Aura v. Shabnam

(Van Nuys Courthouse East: Dept. B) September 8, 2026 DEPARTMENT B LAW AND MOTION RULINGS Attorneys who elect to submit on these published tentative rulings, without making an appearance at the hearing, may so notify the Court by communicating this to the Department's staff before the set hearing time. See, e.g., CRC Rule 324(b).

Aura v. Shabnam, Case no. 24VECV03649 Hearing date September 8, 2026 Defendant Tarzana's Demurrer to the SAC - UNOPPOSED Defendant Tarzana's Motion to Deem RFAs Admitted - UNOPPOSED Plaintiff Aura, in pro per, sues defendants Shabnam, M.D., and Tarzana Medical Center, LLC for medical practice. Defendant Tarzana demurs to the second amended complaint and moves to deem RFAs admitted. Both are unopposed.

Defendant Tarzana's Demurrer to the SAC Plaintiff Aura alleged "medical" and "motor vehicle" causes of action. Defendant Tarzana generally and specially demurred as unintelligible and uncertain. The unopposed demurrer was sustained with leave to amend. See 3/20/26 Min. Order.

Plaintiff's first amended complaint alleged one cause of action for medical malpractice. Tarzana demurred generally and specially, arguing plaintiff failed to plead specific facts. The unopposed demurrer was sustained with leave to amend. See 6/18/26 Min. Order.

"The function of a demurrer is to test the sufficiency of the complaint as a matter of law." Holiday Matinee, Inc. v. Rambus, Inc. (2004) 118 Cal.App.4th 1413, 1420. A complaint "is sufficient if it alleges ultimate rather than evidentiary facts," Doe v. City of Los Angeles (2007) 42 Cal.4th 531, 550, but plaintiff must allege essential facts "with reasonable precision and with particularity sufficient to acquaint [the] defendant with the nature, source and extent" of the plaintiff's claim. Doheny Park Terrace Homeowners Ass'n., Inc. v. Truck Ins. Exchange (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 1076, 1099.

Plaintiff now alleges "[t]he hospital staff especially 2 lady [sic] ignored when I asked to be seen by another Dr" and "the hospital staff failed to have me to [sic] see another Dr and kept giving me the wrong medication." SAC, p.

4.

Plaintiff fails to identify what medications were not given, what medications were given incorrectly, or that the giving of the "wrong" medications resulted in her harm. Plaintiff fails to specifically allege the nature of her harm, merely alleging "I have been having on going health issue... my hospitalization at Tarzana medical center left me perment [sic] change." Id. This is insufficient to sustain a claim for medical malpractice and is fatally vague.

Plaintiff alleges not all plaintiffs have been named. SAC, para.

1. If accurate, the SAC is defective for failure to name all parties in interest. Further, plaintiff alleges she "[d]id not take any action against Dr. Shabnam." Id. As Shabnam is a named defendant, it is unclear what plaintiff alleges. The SAC is fatally uncertain as to the intended and actual parties in this litigation.

Plaintiff has been given three opportunities to clarify the pleadings and allege facts to sustain a cause of action. Further leave to amend would be futile. SUSTAINED without leave to amend.

Defendant Tarzana's Motion to Deem RFAs Admitted Tarzana moves to deem RFAs admitted and for monetary sanctions. As the court sustained the demurrer without leave to amend, Tarzana is dismissed; the motion is MOOT.

Case Number: 26VECV00783 Hearing Date: September 8, 2026 Dept: B Tentative Ruling Lavie v. Polaris, Case no. 26VECV00783 Hearing date September 8, 2026 Plaintiff Lavie's Motion to Compel Deposition of Defendant Polaris' PMK Plaintiff Lavie sues defendant Polaris Industries, Inc., alleging violations of the Song-Beverly Act. Plaintiff moves to compel the deposition of defendant's PMK and for monetary sanctions. Defendant opposes.

Service of a deposition notice obligates a party to attend and testify. Code Civ. Proc. Sec.2025.280. "If, after service of a deposition notice, a party to the action or an officer, director, managing agent, or employee of a party, or a person designated by an organization that is a party under Section 2025.230, without having served a valid objection under Section 2025.410, fails to appear for examination, or to proceed with it... the party giving the notice may move for an order compelling the deponent's attendance..." Code Civ. Proc. Sec.2025.450(a).

Plaintiff attempted to informally obtain deposition dates (Decl. Shayesteh, paras. 4-5) and served a deposition notice on 7/6/26 for 7/20/26. Id. at para. 6, exh.

1. The notice identified 34 matters for examination and 16 categories of documents for production. Id.

Defendant's objection on 7/15/26 (Decl. Shayesteh, para. 8, exh. 2) consisted of 12 general objections to the notice and did not specify which categories of examination or documentation were subject to objection. Defendant did not offer alternative dates or respond to multiple follow-up meet-and-confer emails. Id., paras. 12-13, exhs. 3-4.

Defendant argues the motion is premature, and plaintiff "served a unilateral notice for deposition... without first properly meeting and conferring with Polaris." Opp., 1:28-2:2. This is not well-taken. Defense counsel concedes plaintiff reached out to confer regarding potential dates prior to serving the deposition notice (Decl. Rabin, para. 5) and followed up after defendant served objections. Id. at para.

11.

Defense counsel does not state alternative dates or responses to the meet-and-confer efforts were provided. Failing to respond to meet-and-confer efforts or provide alternative dates necessitated this motion; an order compelling the deposition of defendant's PMK and awarding sanctions against defendant and counsel is warranted.