Santiago Ventura vs. Christopher Winkle

Demurrer to Amended Complaint

Cal. Super. - 4th Dist.May 24, 2017

A N n n W N 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 CARROLL, KELLY, TROTTER, FRANZEN, McBRIDE & PEABODY MICHAEL J. TROTTER (SBN 139034) MATTHEW N. TROTTER (SBN 201370) DAVID P. PRUETT (SBN 155849) 111 West Ocean Boulevard, 14th Floor Post Office Box 22636 Long Beach, California 90801-5636 Telephone No. (562) 432-5855 / Facsimile No. (562) 432-8785 Attorneys for Defendant, Prime Healthcare Services-Garden Grove, LLP dba Garden Grove Hospital Medical Center [erroneously named and served herein as Garden Grove Hospital] SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF ORANGE SANTIAGO VENTURA, a minor, by and CASE NO.: 30-2017 00922125 through his Guardian ad Litem, MARIA VENTURA; AND MARIA VENTURA AND, NOTICE OF DEMURRER AND SANTIAGO MENDOZA, Individually, DEMURRER OF DEFENDANT GARDEN GROVE HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER Plaintiffs, TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT; MEMORANDUM OF VS. POINTS AND AUTHORITIES CHRISTOPHER WINKLE, M.D.; WOMEN'S [Filed concurrently with Declaration regarding Meet HEALTH CENTER; AND GARDEN GROVE and Confer, C.C.P. §435.5; Motion to Strike; HOSPITAL; and DOES 1 to 100, Request for Judicial Notice] Defendants. DATE: October 25, 2018 TIME: 1:30 p.m. DEPT.: C32 Res #: 72883667 ASSIGNED FOR ALL PURPOSES TO: JUDGE: RICHARD LEE DEPARTMENT: C32 Complaint Filed: 5/24/17 Trial Date: 5/6/19 1" 1" 1" E:\74\983-69\PIA\DEMURRER 1AC.Docx 1 DEMURRER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT A N n n W N 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 TABLE OF CONTENTS NOTICE...u.uuoninrneesennneninennnsnnsanssesssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssasssssssssssssssssssssssssssasssssssssssssssass 5 DEMURRER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT........cccevnininnnsensunsnesanssessesssssessassassanes 6 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES.......uuuuinenrenennnsensneseesanssessesssssessaes 7 I. INTRODUCTION ....cciiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiciciesseessreesees7 II. PROCEDURAL HISTORY LEADING TO THIS demurrer ..........cccoceeveerneenneeneennen. 8 III. PLAINTIFFS’ LABELING OF CLAIMS DOES NOT CONTROL ........cccccceceeveenneen. 9 IV. CLAIMS FOR PROFESSIONAL NEGLIGENCE OR ABUSE ARE MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE, AND SUCH CLAIMS ARE DIVIDED, LIKE A “TOGGLE SWITCH,” BY THEIR GRAVAMEN ........cooiiiiiiinieeceeeeneeects 10 BECAUSE THE GRAVAMEN OF THIS ACTION IS PROFESSIONAL NEGLIGENCE, PLAINTIFFS’ MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE THEORY OF ABUSE IS IMPROPERLc.eeeeeesees esaeeesabeeesabeeeabeeeeee 12 VI. PLAINTIFFS HAVE FAILED TO STATE FACTS SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT A CLAIM FOR ABUSE AGAINST GARDEN GROVE HOSPITAL........................ 14 A. Discussion of the Inapposite Holding of Stewart v. Superior Court ....... 14 B. Facts Here, Unlike in Stewart, Refute Abuse (and Concealment, BALEIY)«eeebees16 C. Unlike in Stewart, the Facts Here Refute Any Finding of Custodial CTEceeeeeeeeeteeeeeee eee sates sabes sabe eet esa estas 17 D. Alexander v. Scripps Memorial Hospital La Jolla Recognizes that Provision of In Patient Hospital Care Does Not, by Itself, Equate to CUSTOAIAL CATC....eeeuiiieiiiiiecitieseectsaes aes 18 VII. PLAINTIFFS HAVE FAILED TO STATE FACTS SUPPORTING A THEORY OF “BATTERYcetteeeete eteettere sabes sabe e esa esses 20 VIII. PLAINTIFFS HAVE NOT ALLEGED A VALID THEORY OF “FRAUD/CONCEALMENTLootesas21 IX. CONCLUSION...cotteresates sabes sabe e estes esabe ee sabe ee sabeessaeas 21 PROOF OF SERVICE ......uuuiiiiininiiinssinssscssssssssssssissssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss 22,23 E:\74\983-69\PI\DEMURRER 1AC.Docx 2 DEMURRER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT A N n n W N 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES California Cases Alexander v. Scripps Memorial Hospital La Jolla (2018) 23 Cal.APP.Sth 200eeeeeeee 18, 19 Barouh v. Haberman (1994) 26 Cal.APP.Ath 40 ooneeeeeeeee eeesarees 20 Barris v. County ofLos Angeles (1999) 20 Cal.dth TOT ooneeeeeeeeetcetera essa essa esas 10 Brown v. Kelly Broadcasting Co. (1989) 48 Cal.3d TITeee15,16 Burgess v. Superior Court (1992) 2 Calidth TOO ......eeeeeeee eeeeeeee eee sees sees sates sabe e esate esses 14 Carter v. Prime Healthcare Paradise Valley LLC (2011) 198 Cal.APP-Ath 396 convienteeeeee eeesees sae eee 11,19 Cobbs v. Grant (1972) 8 Cal.3d 229...eeeeeesete eeesaeessa passim Conte v. Girard Orthopaedic Surgeons Medical Group, Inc. (2003) 107 Cal.APP.4th 1260 ......eeiiiieiiieeiieeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeesac 20 Country Villa Claremont Healthcare Center, Inc. v. Superior Court (2004) 120 CalAPP-Ath 426 ....ooeiiiiieee ectsete eeeeeesaaneees 11 Covenant Care, Inc. v. Superior Court (2004) 32 Cal.th TTT oooeeeeeeseteestes saae essa esas 7,10 Delaney v. Baker (1999) 20 Cal.dth 23 o.ooeeeeeeeeeeteeeeestes sabe e esate essa ee aae es 7 Harris v. Capital Growth Investors XIV (1991) 52 Cal.3d 1142 eeeeeeeeeeee sees sete sates sabes sabe e esas 15 Harris v. Superior Court (1992) 3 Cal.APP.Ath O61ceniteeeeee eee 14, 15 Hensler v. City of Glendale (1994) 8 CallAth T onseeeeee sete eee sabe essa e esate esas 10 Kritzer v. Citron (1950) TOT CalAPP-2d 33 eeeeeeeeeeee eee sees sees sates sabe eesabe esses 20 Larson v. UHS ofRancho Springs, Inc. (2014) 230 CalAPP-Ath 3360 ...eoeiiiieiieeeieeeeeeeetesteers sees sabes 9,10 E:\74\983-69\PI\DEMURRER 1AC.Docx 3 DEMURRER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT A N n n W N 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Loeffler v. Target Corp. (2014) 58 Cal.4Ath TO8T eeeeeeetersee eae este e reste e sate sene anes 14 Piedra v. Dugan (2004) 123 CalAPP.4th 1483 o.ooeterseteee sate sabe e sees eees 20 Richelle L. v. Roman Catholic Archbishop (2003) 106 CalAPPA 257 eeeeeebtesaber eet ee saa eas 9 Rosen v. St. Joseph Hospital of Orange County (2011) 193 CalAPP.Ath 453 oooeeeeeeatest esate eater e ete e saa ees 9 Sababin v. Superior Court (2006) 144 CalAPP-Ath 81 oonetersete eeeeee sate setae eees 11 Smith v. Ben Bennett, Inc. (2005) 133 CalAPP-Ath 1507eonseeeeee sates eee ees 11 Stewart v. Superior Court (2017) 16 CalLAPP.Sth 87 eeeeeeeeeeteeseessa esas 14 Supreme Court, in Delaney v. Baker (1999) 20 Cal.dth 23 ...oeeeiee ectssteer eert teste sabe atest ee eaae ene anes 10 Winn v. Pioneer Medical Group, Inc. (2016) 63 Cal.Ath 148 eeeeersteeee eters ee eae etter eee ee sate enna e nes 12 California Statutes & Rules Code of Civil Procedure SECON 340.5 Lpet DAVID P. PRUETT E:\74\983-69\PIA\DEMURRER 1AC.Docx 22 DEMURRER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT N O 0 0 N N O N w n A W N B N N N N N N N N N e m e m e m p t p d p e d p e d p d e d pe es © N N A N W n B A W N = O O C O C N N n s W N = O PROOF OF SERVICE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES I am employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. I am over the age of 18 and not a party to the within action. My business address is Post Office Box 22636, Long Beach, CA 90801-5636. On October 2, 2018, I served a true and correct copy of the following document NOTICE OF DEMURRER AND DEMURRER OF DEFENDANT GARDEN GROVE HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES on the list of interested parties below: Dennis K. Ames, Esq. 74-983-69 Michael Doubet, Esq. Carly Valentine, Esq. LaFollette, Johnson, DeHaas, Fesler & Ames 2677 North Main Street, Suite 901 Santa Ana, California 92705 714/972-0379 facsimile MDoubet@]ljdfa.com CValentine@]jdfa.com JBustos@ljdfa.com SSong@ljdfa.com Attorneys for Defendants Christopher Winkle, M.D. and Women’s Health Center O By United States Mail (CCP §§1013a, et seq.): I enclosed said document(s) in a sealed envelope or package to each addressee. I placed the envelope for collection and mailing, following our ordinary business practices. I am readily familiar with the firm’s practice for collecting and processing correspondence for mailing. On the same day that correspondence is placed for collection and mailing, it is deposited in the ordinary course of business with the United States Postal Service, with postage fully prepaid. O By Overnight Delivery/Express Mail (CCP §§1013(c)(d), et seq.): I enclosed said document(s) in a sealed envelope or package provided by an overnight delivery carrier to each addressee. I placed the envelope or package, delivery fees paid for, for collection and overnight delivery at an office or at a regularly utilized drop box maintained by the express service carrier at 111 West Ocean Boulevard, Long Beach, California. O By Messenger Service: I enclosed said document(s) in a sealed envelope or package to each addressee. 1 provided them to a professional messenger service (Signal Attorney Service) for service. An original proof of service by messenger will be filed pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1300(c). X] By Electronic Transmission: Based on an agreement ofthe parties to accept service by e-mail or electronic mail transmission, I caused the document(s) to be sent from e-mail address |baker@cktfmlaw.com to each addressee’s email address(es) as set forth on the above service list. I did not receive, within a reasonable time after the transmission, any electronic message or other indication that the transmission was unsuccessful. I declare underthe penalty ofperjury underthe laws ofthe S ifornia and of the United States that the foregoing is true and correct. / Executed on October 2, 2018, at Long Beach, California. LAURIEBAKER— E:\74\983-69\PId\DEMURRER 1AC.Docx 23 DEMURRER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT