Nicole Rodriguez Jimenez v. Camilla Marquez, M.D.

1 Defendant’s request for judicial notice is granted.

action under any legal theory. (Barquis v. Merchants Collection Assn. (1972) 7 Cal.3d 94, 103.)

On a demurrer, a court's function is limited to testing the legal sufficiency of the complaint. A demurrer is simply not the appropriate procedure for determining the truth of disputed facts. (Fremont Indemnity Co. v. Fremont General Corp. (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 97, 113-114.) It is error to sustain a demurrer where plaintiff “has stated a cause of action under any possible legal theory. In assessing the sufficiency of a demurrer, all material facts pleaded in the complaint and those which arise by reasonable implication are deemed true.” (Bush v. California Conservation Corps (1982) 136 Cal.App.3d 194, 200.)

A plaintiff is not required to plead evidentiary facts supporting the allegation of ultimate fact; the pleading is adequate if it apprises defendant of the factual basis for plaintiff's claim. (Perkins v. Superior Court (1981) 117 Cal.App.3d 1, 6.) Stated another way, a plaintiff is required only to set forth the essential facts of his case with reasonable precision and with particularity sufficient to acquaint a defendant with the nature, source, and extent of his cause of action. (Youngman v. Nevada Irrigation Dist. (1969) 70 Cal.2d 240, 245.)

Demurrer to Second Cause of Action

Defendant demurs to the Second Cause of Action for Lack of Informed Consent on the grounds that the First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430, subd. (e).)

Defendant argues that a duty to obtain informed consent belongs to physicians, not the nursing staff, and to provide a patient with informed consent would be outside the scope of their practice. Defendant cites to multiple cases that specify it is a physician’s duty to disclose material information and obtain informed consent for medical procedures.

Plaintiffs first contend that in the present case, defendant (through its personnel) engaged in affirmative misrepresentation as opposed to mere nondisclosure. However, the purpose of this argument is unclear. Plaintiffs in their own opposition identify a cause of action for lack of informed consent as arising from the failure to disclose material information necessary for an informed decision. (Opp., 3:10-12.) Plaintiffs have not established that providing misleading information is an element of this cause of action, or why it is relevant here.

Plaintiffs further argue that defendant’s staff “participated in the events surrounding the recommendation and administration of the epidural and the communications provided to Plaintiff at that time.” (Opp., 4:7-11.) Even if the “formal duty” belonged to the physician, the hospital staff knew critical facts and failed to escalate the patient plaintiff’s condition, failed to communicate with plaintiffs, and allowed the procedure to proceed. (Id., 4:12-14; 23, 25.)

The FAC loosely alleges that defendant’s personnel “recommended and administered an epidural anesthesia procedure to Plaintiff[.]” (FAC, ¶ 31.) This allegation, 9

when taken as true at the pleading stage, has the potential of creating some type of responsibility, if the decision to perform the procedure fell squarely in the hands of defendant’s staff without any physician’s involvement (which is not alleged). However, the FAC further alleges that the nurses “failed to advise or warn the anesthesiologist of the absent fetal heart rate, failed to delay the procedure pending confirmation of fetal well-being, and failed to escalate the situation[.]” (FAC, ¶ 31C, emphasis added.) The language of these allegations suggests that the nurses’ failures included or were limited to communicating with others in charge of the procedure.

Defendant has cited to multiple cases to support its position that informed consent is an obligation and responsibility of a physician. Plaintiffs have failed to cite to any authorities that impart this responsibility on a hospital’s staff. The allegations of the FAC are insufficiently pled to establish a cause of action for lack of informed consent against defendant. Accordingly, the court intends to sustain the demurrer, with leave to amend.

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: KCK on 04/29/26. (Judge’s initials) (Date)

10