Mackey, Michael vs. Imperial Ambulance, Inc.

Case No.: VCU324455 Date: June 15, 2026 Time: 8:30 A.M. Dept. 9-The Honorable Nathan D. Ide Motion: Kaweah's Demurrer to Amended Complaint Tentative Ruling: To overrule the demurrer; to order Defendant Kaweah to answer the complaint no later than ten (10) days from the date of this hearing.

Facts In the operative amended complaint, Plaintiff sues, amongst others, "Kaweah Delta Healthcare District, a California corporation" for medical negligence and negligence arising out of an incident on or about August 9, 2024.

Plaintiff alleges "Plaintiff was a patient at Defendants' facility and was being transferred from an ambulance to a wheelchair by Defendants' employee. As Defendants' employee transferred Plaintiff, they improperly performed the transfer and dropped Plaintiff into the wheelchair and/or to the ground." (FAC P.12.)

As to claim presentation, Plaintiff alleges: "KAWEAH DELTA HEALTH CARE DISTRICT and DOES 1 through 25, were served with a claim for damages pursuant to Government Code Section 911.2 on or about February 7, 2025 and has not been rejected by an agent for Defendants. Pursuant to KAWEAH DELTA HEALTH CARE DISTRICT'S bylaws, its principal place of business is located at 400 W Mineral King Ave., Visalia, CA 93291, which is the location that the claim was sent to. The claim was delivered and accepted on February 10, 2025. Plaintiff has complied with the claims statute or has substantially complied with the claims statute." (FAC P.9.)

Defendant Kaweah demurrers to the amended complaint as to failure to comply with the presentation requirements and no exception exists to excuse Plaintiff therefrom.

Defendant attaches the following in support of its demurrer: "4. Attached hereto as "Exhibit B" and fully incorporated herein by this reference, is a true and correct copy of the February 7, 2025, letter which was sent from Plaintiffs counsel to Kaweah Delta Health Care District, Attn: Risk Management.

5. Attached hereto as "Exhibit C" and fully incorporated herein by this reference, is a true and correct copy of the August 5, 2025, letter which was sent from Plaintiffs counsel to 'Kaweah Delta Hospital.'"

Further, Defendant seeks judicial notice of Kaweah's Certificate of Filing with the State of California Secretary of State In opposition, Plaintiff argues that the certified claim was sent to the address noted as the principal place of business in the District's bylaws, in satisfaction of the claim requirements.

Authority and Analysis The purpose of a demurrer is to test whether a complaint "states facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action upon which relief may be based." (Young v. Gannon (2002) 97 Cal.App.4 th 209, 220.

To state a cause of action, a plaintiff must allege facts to support his or her claims, and it is improper and insufficient for a plaintiff to simply plead general conclusions. (Careau v. Security Pacific Business Credit, Inc. (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 11371, 1390.)

The complaint must contain facts sufficient to establish every element of that cause of action, and thus a court should sustain the demurrer if "the defendants negate any essential element of a particular cause of action." (Cantu v. Resolution Trust Corp. (1992) 4 Cal.App.4 th 857, 879-80)

To determine whether the complaint states facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, the trial court may consider all material facts pleaded in the complaint and those that arise by reasonable implication therefrom; it may not consider contentions, deductions, or conclusion of fact or law (Moore v. Conliffe (1994) 7 Cal.4 th 634, 638.)

It is well-settled that all well-pled material facts in the complaint are assumed to be true for the purpose of the demurer. (C & H Foods v. Hartford Ins. Co. (1984) 163 Cal.App.3d 1055, 1062)

But "doubt in the complaint may be resolved against plaintiff and facts not alleged are presumed not to exist. (Id.)

A demurrer can be used only to challenge defects that appear on the face of the pleading under attack; or from matters outside the pleading that are judicially noticeable. (Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318; Donabedian v. Mercury Ins. Co. (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 968, 994.)

No other extrinsic evidence can be considered (i.e., no "speaking demurrers"). (Ion Equip. Corp. v. Nelson (1980) 110 Cal.App.3d 868, 881.)

Here, Defendant does not seek judicial notice of Exhibit B, nor could the Court take judicial notice thereof, as to the alleged claim sent February 7, 2025 to Kaweah. As such, the Court lacks a basis to consider the contents thereof in support of Kaweah's arguments.

Government Code section 911.2 requires that a claim be presented to the relevant public entity not more than six months after the accrual of the cause of action. (Govt. Code, Sec. 911.2.)

Presentation of such a claim is a condition precedent to filing a suit against the public entity and is, therefore, an element of a cause of action which the plaintiff must prove. (DiCampli-Mintz v. County of Santa Clara (2012) 55 Cal.4th 983, 990; Govt. Code, Sec. 945.4.)

F ailure to allege facts demonstrating or excusing compliance with the claim-presentation requirement subjects a complaint to demurrer for failure to state a cause of action (State of California v. Superior Court (Bodde) (2004) 32 Cal.4th 1234, 1237, 1243.)

Here, however, the four corners of the complaint allege compliance with the claim statute, on a date within 6 months of the incident date. The Court, on demurrer and lacking judicial notice, cannot evaluate the contents of the alleged claim as to the requirements under section 910 or delivery under 915(a).

Further, the argument set out by Kaweah, requiring evidentiary support as to the sufficiency of the delivery, recipient and the contents of the alleged claim, appears better suited for summary judgment (Hernandez v. City of Stockton (2023) 90 Cal.App.5th 1222, 1226; Connelly v. County of Fresno (2006) 146 Cal.App.4th 29, 34.)

Compliance with the presentation requirement must be stated in the complaint. (Dilts v. Cantua Elementary School Dist. (1987) 189 Cal.App.3d 27, 31 [holding "In those circumstances in which a claim must be presented, the plaintiff must allege compliance or circumstances excusing compliance, or the complaint is subject to general demurrer."].)

Here, such general compliance has been met. Therefore, the Court overrules the demurrer.

Defendant Kaweah shall have ten (10) days to file an answer to the amended complaint.

If no one requests oral argument, under Code of Civil Procedure section 1019.5(a) and California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312(a), no further written order is necessary. The minute order adopting this tentative ruling will become the order of the court and service by the clerk will constitute notice of the order.

Court reporters are usually not available for law and motion matters in the civil division. The parties and counsel must provide their own reporter if they want a transcript of the proceedings.

Re: Urena, Javier vs. Bane, Alisha