Wright v. The Regents of the Univ. of Cal.

1

WALI WRIGHT, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA et al., Defendants and Respondents.

B317965

California Court of Appeals, Second District, Third Division

May 18, 2023

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

APPEAL from judgments of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. 21STCV07386 Melvin D. Sandvig, Judge.

Stephen Kent Rose for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Cole Pedroza, Kenneth R. Pedroza, Matthew S. Levinson; Kjar McKenna &Stockalper and Patrick E. Stockalper for Defendant and Respondent The Regents of the University of California.

Pollak, Vida &Barer, Daniel P. Barer and Hamed Amiri Ghaemmaghami for Defendant and Respondent County of Los Angeles.

HEIDEL, J. ^[*]

Plaintiff Wali Wright (plaintiff) suffered injuries to his leg when a nurse and nurse assistant (nurses) repositioned him in his hospital bed while he was a patient at Olive View UCLA Medical Center (the hospital). Plaintiff sued Los Angeles County (the county) and the University of California (Regents) for negligence based on a theory of vicarious liability. Both parties demurred. The county asserted that plaintiff had failed to comply with the claims presentation requirements in the Government Claims Act. Regents asserted that plaintiff had failed to adequately plead it had an agency or ostensible agency relationship with the nurses. The trial court sustained both demurrers without leave to amend.

On appeal, plaintiff contends that he adequately pled that the county should be equitably estopped from relying on the lack of compliance with the claims process as a defense to his action. He further contends that he adequately alleged agency and ostensible agency between Regents and the nurses. We disagree, and accordingly affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

I. Facts

Plaintiff was an inpatient at Olive View UCLA Medical Center for approximately six months in 2018. During his stay, nurses overtwisted plaintiff's leg while repositioning him in his bed, spraining his knee and tearing his medial meniscus.

II. Procedural Background

A. Original and first amended complaints

On May 16, 2019, plaintiff filed his original complaint.^[1] He subsequently filed a first amended complaint. Neither the original nor the first amended complaints are included in the appellant's appendix.

B. Second amended complaint

1. The complaint

In September 2019, plaintiff filed a second amended complaint (SAC) for negligence against the county and Regents.^[2]Plaintiff alleged that Regents and the county, "acting through their employees," negligently caused plaintiff's injury. He further alleged that "[Regents] knowingly permitted, aided, . . . and encouraged [the county] . . . to operate [the hospital] in the name of the University of California and as the actual, apparent, and ostensible agent of . . . [Regents]" and that Regents "thereby assumed liability" for the nurses' negligence. Plaintiff further alleged that "[the county] concealed its relationship with UCLA Medical Center in violation of statute . . . and is equitably estopped from relying on claims statutes."

2. Demurrers

Regents and the county separately demurred to the SAC.^[3]The trial court sustained both demurrers with leave to amend. In sustaining Regents' demurrer, the trial court stated that "it is not clear if [p]laintiff is alleging that the [nurses] are the direct employees of [Regents] or ostensible agents of [Regents]," and the SAC does not "allege sufficient facts to support a finding that the other defendants were/are the ostensible agents of [Regents]." The trial court sustained the county's demurrer for failure to allege compliance or excuse from compliance with the Government Claims Act (Gov. Code, § 810 et seq.).^[4] In doing so, it rejected plaintiff's argument that he alleged a sufficient basis to equitably estop the county from relying on the claims statute because he alleged "no facts to support the conclusion that [the county] 'concealed its relationship with UCLA Medical Center.'" The trial court also granted the county's request for judicial notice of "[t]he fact that Olive View Medical Center is operated by the County of Los Angeles, and not a separate entity."

C. Third Amended Complaint

1. The complaint

In August 2021, plaintiff filed his operative third amended complaint (TAC), naming the same defendants and alleging the same claim, but this time describing the nurses as "joint employees" and "actual and ostensible employees" of defendants. The TAC also added allegations purporting to form a basis to equitably estop the county from asserting its defense under the Government Claims Act. These allegations include: The county "concealed its ownership and operation of LA County Olive View UCLA Medical Center from [p]laintiff and from the general public in violation of statute by calling the facility 'Olive View Medical center," i.e., by "removing the words 'LA County' from the facility's name and identifying the facility in most of its many and various publicly facing statements (including signage, labeling, documentation, and web pages)." During his six month stay, plaintiff alleged he "never saw any sign, literature, document or heard anything indicating that the facility was owned or operated by [the county]." Plaintiff alleged that he and his counsel "relied to their detriment" on the county's representations that the facility was named" 'Olive View UCLA Medical Center'" in refraining from filing a claim with the county "until . . . more [than] a year had elapsed after [plaintiff's] injury, and his time to file a government claim or an application for leave to present a late claim . . . had expired."

2. Demurrers

Defendants separately demurred to the TAC. Following briefing and hearings on each demurrer, the trial court sustained both without leave to amend.

With respect to Regents, the trial court stated that plaintiff's allegations regarding agency were "contradictory and conclusory" because the nurses "cannot be both [the] direct employee and ostensible agent" of Regents, and thus Regents' "purported liability is still uncertain." The trial court further stated that the TAC, like the SAC, "fails to allege sufficient facts to support a finding that [the nurses] were/are the ostensible agents of [Regents]" because it "does not allege sufficient facts to establish that: (1) [Regents] made representations regarding the agency; (2) [p]laintiff justifiably relied on such representations; and (3) [p]laintiff was injured as a result of such reliance. [(See J.L. v. Children's Institute, Inc. (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 388, 404.)]" The trial court also granted Regents' request for judicial notice of the hospital's license information shown on the California Health Facilities Information Database (available to the public on the internet), a legal description of the property ownership for the hospital's location from the Los Angeles County Tax Assessor's office, a provision from the County of Los Angeles Charter showing that the Director of Hospitals is in charge of supervising the county's hospitals, and of the fact that the hospital is "a County of Los Angeles Hospital."

With respect to the county, the trial court ruled that the TAC still "failed to plead sufficient facts to establish the second and fourth elements of estoppel," namely, that "the [c]ounty intended that its conduct would be acted upon, or so acted that [p]laintiff had a right to believe it was so intended and [p]laintiff reasonably relied on the conduct to his injury."

Following entry of judgments dismissing Regents and the county, plaintiff timely appealed.

DISCUSSION

We independently review a trial court's order sustaining a demurrer to determine whether the operative complaint states facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. (Centinela Freeman Emergency Medical Associates v. Health Net of California, Inc. (2016) 1 Cal.5th 994, 1010; Lee v. Hanley (2015) 61 Cal.4th 1225, 1230.) In doing so, we accept as true all material facts properly pled in the operative complaint, but not contentions, deductions or conclusions of fact or law. (Winn v. Pioneer Medical Group, Inc. (2016) 63 Cal.4th 148, 152; Evans v. City of Berkeley (2006) 38 Cal.4th 1, 6.) We also accept as true all materials properly subject to judicial notice, and disregard allegations in the complaint inconsistent with the judicially noticed facts. (Smyth v. Berman (2019) 31 Cal.App.5th 183, 191.) "[I]t is an abuse of the trial court's discretion to sustain a demurrer without leave to amend if there is a reasonable possibility the plaintiff can amend the complaint to allege any cause of action." (Jensen v. Home Depot, Inc. (2018) 24 Cal.App.5th 92, 97.)

I. The County's Demurrer

California's Government Claims Act (§ 810 et seq.) (the Claims Act) waives state sovereign immunity and permits plaintiffs to sue "public entities and their employees" for "all noncontractual bases of compensable damage or injury that might be actionable between private persons." (Caldwell v. Montoya (1995) 10 Cal.4th 972, 980; Leon v. County of Riverside (2021) 64 Cal.App.5th 837, 846; Gov. Code, § 815, subd. (a).) Before filing a suit, a plaintiff alleging an "injury to person or to personal property," must present a written claim to the public entity "not later than six months after the accrual of the cause of action" (§ 911.2, subd (a)), or, if a plaintiff fails to do so, he may apply to the public entity "for leave to present that claim" "within a reasonable time not to exceed one year after the accrual of the cause of action" (§ 911.4, subds. (a) &(b)). A plaintiff's failure to comply with the Claims Act's requirements bars any lawsuit against the public entity or public employee, and thus provides a ground for...