Defendant Clovis Community Medical Center’s Demurrer to Complaint
(03) Tentative Ruling
Re: Tisdale v. CMC/CCMC/Clovis Community Med. Center Legal Department Case No. 26CECG00022
Hearing Date: June 23, 2026 (Dept. 502)
Motion: Defendant Clovis Community Medical Center’s Demurrer to Complaint
If oral argument is timely requested, it will be entertained on Wednesday, July 8, 2026, at 3:30 p.m. in Department 502.
Tentative Ruling:
To sustain defendant’s demurrer to the entire complaint, with leave to amend, for failure to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action and uncertainty. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subds. (e), (f).) Plaintiff shall serve and file her first amended complaint within 20 days of the date of service of this order. All new allegations shall be in boldface.
Explanation:
Plaintiff has filed a form complaint for breach of contract. Establishing a claim for breach of contract requires a showing of “(1) the existence of the contract, (2) plaintiff's performance or excuse for nonperformance, (3) defendant's breach, and (4) the resulting damages to the plaintiff.” (D'Arrigo Bros. of California v. United Farmworkers of America (2014) 224 Cal.App.4th 790, 800, quoting Oasis West Realty, LLC v. Goldman (2011) 51 Cal.4th 811, 820.)
Here, plaintiff does not allege the existence of a contract between the parties, nor does she allege whether the contract was written, oral, or implied by conduct. She alleges no facts regarding the essential terms of the contract, nor has she alleged that she performed under the contract or that defendants breached the agreement and damaged her. Therefore, the complaint fails to state a claim for breach of contract.
The complaint also fails to properly name any defendants. Plaintiff has named “CMC/CCMC” and “Clovis Community Med. Center Legal Department” as defendants. However, giving only abbreviated names for two of the defendants is insufficient to properly name them as parties to the case. To the extent that plaintiff is seeking to name Clovis Community Medical Center as a defendant, she needs to name the hospital properly using its full name. Also, it does not appear that the “Legal Department” of Clovis Community Medical Center is a proper defendant, especially since plaintiff has not alleged any facts to support a claim against the lawyers for Clovis Community. The complaint is thus vague and uncertain with regard to which defendants are being named.
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
Nor has plaintiff alleged any facts to support a potential tort claim, such as medical negligence or battery. Plaintiff’s complaint does not include any separate causes of action, nor does the complaint itself allege any facts that might support a possible tort cause of action.
Plaintiff has attached a copy of a portion of a letter she apparently sent to Clovis Community in October of 2025, in which she complained about the care she received while she was a patient of Clovis Community in August of 2025. She complains about the staff being rude to her, failing to answer her call button for up to an hour, failing to provide her with pain medication promptly, and one nurse threatening to put her in restraints when she tried to take her mask off. (Unlabeled Exhibit to Complaint.)
However, plaintiff has not explained how these facts might tend to support any particular cause of action. For example, if she is attempting to state a claim for medical negligence, what did defendant do to breach a duty of care that it owed to her, and how she was injured as a result of defendant’s breach? (Turpin v. Sortini (1982) 31 Cal.3d 220, 229-230 stating the elements of a medical negligence cause of action are “(1) the duty of the professional to use such skill, prudence, and diligence as other members of his profession commonly possess and exercise; (2) a breach of that duty; (3) a proximate causal connection between the negligent conduct and the resulting injury; and (4) actual loss or damage resulting from the professional's negligence.”)
If plaintiff is seeking to allege medical battery, she would need to allege facts showing that she gave conditional consent to the hospital to allow her to be treated, that defendant’s staff violated the conditional consent while providing treatment, and that she was harmed as a result of the violation of the condition. (Piedra v. Dugan (2004) 123 Cal.App.4th 1483.) Again, plaintiff has not alleged facts to support any medical battery claim, and her complaint is so vague as to be uncertain.
Plaintiff’s form complaint is also incomplete, as it does not state what the basis for the court’s jurisdiction is or whether defendants are natural persons or legal entities. Therefore, plaintiff’s complaint is uncertain and fails to state facts sufficient to constitute any valid causes of action. As a result, the court intends to sustain the demurrer to the entire complaint. However, the court intends to grant leave to amend, as it is possible that plaintiff might be able to allege more facts to state a claim against defendant if given leave to do so.
Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312(a), and Code of Civil Procedure section 1019.5, subdivision (a), no further written order is necessary. The minute order adopting this tentative ruling will serve as the order of the court and service by the clerk will constitute notice of the order.
Tentative Ruling
Issued By: lmg on 6-22-26. (Judge’s initials) (Date)
4