Christopher Younger vs. Adventist Health and Rideout

34-2023-00332374-CU-MM-GDS: Christopher Younger vs. Adventist Health and Rideout 03/03/2026 Hearing on Demurrer to Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint in Department 54

Tentative Ruling

Defendants Oracle Corporation and OC Acquisition, LLC’s (collectively, “Oracle”) demurrer to plaintiff Christopher Younger’s (“Plaintiff”) First Amended Complaint (“1AC”) is OVERRULED as follows.

Request for Judicial Notice

Within its memorandum of points and authorities, Oracle requests that the Court take judicial notice of “a public SEC filing, a Form 8-K filed by defendant Cerner Corporation (“Cerner”) and attached as Exhibit A, to establish that Oracle’s acquisition of Cerner occurred well after the events that allegedly caused Plaintiff’s injury, a fact not disputed by Plaintiff (nor reasonably subject to dispute).” (Demurrer at 4:15-19; 9:5-17.) However, Oracle has not filed a separate request for judicial notice seeking judicial notice of any of the documents.

Evidence Code sections 452, 453, and California Rules of Court, Rules 3.1113(l) and 3.1306(c), require the filing of a separate request for judicial notice that lists the specific items for which judicial notice is requested and requires the party seeking judicial notice of material to provide the Court and each party with a copy of the material. Therefore, the Court will not take judicial notice of the documents and did not consider the separately filed document entitled “Exhibit.”

Factual and Procedural Background

This action concerns injuries sustained by Plaintiff, a 14-year-old boy, resulting from untreated sepsis, septic thrombo-emboli, and endocarditis. Plaintiff filed the Complaint on January 3, 2023, and the operative 1AC on August 16, 2024. The 1AC alleges four causes of action for: (1) medical negligence; (2) strict products liability; (3) negligent products liability; and (4) negligence.

Oracle was first named as a defendant via two Amendments to Complaint, filed on October 7, 2025, which named Oracle Corporation as Does 101 and 151 and OC Acquisition, LLC as Does 102 and 152. Only the second, third, and fourth causes of action are asserted against Oracle.

The 1AC alleges that Cerner and Does 101 through 150 were and have been engaged in the business of designing, manufacturing, marketing and selling the Cerner Millennium electronic health record platform (“EHR”). (1AC ¶¶ 45, 58.) “[A] fundamental purpose of [EHR] is maintaining an integrated patient health system, and one of its core functions is documenting, tracking and reporting a patient’s health profile, which includes a complete and accurate medical history.” (1AC ¶ 45.)

34-2023-00332374-CU-MM-GDS: Christopher Younger vs. Adventist Health and Rideout 03/03/2026 Hearing on Demurrer to Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint in Department 54

Since 2010, Cerner has also offered its St. John Sepsis Agent together with the Millennium system. (1AC ¶ 4.) The Sepsis Agent uses “machine learning and clouddeployed predictive algorithms” and “monitors patients at risk for sepsis and triggers an alarm when a certain number of qualifying symptoms are present.” (1AC ¶ 50.)

Plaintiff claims his injuries resulted in part from defects in the St. John Sepsis Agent and Millennium platform, both of which were in place at Rideout Memorial Hospital when Plaintiff was treated there in 2021. (1AC ¶¶ 2, 7, 51?53, 58, 67.) The 1AC alleges that had Cerner’s “sepsis management tools triggered sepsis alerts,” Plaintiff’s healthcare providers could have “prevent[ed] the more destructive effects of sepsis that [he] ultimately sustained.” (1AC ¶ 57.)

The 1AC asserts several purported defects in the manufacture and design of the Sepsis Agent, including that it used parameters outside “industry standards,” did not account for differences between adult and pediatric patients, and “CERNER failed to disclose to users that its product was not suited for pediatric patients.” (1AC ¶¶ 5, 52.) The 1AC also alleges defects in Millennium, including that its “interoperability functions” - the ability to share data across organizations - were defective and failed to populate unspecified medical records from Plaintiff’s prior hospital visits, and that Millennium failed to “properly generate[] and transmit[] to physicians” certain information, such as lab results. (1AC ¶¶ 9, 35, 36, 59.)

Oracle demurs to the second, third, and fourth causes of action on the ground Plaintiff has failed to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action and/or that the causes of action are uncertain.

Legal Standard

The function of a demurrer is to test the sufficiency of the pleading it challenges by raising questions of law. (Salimi v. State Comp. Ins. Fund (1997) 54 Cal.App.4th 216, 219; Nordlinger v. Lynch (1990) 225 Cal.App.3d 1259, 1271.) A demurrer “tests the pleadings alone and not the evidence or other extrinsic matters.” (SKF Farms v. Superior Court (1984) 153 Cal.App.3d 902, 905.) Extrinsic evidence may not properly be considered on demurrer or on a motion to strike. (Ion Equipment Corp. v. Nelson (1980) 110 Cal.App.3d 868, 881; Hibernia Savings & Loan Soc. v. Thornton (1897) 117 Cal. 481, 482.)

For the purpose of determining the effect of a complaint, its allegations are liberally construed, with a view toward substantial justice. (Code Civ. Proc. § 452; Amarel v. Connell (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 137, 140-141; Quelimane Co. v. Stewart Title Guaranty Co. (1998) 19 Cal.4th 26, 43, fn. 7.) In this respect, the Court treats the demurrer as

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2023-00332374-CU-MM-GDS: Christopher Younger vs. Adventist Health and Rideout 03/03/2026 Hearing on Demurrer to Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint in Department 54

admitting all material facts properly pleaded, but not contentions, deductions or conclusions of fact or law, and considers matters which may be judicially dnoticed. (Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318; Poseidon Development, Inc. v. Woodland Lane Estates, LLC (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 1106, 1111-1112.)

A demurrer may be sustained only if the complaint lacks any sufficient allegations to entitle the plaintiff to relief. (Financial Corp. of America v. Wilburn (1987) 189 Cal.App.3d 764, 778.) “Plaintiff need only plead facts showing that he may be entitled to some relief . . ., we are not concerned with plaintiff's possible inability or difficulty in proving the allegations of the complaint.” (Highlanders, Inc. v. Olsan (1978) 77 Cal.App.3d 690, 696-697.) The sole issue raised by a general demurrer is whether the facts pled state a valid cause of action, not whether they are true. (Serrano v. Priest (1971) 5 Cal.3d 584, 591.)

Discussion

Oracle notes that it was added via Doe Amendments and the 1AC remains the operative pleading. It contends that the 1AC “contains no added facts or allegations specific to Oracle or its supposed role (which was non-existent) in developing and implementing Cerner’s technology. In fact, the FAC, on its face, identifies only ‘CERNER’s defective products or services. FAC ¶ 99; see, e.g., FAC ¶¶1?9, 45?46, 48?51, 55?61, 66?67, 70, 76, 78.” (Demurrer at 5:4-7.) Oracle argues that given the absence of allegations specific to Oracle, the claims are uncertain.

To the extent Oracle demurs on grounds of uncertainty, the demurrer is OVERRULED. The allegations are not so uncertain that Oracle cannot frame a response. Demurrers for uncertainty are disfavored and are only granted where the complaint is so muddled that the defendant cannot reasonably respond. The favored approach is to clarify theories in the complaint through discovery. (A.J. Fistes Corp. v. GDL Best Contractors, Inc. (2019) 38 Cal.App.5th 677, 695; see also Khoury v. Maly’s of Calif., Inc. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 612, 616.)

Moreover, Oracle contends “the 1AC names only ‘the CERNER Millennium EHR system and its accompanying sepsis tool’ and, therefore, does not put Oracle on notice of what Oracle products allegedly were used and were defective, the nature of the alleged defect(s), or how the alleged defect(s) caused Plaintiff’s injuries.” (Demurrer at 5:19-22.) Oracle argues the 1AC alleges only that Oracle was “engaged in the business of” manufacturing and implementing “computer software, including electronic health record systems and other information technology products and services,” and that Oracle “intended for Cerner’s products to be used within California by healthcare providers.” (1AC ¶ 27.) Oracle continues that because the 1AC fails to identify any Oracle product,

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2023-00332374-CU-MM-GDS: Christopher Younger vs. Adventist Health and Rideout 03/03/2026 Hearing on Demurrer to Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint in Department 54

it also fails to allege that such a product was defective and the nature of that defect—an element required for each of Plaintiff’s products liability claims against Oracle.

In opposition, Plaintiff argues the 1AC sufficiently alleges that Oracle was involved in the manufacturing, development, marketing, and distribution of the Millenium EHR system because the 1AC alleges that Cerner, as well as Does 101-150, “were and have been engaged in the business of designing, creating, developing, manufacturing, testing, operating, distributing, selling, inspecting, installing, implementing, advertising, promoting, and marketing the CERNER Millennium electronic health record (“EHR”) platform.” (1AC ¶ 45.)

The 1AC further alleges, “CERNER and Does 101-150, inclusive, designed, manufactured, developed, operated, tested, inspected, marketed, advertised, promoted, installed, distributed, and sold the Millennium EHR system and associated sepsis management tools with defects in design which made the Millennium EHR system dangerous, hazardous, and unsafe for its intended and reasonably foreseeable use. The Millennium EHR system and its included sepsis monitoring, surveillance and management tools did not perform as safely as an ordinary consumer would have expected them to perform when used in an intended and reasonably foreseeable way.

The Millennium EHR system was used in its intended and reasonably foreseeable manner on August 25, 2021 at RIDEOUT hospital’s emergency department.” (1AC ¶ 58.) Plaintiff asserts this is sufficient to alleges a claim for strict products liability.

The Court agrees that the allegations are sufficient to state a claim against Oracle. As noted above, Oracle was added via two Doe Amendments, and the 1AC specifically alleges that those Does were involved in the manufacture, sale, distribution, and chain of commerce of the Millenium EHR system, which was defective and allegedly caused Plaintiff’s injuries.

Products liability may be premised upon a theory of design defect, manufacturing defect, or failure to warn. (Anderson v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. (1991) 53 Cal.3d 987, 995.) A plaintiff may seek recovery in a products liability case either on the theory of strict liability in tort or on the theory of negligence. The rules of products liability focus responsibility for defects, whether negligently or non-negligently caused, on the manufacturer of the completed product. Thus, under either a negligence or a strict liability theory of products liability, to recover from a manufacturer, a plaintiff must prove that a defect caused injury, but under a negligence theory, a plaintiff must also prove an additional element, namely, that the defect in the product was due to negligence of the defendant. (Trejo v.

Johnson & Johnson (2017) 13 Cal.App.5th 110, 125, citing Merrill v. Navegar, Inc. (2001) 26 Cal.4th 465, 478, 479.) A manufacturer is strictly liable in tort when an article he places on the market, knowing that it is to be used without inspection for defects, proves to have a defect that causes injury. That rule is equally applicable to the manufacturer and the retailer. (Barrett v. Atlas Powder Co.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2023-00332374-CU-MM-GDS: Christopher Younger vs. Adventist Health and Rideout 03/03/2026 Hearing on Demurrer to Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint in Department 54

(1978) 86 Cal. App. 3d 560, 562.)

Here, the 1AC sufficiently states a claim of products liability against Oracle as it alleges Oracle was involved in the development, manufacture, and distribution of the allegedly defective Millenium EHR system. Oracle’s argument that the 1AC fails to identify any specific Oracle product that harmed Plaintiff is rejected and the demurrer on this ground is OVERRULED.

To the extent Oracle’s demurrer relies upon Oracle’s acquisition of Cerner and whether Oracle assumed Cerner’s liabilities, this relies upon extrinsic evidence for which judicial notice has not been properly sought and is, therefore, unsupported and rejected.

To the extent Oracle argues discovery establishes Plaintiff’s claims fail, this argument is not properly considered on a demurrer, which is limited only to the allegations and four corners of the pleading, as well as matters upon which judicial notice is properly sought and granted.

Conclusion

Oracle’s demurrer is OVERRULED. Oracle shall serve an Answer to the 1AC no later than March 17, 2026.

The minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1312, or further notice is required.

NOTICE:

Consistent with Local Rule 1.06(B), any party requesting oral argument on any matter on this calendar must comply with the following procedure:

To request limited oral argument, on any matter on this calendar, you must call the Law and Motion Oral Argument Request Line at (916) 874-2615 by 4:00 p.m. the Court day before the hearing and advise opposing counsel. At the time of requesting oral argument, the requesting party shall leave a voice mail message: a) identifying themselves as the party requesting oral argument; b) indicating the specific matter/motion for which they are requesting oral argument; and c) confirming that it has notified the opposing party of its intention to appear and that opposing party may appear via Zoom using the Zoom link and Meeting ID indicated below. If no request for oral argument is made, the tentative ruling becomes the final order of the Court.

Unless ordered to appear in person by the Court, parties may appear remotely either telephonically or by video conference via the Zoom video/audio conference platform with notice to the Court and all other parties in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure 367.75. Although remote participation is not required, the Court will presume all parties are appearing remotely for non-evidentiary civil hearings. The Department 54 Zoom Link is https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/my/sscdept53.54 and the Zoom Meeting ID is 161 4650 6749. To appear on

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2023-00332374-CU-MM-GDS: Christopher Younger vs. Adventist Health and Rideout 03/03/2026 Hearing on Demurrer to Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint in Department 54

Zoom telephonically, call (833) 568-8864 and enter the Zoom Meeting ID referenced above. NO COURTCALL APPEARANCES WILL BE ACCEPTED.

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

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.