| Case | County / Judge | Motion | Ruling | Indexed | Hearing |
|---|
Discovery motions
his first two contentions. CCP §364(a) provides, "No action based upon the health care provider's professional negligence may be commenced unless the defendant has been given at least 90 days' prior notice of intention to commence the action." The language of the statute is mandatory, and nothing in the statute suggests an attorney should be disciplined for failure to comply or the error can be cured.
Plaintiff also fails to meaningfully brief his second contention. He contends the statute of limitations is essentially indefinitely tolled because he has a subdural hematoma and is therefore disabled. Pursuant to Preferred Risk Mutual Ins. Co. v. Reiswig (1999) 21 Cal.4 th 208, 222, when a statute of limitations has specific tolling provisions, no other tolling provisions can be read into the statute. The medical malpractice statute of limitations, found in CCP §340.5, allows for tolling as a result of fraud, intentional concealment, the presence of nontherapeutic and nondiagnostic foreign bodies, or, in limited circumstances, where the plaintiff is a child under the age of eight.
Nothing in the statute contemplates tolling as a result of disability; indeed, many incidents of alleged medical malpractice result in temporary or permanent disability, and the Legislature certainly contemplated this reality when drafting the statute of limitations.
The Court finds, therefore, that the dismissal did not result from Plaintiff's failure to oppose the demurrer, but instead from his failure to timely file his complaint in the first instance. The motion to vacate the dismissal is therefore also denied. Defendant is ordered to give notice.
Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at [email protected] indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org. If the department does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on the tentative and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion may be placed off calendar. If a party submits on the tentative, the party's email must include the case number and must identify the party submitting on the tentative. If any party does not submit on the tentative, the party should make arrangements to appear remotely at the hearing on this matter.
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?”
various discovery motions to 5/19/26 and ordered the parties to meet and confer and file a joint statement of items remaining in dispute. Defendant filed a status report on 5/04/26. The status report indicates the majority of the parties' issues have been resolved and the parties are working to resolve the remaining issues without the need for a hearing.
If the parties submit on the tentative ruling, the motions will be taken off calendar as moot. If issues remain unresolved, the parties must appear at the hearing and articulate which issues remain pending between them; the Court will either resolve the issues or further continue the matter depending on what issues are posed. Defendant is ordered to give notice.
Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at [email protected] indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org. If the department does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on the tentative and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion may be placed off calendar. If a party submits on the tentative, the party's email must include the case number and must identify the party submitting on the tentative. If the parties do not submit on the tentative, they should arrange to appear remotely.
Case Number: 25LBCV03430 Hearing Date: May 19, 2026 Dept: S27
Background Facts
Plaintiffs, Mario Casale, by and through his successor-in-interest, Malcolm Casale, as well as Malcolm Casale and Vera Casale in their individual capacities, filed this action against Defendants, Bay Breeze Care, Inc. and CHLB, LLC for dependent adult abuse, negligence, and wrongful death. The crux of the complaint is that Decedent, a disabled adult with schizophrenia, while he was a resident at Bay Breeze, suffered two violent attack at the hands of a co-resident in close temporal proximity to each other, and ultimately succumbed to the injuries suffered in the attacks.
Demurrer
a. Legal Standard on Demurrer
A demurrer is a pleading used to test the legal sufficiency of other pleadings. It raises issues of law, not fact, regarding the form or content of the opposing party's pleading. It is not the function of the demurrer to challenge the truthfulness of the complaint; and for purpose of the ruling on the demurrer, all facts pleaded in the complaint are assumed to be true, however improbable they may be. 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 39 Cal.3d 311 (1985). No other extrinsic evidence can be considered (i.e., no "speaking demurrers").
A demurrer is brought under CCP § 430.10 [grounds], § 430.30 [as to any matter on its face or from which judicial notice may be taken], and § 430.50(a) [can be taken to the entire complaint or any cause of action within]. Specifically, a demurrer may be brought per CCP § 430.10(e) if insufficient facts are stated to support the cause of action asserted. Per CCP §430.10(a) a demurrer may be brought where the court has no jurisdiction of the subject of the cause of action alleged in the pleading. Furthermore, demurrer for uncertainty will be