Case Number: BC717370 Hearing Date: February 05, 2019 Dept: 4A

DEMURRER TO COMPLAINT

The Court considered the moving papers.

Plaintiff Tenisha Hancock (“Plaintiff”) alleges that she experienced complications related to the birth of her child commencing on or about May 12, 2017 through May 23, 2017. Plaintiff claims Defendants Shawanda Obey, M.D. (“Dr. Obey”) and Huntington Memorial Hospital (“Huntington”) failed to provide proper treatment and monitoring; and alleges that she continues to experience significant injuries as a result of the foregoing.

On August 10, 2018, Plaintiff and her Partner filed the instant Complaint asserting claims for (1) Medical Negligence and (2) Loss of Consortium. Defendant Huntington filed the instant Demurrer on January 4, 2019. Plaintiffs have not filed an opposition of February 1, 2019. (Timely filing deadline: January 23, 2019.)

Meet and Confer

Before filing a demurrer, the demurring party is required to meet and confer with the party who filed the pleading demurred to for the purposes of determining whether an agreement can be reached through a filing of an amended pleading that would resolve the objections to be raised in the demurrer. (See CCP § 430.41.) The Court notes that Huntington’s good faith attempts fulfill the meet and confer requirement prior to filing this demurrer. (See Farrugia Decl.¶¶3-4.)

Legal Standard

A demurrer for sufficiency tests whether the complaint states a cause of action. (Hahn v. Mirda (2007) 147 Cal. App. 4th 740, 747.) When considering demurrers, courts read the allegations liberally and in context. (Taylor v. City of Los Angeles Dept. of Water and Power (2006) 144 Cal. App. 4th 1216, 1228.) In a demurrer proceeding, the defects must be apparent on the face of the pleading or via proper judicial notice. (Donabedian v. Mercury Ins. Co. (2004) 116 Cal. App. 4th 968, 994.) “A demurrer tests the pleadings alone and not the evidence or other extrinsic matters. Therefore, it lies only where the defects appear on the face of the pleading or are judicially noticed.” (SKF Farms v. Superior Court (1984) 153 Cal. App. 3d 902, 905.) “The only issue involved in a demurrer hearing is whether the complaint, as it stands, unconnected with extraneous matters, states a cause of action.” (Hahn, 147 Cal.App.4th at 747.)

DISCUSSION

Demurrer

Preliminarily, the Court finds that Huntington’s unopposed Demurrer is well-taken on the merits. The Court notes that the Medical Malpractice claim lacks sufficient factual support in supporting the cause of action. Specifically, Plaintiffs fail to indicate what injuries were suffered, and how Huntington failed to provide proper treatment and monitoring during delivery. Further, as to the Loss of Consortium claim, Plaintiff Malcolm Jamal Warner has failed to allege that he is in a marital relationship with Plaintiff Tenisha Hancock, which is a requisite element in establishing the cause of action.

Based on the foregoing, Huntington’s Demurrer is SUSTAINED with 20 days’ leave to amend.

Moving Party is ordered to give notice.

The court orders:

Defendant Huntington’s Demurrer is SUSTAINED with 20 days’ leave to amend.

Moving Party is ordered to provide notice of this order and file proof of service of such.