely filed. (Reply, p. 2:2-5, p. 2:20-26.) It also provides a copy of the Appellate Division’s Order filed on February 1, 2021 dismissing Plaintiff’s appeal on the ground that it was not timely filed. (Supp. Reply, Ozeran Decl., ¶ 2, Exh. A.) However, Defendant did not request judicial notice of this document. As noted above, the Court can only consider the pleadings and matters which have been judicially noticed, not any extrinsic evidence, in issuing a ruling on the demurrer. (Harris, supra, 56 Cal.4th p. 240.) The Court may take judicial notice of this document sua sponte, but only after giving Plaintiff an opportunity to respond to the matter. (Evid. Code, §§ 450; 455, subd. (a).)

For this reason, the matter is CONTINUED to allow Plaintiff an opportunity to present to the Court information relevant to the propriety of taking judicial notice of the matter and/or the tenor of the matter to be noticed. (Evid. Code, § 455, subd. (a).)

1. Vexatious Litigant

A. Legal Standard

Section 391 provides, in pertinent part:

“(b) ‘Vexatious litigant’ means a person who does any of the following:

(1) In the immediately preceding seven-year period has commenced, prosecuted, or maintained in propria persona at least five litigations other than in a small claims court that have been (i) finally determined adversely to the person or (ii) unjustifiably permitted to remain pending at least two years without having been brought to trial or hearing.

(2) After a litigation has been finally determined against the person, repeatedly relitigates or attempts to relitigate, in propria persona, either (i) the validity of the determination against the same defendant or defendants as to whom the litigation was finally determined or (ii) the cause of action, claim, controversy, or any of the issues of fact or law, determined or concluded by the final determination against the same defendant or defendants as to whom the litigation was finally determined.

(3) In any litigation while acting in propria persona, repeatedly files unmeritorious motions, pleadings, or other papers, conducts unnecessary discovery, or engages in other tactics that are frivolous or solely intended to cause unnecessary delay.”

Section 391.7, subdivision (a) provides that “[i]n addition to any other relief provided in this title, the court may, on its own motion or the motion of any party, enter a prefiling order which prohibits a vexatious litigant from filing any new litigation in the courts of this state in propria persona without first obtaining leave of the presiding justice or presiding judge of the court where the litigation is proposed to be filed. Disobedience of the order by a vexatious litigant may be punished as a contempt of court.”

B. Discussion

Defendant seeks an order declaring Plaintiff to be a vexatious litigant on the ground that the instant action seeks to relitigate issues presented in the First Action. (Mot., pp. 1:28-2:18.)

To allow for the resolution of the Demurrer on the basis that this action is barred by the doctrine of res judicata, Defendant’s Motion to declare Plaintiff a vexatious litigant is also CONTINUED.

1. Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reasons, Defendant San Gabriel Valley Medical Center, LP’s (1) Demurrer to Complaint and (2) Motion to Have Plaintiff Declared a Vexatious Litigant are CONTINUED TO APRIL 19, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. in Department 25 at the SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE to allow Plaintiff an opportunity to respond to documents presented in Defendant’s reply. Plaintiff must file and serve any responsive documents at least 16 court days before the next scheduled hearing.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.