Defendants' Demurrer to the Complaint
Defendant's Request for Judicial Notice is granted. The Court takes judicial notice of Plaintiff's Verified Complaint filed in this matter to the exclusion of the truth of disputed factual assertions or hearsay statements contained therein. (Evidence Code Sec. 452)
b) Plaintiff's claims in the Complaint herein clearly arise out of "the professional negligence" of Defendants as "healthcare provider[s] to Plaintiff. (Civ. Proc. Code Sec. 425.13). Whenever an injured party seeks punitive damages for an injury that is directly related to the professional services provided by a health care provider acting in its capacity as such, the statute governing punitive damages for claims arising out of the professional negligence of a health care provider applies?(Divino Plastic Surgery, Inc. v. Superior Court (2022) 293 Cal.Rptr.3d 47, modified on denial of rehearing; Cooper v. Superior Court (1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 744; United W. Med. Centers v. Superior Ct., (1996 42 Cal. App. 4th 500,), as modified (Feb. 26, 1996).
Defendants only had the opportunity to handle Plaintiff's teeth because Plaintiff came to Defendants for medical treatment. Accordingly dental treatment is covered by the provisions of Civ. Proc. Code Sec. 425.13. (Cooper v. Superior Court (1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 744; United W. Med. Centers v. Superior Ct., (1996 42 Cal. App. 4th 500,), as modified (Feb. 26, 1996).
Furthermore, identifying a cause of action as an intentional tort as opposed to negligence does not itself remove the claim from the requirements of the statute governing punitive damages for claims arising out of the professional negligence of a health care provider.” (Divino Plastic Surgery, Inc. v. Superior Court, supra; Country Villa Claremont Healthcare Center, Inc. v. Superior Court (2004), 120 Cal.App.4th 426; Cooper v Superior Court, supra
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?”
The Court notes Plaintiff's reliance on Bommareddy v. Superior Ct., noting that it has been disapproved of by Cent. Pathology Serv. Med. Clinic, Inc. v. Superior Ct. and that a long line of cases since Bonmareddy, including the aforementioned, align with the Central Pathology decision.(Bommareddy v. Superior Ct., (1990), 222 Cal. App. 3d 1017, disapproved of by Cent. Pathology Serv. Med. Clinic, Inc. v. Superior Ct., (1992). 3 Cal. 4th 181).
Plaintiff has not obtained leave under Code of Civil Procedure Sec. 425.13 to plead punitive damages in this action arising out of the professional services of a health care provider. Accordingly, Defendant's motion is granted. (Civ. Proc. Code Sec.Sec. 435 and 436). All punitive-damages allegations identified in this motion and the punitive-damages prayer are hereby stricken without prejudice. Plaintiff may file and serve a motion under Code of Civil Procedure Sec. 425.13 within 30 days of service of this Order. The Court does not reach the ultimate sufficiency of the punitive allegations under Civil Code Sec. 3294 at this time.
Defendant's Request for Judicial Notice is granted. The Court takes judicial notice of Plaintiff's Verified Complaint filed in this matter to the exclusion of the truth of disputed factual assertions or hearsay statements contained therein. (Evidence Code Sec. 452) Defendant shall submit a Proposed Order within five court days that complies with this ruling.
CV-26-002293 - NENEF, DANIEL vs NARAYAN, SHAREENA DEVI - Defendants' Demurrer to the Complaint - SUSTAINED, with leave to amend. The Judicial Council form PLD-PI-001 used by Plaintiff is for Personal Injury, Property Damage or Wrongful Death claims. The Complaint does not allege any facts supporting any such causes of action.
Furthermore, a complaint must contain a "statement of the facts constituting the cause of action, in ordinary and concise language." (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 425.10, subd. (a)(1)). The Complaint is unsupported by any pleadings which meet this requirement or the general California notice pleading requirement. The purported exhibits to the Complaint also do not constitute the required statement of facts. (Thomas v. Regents of Univ. of California, (2023), 97 Cal. App. 5th 587, reh'g denied (Dec. 29, 2023), review denied (Feb. 28, 2024)
The Court therefore finds that Plaintiff's Complaint fails to state any facts supporting the selected Motor Vehicle cause of action and is uncertain. (Code of Civ. Proc., Sec. 430.10, subd. (e)and (f)).
Accordingly, Defendant's Demurer to Plaintiff's Complaint is hereby sustained, with leave to amend. Plaintiff shall file a First Amended Complaint within fourteen (14) days of the date of service of this order. The Case Management Conference set for July 6, 2026, is vacated and reset to October 19, 2026, at 8:30am in Department 24 of this Court.
The following are the tentative rulings for cases calendared before Commissioner Jared D. Beeson in Department 19 located at the Turlock Division at 300 Starr Avenue, Turlock, CA: ***There are no tentative rulings in Department 19***