sealed contain confidential attorney-client privileged information, and a substantial probability exists that the overriding interest will be prejudiced if the records at issue are not sealed. Further, the proposed sealing is narrowly tailored, and there are no less restrictive means to achieve the overriding interest in protecting the information aside from sealing the records. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.550(d); McGuan v. Endovascular Technologies, Inc. (2010) 182 Cal.App.4th 974, 988.)

Counsel for Plaintiff shall give notice of this ruling. 11 Joseph v. Bell Before the Court is a demurrer filed by defendants David Bell, DDS, M.D; David Bell, MD, Inc. and Orthognathic Surgery (Defendants) to the first amended complaint (FAC) of plaintiff Daniel Joseph (Plaintiff). For the reasons set forth below, the demurrer is OVERRULED.

A general demurrer lies where the pleading does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. (Code of Civ. Proc. § 430.10, subd. (e).) “To survive a demurrer, the complaint need only allege facts sufficient to state a cause of action; each evidentiary fact that might eventually form part of the plaintiff's proof need not be alleged.” (C.A. v. William S. Hart Union High School Dist. (2012) 53 Cal.4th 861, 872.) Plaintiff’s allegations must be accepted as true for the purpose of ruling on a demurrer. (Hacker v. Homeward Residential, Inc. (2018) 26 Cal.App.5th 270, 280.) Where allegations are subject to different reasonable interpretations, the court must draw inferences favorable to the plaintiff, not the defendant. (Perez v. Golden Empire Transit Dist. (2012) 209 Cal. App.4th 1228, 1238.)

1st cause of action (breach of contract): The complaint states facts sufficient to constitute this cause of action. (

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

Other rulings by Craig L. Griffin Judge Craig L. Griffin dossier Other Demurrer in ORANGE All ORANGE County rulings Other Medical Malpractice cases

Related rulings

by semantic similarity

Source

Print-friendly view

[elements]; see also FAC ¶¶ 31-35.) The Court rejects Defendants’ argument that the FAC fails to allege Defendants “clearly promise[d] a particular result.” While Plaintiff alleges facts suggesting Defendants provided sub-standard care in the hardware removal surgery, the crux of Plaintiff’s breach of contract claim is Defendants’ alleged failure to perform the orthognathic surgery at all.

Notably, a general demurrer does not lie to only part of a cause of action. If there are sufficient allegations to entitle plaintiff to relief, other allegations cannot be challenged by general demurrer. (Daniels v. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 1150, 1167.) The demurrer is therefore OVERRULED as to this cause of action.

2nd cause of action (breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing): The complaint states facts sufficient to constitute this cause of action. (Carma Developers (Cal.), Inc. v. Marathon Dev’t California, Inc. (1992) 2 Cal.4th 342, 371 [elements]; see also FAC ¶ 38.) Defendants improperly dispute Plaintiff’s allegations and rely on extrinsic evidence outside the four corners of the pleading. The demurrer is therefore OVERRULED as to this cause of action.

3rd cause of action (unjust enrichment): Unjust enrichment can be asserted as a claim. (Lectrodryer v. SeoulBank (2000) 77 Cal. App. 4th 723, 726; compare Melchior v. New Line Productions, Inc. (2003) 106 Cal.App.4th 779, 793.) The complaint states facts sufficient to constitute this cause of action, which is pleaded as an equitable claim and alternative to the other causes of action. (Peterson v. Cellco Partnership (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 1583, 1593 [elements]; see also FAC ¶ 42.) The demurrer is therefore OVERRULED as to this cause of action.

4th cause of action (fraud and deceit): The complaint states facts sufficient to constitute this cause of action. (Lazar v. Superior Court (1996) 12 Cal.4th 631, 638 [elements]; see also FAC ¶¶ 45-48.) Defendants improperly dispute Plaintiff’s allegations and rely on extrinsic evidence outside the four corners of the pleading. The demurrer is therefore OVERRULED as to this cause of action.

Counsel for Plaintiff shall give notice of this ruling. 12 Chapple v. Before the court is a motion to strike filed by defendants LaserAway Laseraway Medical Group, Inc. dba LaserAway (LaserAway); Roy S. Winston, Medical Group, M.D.; and Ritu Chopra, M.D. (collectively, Defendants) directed to Inc the second amended complaint (SAC) of plaintiff Dwayne Chapple (Plaintiff). For the reasons set forth below, the motion is DENIED.

Defendants move to strike the claim for punitive damages in the SAC. Punitive damages are sought in connection with the causes of action for fraud and battery and are alleged against LaserAway only. (See SAC ¶¶ 78, 93; Opp. at p. 9:15-18.)

It is not clear from the allegations in the SAC that Code of Civil Procedure section 425.13 applies. The SAC does not plead facts showing that LaserAway is a licensed healthcare provider within the meaning of Section 425.13. The SAC does not allege LaserAway is a licensed medical facility or that the individuals who performed the procedure on Plaintiff were licensed health care providers. The SAC, in fact, alleges LaserAway misrepresented that its procedures would be performed by “licensed physicians or other licensed practitioners” and also alleges LaserAway is “illegally practicing medicine.” (SAC ¶¶ 48, 69.)

In addition, while the SAC names two licensed physicians as defendants, Plaintiff does not allege that these physicians made any misrepresentations to Plaintiff regarding his care and treatment or that these physicians performed the laser hair removal procedure on Plaintiff. The fraud and battery claims, thus, do not appear to be premised on the rendering of professional services by these two physician defendants. It thus does not appear to the Court that Section 425.13 is triggered by the inclusion of these two physician defendants.

In terms of Defendants’ argument that Plaintiff has not alleged sufficient facts to demonstrate that LaserAway acted with malice, fraud, or oppression, punitive damages may be available under the