Julian Benito Zermeno, et al. v. Atla Los Angeles Hospitals Inc., et al.

Expenses Plaintiff requests $1,172.96 in costs and expenses. Defendant challenges the cost for routine administrative filings, but most of the filings generally appear proper and reasonably incurred in the commencement and prosecution of this action. The Court only strikes the filing fees for the two requests for dismissal and the estimated filing fee for a reply brief, for a total reduction of $54.93. Defendant also complains that Plaintiff should not recover the cost of serving the summons and complaint, the cost to electronically file or serve, or the cost for appearance lawyers. This argument is unpersuasive because these costs all appear reasonable.

III. CONCLUSION In sum, the Court grants Plaintiff's motion for attorney fees, costs, and expenses in part in the amount of $14,021.03, consisting of $12,903 in fees and $1,118.03 in costs. Dated this 25th day of August 2026 | | | William A. Crowfoot Judge of the Superior Court | Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at [email protected] indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.

Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the matter. Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue. If the Court does not receive emails from the parties indicating submission on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may, at its discretion, adopt the tentative as the final order or place the motion off calendar.

OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - NORTHEAST DISTRICT JULIAN BENITO ZERMENO, by and through his successor-in-interest, JOSE LUIS ZERMENO and BEATRIZ MORENO, et al., Plaintiff(s), vs.

ATLA LOS ANGELES HOSPITALS INC. dba LOS ANGELES COMMUNITY HOSPITAL, et al., Defendant(s). |))))))))))))))) | CASE NO.: 24NNCV00137 [TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: DEFENDANT GADSON JOHNSON'S DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF'S SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION FOR BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY; DEFENDANT HIRUY GESSESSE'S DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF'S SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION FOR BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY Dept. 3 8:30 a.m. August 25, 2026 |

I. INTRODUCTION On March 8, 2024, Jose Luis Zermeno and Beatriz Moreno (collectively, "Plaintiffs"), individually and as successors-in-interest to Julian Benito Zermeno ("Julian"), filed this action against Gadson Johnson, M.D. ("Dr. Johnson") and Hiruy Gessesse, M.D. ("Dr. Gessesse", erroneously sued as Hiruy Genessee) (collectively, "Defendants"). Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint on June 16, 2026. Plaintiffs allege, as part of their Second Cause of Action for breach of fiduciary duty, that Defendants violated their fiduciary duty by placing Julian in an inappropriate and unsafe adult residential facility and placed their own interest in discharging Julian ahead of Julian's need for placement in a locked/secured facility. (FAC, P.P. 69, 70.)

Plaintiffs allege Defendants failed to speak with Zermeno, Julian's conservator, and failed to establish a safe plan for discharge or obtain Zermeno's written consent before signing off on Julian's discharge and transfer. (FAC, P. 73.) As a result, Julian was transferred to an "unsecured adult residential facility from which he fled on or about March 10, 2023, and was fatally struck by an SUV, resulting in life threatening injuries that caused his death." (FAC, P. 74.)

On July 7, 2026, Defendants each filed a demurrer to Plaintiff's Second Cause of Action on the grounds that it is duplicative, uncertain, fails to state facts sufficient to maintain a cause of action, and is vague and ambiguous. Plaintiffs filed opposition briefs on August 11, 2026. Defendants each filed a reply brief on August 18, 2026.

II. LEGAL STANDARD A demurrer may be brought if insufficient facts are stated to support the cause of action asserted. (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 430.10, subd. (e).) A demurrer tests the legal sufficiency of the pleadings and will be sustained only where the pleading is defective on its face. (City of Atascadero v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 445, 459.) "We treat the demurrer as admitting all material facts properly pleaded but not contentions, deductions or conclusions of fact or law.

We accept the factual allegations of the complaint as true and also consider matters which may be judicially noticed. [Citation.]" (Mitchell v. California Department of Public Health (2016) 1 Cal.App.5th 1000, 1007; Del E. Webb Corp. v. Structural Materials Co. (1981) 123 Cal.App.3d 593, 604 ["the facts alleged in the pleading are deemed to be true, however improbable they may be"].)

A demurrer may also be brought for uncertainty. (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 430.10, subd. (f).) "A demurrer for uncertainty is strictly construed, even where a complaint is in some respects uncertain, because ambiguities can be clarified under modern discovery procedures." (Khoury v. Maly's of California, Inc. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 612, 616.) Where the complaint contains substantial factual allegations sufficiently apprising defendant of the issues it is being asked to meet, a demurrer for uncertainty will be overruled or plaintiff will be given leave to amend. (Williams v. Beechnut Nutrition Corp. (1986) 185 Cal.App.3d 135, 139, fn. 2.)

III. DISCUSSION "The elements of a cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty are: (1) the existence of a fiduciary duty; (2) breach of the fiduciary duty; and (3) damage proximately caused by the breach." (Jameson v. Desta (2013) 215 Cal.App.4th 1144, 1164.) "[A] physician has a fiduciary duty to disclose all information material to the patient's decision," when soliciting a patient's consent to a medical procedure. (Moore v. Regents of University of California (1990) 51 Cal.3d 120, 129 (Moore), citing, among other cases, Cobbs v. Grant (1972) 8 Cal.3d 229, 242.) A cause of action premised on a physician's breach of this fiduciary duty may alternatively be referred to as a claim for lack of informed consent. (See, e.g., Moore, supra, at p. 133.)

Defendants argue that Plaintiffs fail to allege a breach of fiduciary duty because there are no allegations regarding Dr. Johnson's involvement in the decision to discharge or transfer Julian and Dr. Gessesse is the only physician who allegedly signed the discharge paperwork. However, both doctors were allegedly assigned to the care of Julian in their capacity as psychiatrists and Julian was under their care, supervision, guidance, and control. (FAC, P.P. 22-23.) Both physicians allegedly assessed him and failed to establish a safe plan for discharge. (FAC, P. 69.) Therefore, Dr. Johnson's demurrer on this ground is OVERRULED.

Defendants also argue that Plaintiffs' breach of fiduciary duty is duplicative of Plaintiffs' negligence claim. However, Plaintiffs argue their breach of fiduciary duty claim is not based on a failure to exercise due care in providing medical treatment, but on disloyalty and failure to provide the information necessary to make an informed decision. (Opp., p. 10.) Plaintiffs argue that they may be able to establish a breach of fiduciary duty without establishing negligence, or vice versa, due to the different elements required for each claim. The Court notes that Plaintiffs assert 18 different counts under their First Cause of Action for negligence but failing to obtain informed consent and provide all material information to Plaintiffs is not included in any of them. Accordingly, the Court agrees that the Second Cause of Action is not duplicative.

IV. CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing, Defendants' demurrers are OVERRULED. Moving party to give notice. Dated this 25th day of August 2026 | | | William A. Crowfoot Judge of the Superior Court | Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at [email protected] indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org. Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the matter. Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue. If the Court does not receive emails from the parties indicating submission on this tentative ruling and there are no