Motion to Quash Service of Summons
breach of duty, causation and damages apply.” (Slaughter vs. Legal Process & Courier Serv. (1984) 162 Cal.App.3d 1236, 1249.)
“The California Supreme Court has allowed plaintiffs to recover damages as ‘direct victims’ in only three types of factual situations: (1) the negligent mishandling of corpses (Christensen v. Superior Court (1991) 54 Cal.3d 868, 879 [2 Cal.Rptr.2d 79, 820 P.2d 181]); (2) the negligent misdiagnosis of a disease that could potentially harm another (Molien, supra, 27 Cal.3d at p. 923); and (3) the negligent breach of a duty arising out of a preexisting relationship (Burgess v. Superior Court (1992) 2 Cal.4th 1064, 1076 [9 Cal.Rptr.2d 615, 831 P.2d 1197]).” (Judicial Council Of California Civil Jury Instruction 1620.)
Greget did not allege sufficient facts to state this cause of action. More specifically, there is a failure to allege with sufficiency facts to show that a duty arose out of an existing relationship. Demurrer is sustained with 15 days leave to amend.
Prayer Plaintiffs also take issue with Greget’s prayer for declaratory relief and injunction; however, that is not a proper matter for demurrer. The Court declines to consider whether Greget’s prayer for declaratory relief and injunction is proper.
Plaintiffs shall give notice.
Case Management Conference
Continued to August 3, 2026 at 9:00 a.m. 3 First Foundation Inc. vs. Keller
2025-01493220 Motion to Compel Production
There is no tentative 4 Galindo vs. Sosoatu
2025-01536978 Motion to Strike Portions Of Complaint
Continued to 08/03/2026 5 McPherson vs. Donald & Lynn Southard, LLC
Motion to Quash Service of Summons
Continued to 07/06/2026
2025-01494975 Continued to 07/06/2026 6 Pham vs. Truong, MD.
2024-01407145 Motion for Summary Judgment and/or Adjudication
The unopposed motion of defendants Son Truong, M.D. and Struong Cosmetic for summary judgment on plaintiffs Binh Duong and Dieu Pham aka Mei Tiao Fan for medical negligence and loss of consortium is granted.
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
Legal Standard
A “party moving for summary judgment bears an initial burden of production to make a prima facie showing of the nonexistence of any triable issue of material fact . . . .” Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 850. “A prima facie showing is one that is sufficient to support the position of the party in question.” Id. at 851. A defendant seeking summary judgment meets the burden of showing that a cause of action has no merit by showing that one or more elements of the cause of action cannot be established or that there is a complete defense to that cause of action.
Code Civ. Proc. § 437c(p)(2); Villacres v. ABM Industries, Inc. (2010) 189 Cal.App.4th 562, 575. The scope of this burden is determined by the allegations of the plaintiff’s complaint. FPI Development, Inc. v. Nakashima (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 367, 381–382 (pleadings serve as the outer measure of materiality in a summary judgment motion); 580 Folsom Associates v. Prometheus Development Co. (1990) 223 Cal.App.3d 1, 18–19 (respondent only required to defeat allegations reasonably contained in the complaint).
A cause of action “cannot be established” if the undisputed facts presented by the defendant prove the contrary of the plaintiff’s allegations as a matter of law. Brantley v. Pisaro (1996) 42 Cal.App.4th 1591, 1597.
Once the defendant’s burden is met, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to show that a triable issue of fact exists as to that cause of action. Id. In making this determination, the moving party’s affidavits are strictly construed while those of the opposing party are liberally construed. Villacres v. ABM Industries, Inc., 189 Cal. pp.4th at 575. The facts alleged in the evidence of the party opposing summary judgment and the reasonable inferences therefrom must be accepted as true. Id.
Substantive Law The elements of a professional negligence cause of action are: (1) the duty of the professional to use such skill, prudence and diligence as other members of his profession commonly possess and exercise; (2) breach of that duty; (3) a proximate causal connection between the negligent conduct and the resulting injury; and (4) actual loss or