Ruwanthi Samaranayake Campano, M.D. v. Reji Varghese

26WM000098: RUWANTHI SAMARANAYAKE CAMPANO, M.D. vs REJI VARGHESE, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MEDICAL BOARD OF CALIFORNIA, DEPARTMENT OF CONSUMER... 08/27/2026 Hearing on Demurrer in Department 3A

Tentative Ruling

DATE/TIME: August 27, 2026 1:30 p.m. DEP. NO.: 3A JUDGE: HON. JENNIFER K. CLERK: S. PAUL ROCKWELL

RUWANTHI SAMARANAYAKE CAMPANO, Case No.: 26WM000098 M.D., Petitioner, v. REJI VARGHESE, in his official capacity as EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MEDICAL BOARD OF CALIFORNIA, DEPARTMENT OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, Respondent.

Nature of Proceedings: Demurrer

The following shall constitute the Court’s tentative ruling on the above matter, set for hearing in Department 3A, on Thursday, August 27, 2026, at 1:30 p.m. The tentative ruling shall become the ruling of the Court, unless a party desiring to be heard so advises the Clerk of Department 3A no later than 4:00 p.m. on the Court day preceding the hearing, and further advises the Clerk that such party has notified the other side of its intention to appear.

The Court strongly encourages parties to appear remotely for the hearing on the tentative ruling through the Court’s Zoom Application. However, any party wishing to appear in person may do

26WM000098: RUWANTHI SAMARANAYAKE CAMPANO, M.D. vs REJI VARGHESE, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MEDICAL BOARD OF CALIFORNIA, DEPARTMENT OF CONSUMER... 08/27/2026 Hearing on Demurrer in Department 3A

so, provided that party notifies the Court by 4:00 the Court day before the hearing.

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

DEPT JUDGE ZOOM LINK MEETING ID

3A Hon. Jennifer K. https://saccourt-ca- 161 5277 4854 Rockwell gov.zoomgov.com/j/16152774854

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 using the list of Court Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore, available at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp- 13.Pdf

If a Court Reporter from the Court’s Approved Official Reporter Pro Tempore list is not used, aStipulation and Appointment of Official Reporter Pro Tempore (CV/E-206) must be signed by each party, the private court reporter, and the Judge prior to the hearing. Once the form is signed, it must be filed with the Clerk of Department 3A.

Pursuant to Government Code Section 69959, Court Reporters are not permitted through the use of remote technology, and any Court Reporter designated for the hearing shall be physically present in the Courtroom.

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 of Department 3A 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 of Department 3A will forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official Court Reporter will be provided.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

26WM000098: RUWANTHI SAMARANAYAKE CAMPANO, M.D. vs REJI VARGHESE, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MEDICAL BOARD OF CALIFORNIA, DEPARTMENT OF CONSUMER... 08/27/2026 Hearing on Demurrer in Department 3A

TENTATIVE RULING

The demurrer of Respondent Reji Varghese (Respondent), named in his official capacity as Executive Director of the Medical Board of California, is unopposed and sustained with leave to amend, as discussed further herein. Petitioner Ruwanthi Samaranayake Campano, M.D. (Petitioner), is a licensed physician. Through this action, Petitioner challenges a decision of the California Medical Board (Medical Board or Board) imposing discipline against Petitioner’s medical license. Petitioner named only Respondent in the Petition for Writ of Mandate filed May 8, 2026. The Medical Board is not named as a respondent.

Legal Standard

A petition for writ of mandate is subject to a demurrer on the same grounds as a civil complaint. (Code Civ. Proc, § 1109; Rodriguez v. Municipal Court (1972) 25 Cal.App.3d 521, 526.) “A demurrer tests only the sufficiency of the pleading.” (Cedar Fair, LP. v. County of Santa Clara (2011) 194 Cal.App.4th 1150, 1159.) A “defect or misjoinder of parties” is a proper ground for demurrer. (Code Civ. Proc. § 430.30, subd. (d).) The court “assume[s] the truth of the properly pleaded factual allegations, facts that reasonably can be inferred from those expressly pleaded and matters of which judicial notice has been taken” (Ivanoff v.

Bank of America, N.A. (2017) 9 Cal.App.5th 719, 725), “ but not contentions, deductions or conclusions of fact or law.” (Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318.) “[T]he... plaintiff’s ability to prove [the pleading's] allegations, or the possible difficulty in making such proof does not concern the reviewing court....” (Cedar Fair, L.P. v. County of Santa Clara, supra, 194 Cal.App.4th at p. 1159, quotations, citations omitted.) In considering a demurrer, the court must determine whether the pleading, standing alone, states a cause of action under any possible legal theory. (Quelimane Co. v.

Stewart Title. Guar Co. (1998) 19 Cal.4th 26, 38-39.) The court should overrule a demurrer if the facts alleged in a complaint or petition are sufficient to state a cause of action. (Ibid.)

Discussion

Respondent demurs on the grounds that as the Executive Director of the Medical Board, he is not the proper respondent because he did not issue the decision challenged through this action for administrative mandamus. Respondent argues that the Medical Board is the entity that issued the decision at issue, citing the Decision dated January 27, 2026, attached as Exhibit A to the

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

26WM000098: RUWANTHI SAMARANAYAKE CAMPANO, M.D. vs REJI VARGHESE, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MEDICAL BOARD OF CALIFORNIA, DEPARTMENT OF CONSUMER... 08/27/2026 Hearing on Demurrer in Department 3A

Petition. (Pet. Exh. A.) Respondent contends that as the Executive Director, he is an employee and officer of the Medical Board, but that the power to take action with regard to disciplinary decisions is reserved to the Board itself: “The board shall not delegate its authority to take final disciplinary action against a licensee as provided in Section 2227 and other provisions of this chapter.” (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 2224, subd. (a).) Thus, Respondent argues, “Petitioner’s failure to name the Board is a threshold defect because the Court lacks jurisdiction over the Board, the real party whose decision is challenged, unless the Board is properly named and served.” (Opening Mem. 6:18-20.)

No opposition to the demurrer was received, which the Court construes as a concession to 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].) However, as this is the first challenge to the pleading, leave to amend will be granted. Accordingly, at this time, the Court declines to address Respondent’s argument that any attempt to cure the defects identified herein would be untimely and not subject to equitable tolling.

Disposition

The demurrer to the Petition is sustained with leave to amend. Any amended pleading shall be filed and served within 30 days of the effective date of this Minute Order. The responsive pleading shall be due within 30 days from the filing of the amended pleading, if any. The Minute Order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312 is required.