Case Name: Lyons, et al. v. Stanford Hospitals and Clinics, Inc.

Case No.: 1-14-CV-263807

Defendants Stanford Hospital and Clinics (“SHC”) demurs to the first amended complaint (“FAC”) filed by plaintiffs Renee Lyons (“Lyons”) and Jeff Kalibjian (“Kalibjian”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) and, along with defendants Errol O. Ozdalga, M.D. (“Dr. Ozdalga”) and Camilla Kilbane, M.D. (“Dr. Kilbane”) (collectively, “Defendants”) moves to strike portions contained therein.

This action arises out of the medical care and treatment provided to Lyons by Defendants in January 2013.  Lyons alleges that she was wrongfully restrained, through both physical and chemical means, at Stanford hospital after arriving at the emergency room on January 14, 2013 seeking treatment for a sore throat.

On October 9, 2014, Plaintiffs filed the FAC asserting the following causes of action: (1) battery (by Lyons against SHC and Daniel Grossman, M.D.); (2) assault (by Lyons against SHC and Daniel Grossman, M.D.); (3) false imprisonment (by Lyons against SHC and Daniel Grossman, M.D.); (4) sexual battery (by Lyons against all defendants); (5) medical malpractice (by Lyons against all individually named defendants); (6) battery; and (7) loss of consortium (by Kalibjian against all defendants).

On November 10, 2014, SHC filed the instant demurrer to the sixth cause of action on the grounds of uncertainty and failure to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subds. (e) and (f).)  Defendants also filed a motion to strike Plaintiffs’ prayer for punitive damages.

SHC’s demurrer to the sixth cause of action on the ground of uncertainty is OVERRULED.  A demurrer for uncertainty is disfavored and will be sustained only where the allegations of a complaint are so unintelligible that the defendant cannot reasonably respond to them.  (See Khoury v. Maly’s of California, Inc. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4^th 612, 616.)  Here, when the allegations contained within the sixth cause of action and those preceding it in the FAC are read in toto, it is clear that this claim is only being asserted by Lyon and not Kalibjian.

SHC’s demurrer to the sixth cause of action on the ground of failure to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action is SUSTAINED WITH 10 DAYS’ LEAVE TO AMEND.  The essential elements of a cause of action for battery are: (1) the defendant touched the plaintiff, or caused the plaintiff to be touched, with the intent to harm or offend the plaintiff; (2) the plaintiff did not consent to the touching; (3) the plaintiff was harmed or offended by the defendant’s conduct; and (4) a reasonable person in the plaintiff’s position would have been offended by the touching.  (So v. Shin (2013) 212 Cal.App.4^th 652, 669.)  Here, there are no allegations in the sixth cause of action that the defendants touched Lyon with the intention of harming or offending her or that a reasonable person in her position would have been offended by the touching.

Defendants’ motion to strike Plaintiffs’ prayer for punitive damages is GRANTED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND.  Plaintiffs do not oppose the merits of this motion.  The Court notes that this ruling does not preclude Plaintiffs from bringing a motion pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 425.13 at a future date to seek amendment of their Complaint.