2010-00073682-CU-PN

Marcus L Hudson vs. MD Jasdeep S Bal

Nature of Proceeding: Motion for Summary Judgment and/or Adjudication

Filed By: Nathan, Jill B.

Defendant M.D. Jasdeep Bal’s (“Dr. Bal”) motion for summary judgment is DENIED.
The court construes the motion as one for judgment on the pleadings and GRANTS
the motion so construed with leave to amend.

Plaintiff Marcus L. Hudson (“Hudson”) is a state prisoner who is representing himself in
this action. (See Undisputed Material Fact (“UMF”) 1.) Dr. Bal is the Chief Physician
and Executive at California State Prison Sacramento. (See RJN, Exh. B, ¶ 1.) In his
Judicial Council form complaint, Hudson has ostensibly pleaded causes of action
against Bal for negligence, intentional tort and premises liability. The form complaint
does not contain any facts establishing the basis/bases for these causes of action.
Based on discovery that Hudson propounded, however, it appears that one of
Hudson’s claims is that Dr. Bal did not sufficiently treat Hudson’s pain. (See UMF 8.)
Dr. Bal now moves for summary adjudication on three grounds: (1) Hudson’s
complaint does not state a cause of action; (2) Hudson’s complaint does not contain
sufficient allegations of compliance with the Government Claims Act, and (3) res
judicata bars Hudson’s complaint as a result of the judgment entered in Federal
District Court for the Eastern District of California, Case No. CIV S-09-2328 JAM CKD
P.

First, the court rejects Dr. Bal’s res judicata argument. Whether a cause of action is
res judicata depends on whether it is based on the same primary right as a right raised
and adjudicated in another case. (See Boeken v. Philip Morris USA Inc. (2010) 48
Cal.4th 788, 798.) Because there are no factual allegations in the complaint, the court
cannot conclude that Hudson‘s causes of action in the instant case arise from the
same primary right as the one adjudicated in federal court.

The fact that Hudson propounded discovery in this case suggesting that all least some
of his causes of action are based on Dr. Bal’s failure to ensure proper administration of
pain medication–a claim that was resolved in Dr. Bal’s favor in federal court–does not
alter the court’s conclusion. Assuming arguendo that Hudson’s own discovery
requests otherwise demonstrate the nonexistence of a triable issue of material fact, the
discovery does not demonstrate that Hudson’s causes of action are based solely on
the administration vel non of appropriate pain medication. Thus, the discovery does
not establish that any of Hudson’s causes of action are completely barred by res
judicata. The court, however, is only entitled to summarily adjudicate a complete
cause of action, not a portion of one. (CCP § 437c(f)(1).) Furthermore, Dr. Bal has
not argued that, under Lilienthal & Fowler v. Superior Court (1993) 12 Cal.App.4th
1848, res judicata disposes of a discrete wrongful act within one or more of Hudson’s
causes of action.

The court also rejects Dr. Bal’s argument that he is entitled to summary judgment
because Hudson’s complaint does not contain sufficient factual allegations of
compliance with the claim-presentation requirement of the Government Claims Act.
Dr. Bal has not produced any evidence that Hudson failed to comply with the
Government Claims Act before filing this action. Rather, Dr. Bal argues that Hudson’s
complaint, wherein Hudson checked a pre-printed box indicating that he had complied,
does not suffice. The cases that Dr. Bal cites to support his argument, however, do
not hold that Hudson was required to do more than check the appropriate box on his
Judicial Council form complaint. The holding in State of California v. Superior Court
(2004) 32 Cal.4th 1234 is that “failure to plead facts demonstrating or excusing
compliance with the claim presentation requirement of [Government Code ] section
900 et seq. may be raised on a general demurrer to the complaint.” That case did not
involve a Judicial Council form complaint and therefore is inapposite. The court further
notes that the Judicial Council form complaint that Hudson used in the instant case
does not contain a space for specific factual allegations regarding compliance with any
claim-presentation requirement. Absent an authority holding that the Judicial Council
has designed a form complaint that is deficient in this regard, this court will not draw
such a conclusion.

Leake v. Wu (1976) 64 Cal.App.3d 668 does not assist Dr. Bal either. The question in
that case was whether a plaintiff had sufficiently alleged excuse from the claim-
presentation requirement, not compliance with it. The court thus rejects Dr. Bal’s
argument based on the Government Claims Act.

The court agrees with Dr. Bal, however, that Hudson’s allegations do not contain facts
sufficient to state causes of action for negligence or an intentional tort. Specifically,
Hudson has not alleged facts establishing that Dr. Bal breached any duty of care or
that Hudson suffered damage as the result of such a breach. Similarly, Hudson has
not alleged facts establishing that Dr. Bal intentionally committed any wrong against
him, or that he suffered any damage as a result.

Given Hudson’s deficient allegations, the court construes Dr. Bal’s motion as one for
judgment on the pleadings. (See Hansra v. Superior Court (App. 3. Dist. 1992) 7
Cal.App.4th 630, 647.) As to Hudson’s first and second causes of action for
negligence and intentional tort, the court GRANTS the motion so construed and further
GRANTS Hudson leave to amend. No later than November 8, 2013, Hudson may file and serve a first amended complaint
(“FAC”) in an attempt to support his first and second causes of action with sufficient
factual allegations; Dr. Bal to file and serve his responsive pleading(s) within 10 days
thereafter, 15 days if the FAC is served by mail. (Although not required by any statute
or rule of court, Hudson is requested to attach a copy of the instant minute order to the
FAC to facilitate the filing of the pleading.)

Dr. Bal’s request for judicial notice is UNOPPOSED and GRANTED.

The minute order is effective immediately.

The clerk of the court is directed to mail Hudson a copy of this ruling.