DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
34-2022-00326241-CU-NP-GDS·sacramento·Civil·Negligence/Employment
Hearing almost 3 years agoSUSTAINED with leave to amend

Afshin Eslami M.D. vs. Dignity Health

Demurrer

Hearing date
Dec 1, 2023
Department
53
Prevailing
Defendant

Motion type

Browse all Demurrer rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffAfshin Eslami M.D.
DefendantDignity Health DBA Methodist Hospital of Sacramento

Ruling

34-2022-00326241-CU-NP-GDS: Afshin Eslami M.D. vs. Dignity Health 12/01/2023 Hearing on Demurrer in Department 53

Tentative Ruling

NOTICE:

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that pursuant to “Public Notice – Civil Division Expansion of Law and Motion Calendar” any oral arguments regarding this tentative ruling will be heard in Department 31, located at 720 9th Street, Sacramento, CA, the Hon. Steven M. Gevercer presiding, at 10:00 a.m. Should argument be requested by either party, the requesting party must call the Law and Motion Oral Argument Request Line at (916) 874-2615, request the hearing, and notify the opposing party of the location and time of hearing pursuant to Local Rule 1.06.

The Court encourages parties to appear remotely for the hearing on the tentative ruling through the Court’s Zoom Application. But, any party wishing to appear in person may do so, provided that party notifies the Court by 4:00 the Court day before the hearing.

The parties may join the Zoom session for hearing on the tentative ruling by audio and/or video through the following link:

https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/my/sscdept31

SIP Address: 16083459993@sip.zoomgov.com

(833) 568-8864

ID: 16083459993

Parties requesting services of a court reporter will need to arrange for private court reporter services at their own expense, pursuant to Government code §68086 and California Rules of Court, Rule 2.956. Requirements for requesting a court reporter are listed in the Policy for Official Reporter Pro Tempore available on the Sacramento Superior Court website at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp-6a.pdf. Parties may contact Court- Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore by utilizing the list of Court Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore available at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp- 13.Pdf

34-2022-00326241-CU-NP-GDS: Afshin Eslami M.D. vs. Dignity Health 12/01/2023 Hearing on Demurrer in Department 53

A Stipulation and Appointment of Official Reporter Pro Tempore (CV/E-206) is required to be signed by each party, the private court reporter, and the Judge prior to the hearing, if not using a reporter from the Court’s Approved Official Reporter Pro Tempore list.

Once the form is signed it must be filed with the clerk. If a litigant has been granted a fee waiver and requests a court reporter, the party must submit a Request for Court Reporter by a Party with a Fee Waiver (CV/E-211) and it must be filed with the clerk at least 10 days prior to the hearing or at the time the proceeding is scheduled if less than 10 days away. Once approved, the clerk will be forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided.

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendant Dignity Health DBA Methodist Hospital of Sacramento’s (“Defendant”) Demurrer to Plaintiff Afshin Eslami’s (“Plaintiff”) First Amended Complaint is UNOPPOSED and SUSTAINED with leave to amend.

Plaintiff commenced this action against Defendant for the alleged negligent failure to renew certain surgery privileges without a valid reason and in retaliation for patient care and safety concerns raised by Plaintiff. Defendant demurs to each of the five causes of action on grounds they fail to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.

The demurrer is sustained. The Court construes Plaintiffs’ failure to oppose the demurrer as a concession on the merits. (D.I. Chadbourne, Inc. v. Superior Court (1964) 60 Cal.2d 723, 728, fn. 4 [where nonmoving party fails to oppose a ground for a motion “it is assumed that [nonmoving party] concedes” that ground].)

Plaintiff may file and serve a second amended complaint no later than December 11, 2023. Although not required by statute or court rule, Plaintiff is directed to present the clerk a copy of this ruling at the time of filing the Second Amended Complaint.

Defendant may file and serve a response within 30 days of service of the Second Amended Complaint, 35 days if served by mail.

This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to CRC Rule 3.1312 or other notice is required.

Cited authorities

Extracting citations from the ruling text…
Verify against the source PDF — LLM extraction may miss or mis-normalize citations.

Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities

Ask about this ruling

Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”

Answers reference only this ruling's text. Not legal advice — always verify against the source PDF.

Find similar rulings

Source

Share