It is worth noting that situations similar to those described in this wrongful death case could just as easily occur at any of the healthcare facilities in the area, such as Kaiser Permanente, UC Davis Medical Center, Mercy, or Sutter.
(Please also note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this medical malpractice case and its proceedings.)
Plaintiffs failed to comply with California Rule of Court 312(g).
California Rule of Court 312(g) provides: each separate cause of action or affirmative defense in a pleading shall specifically identify its number; the party asserting it, if more than one party is represented in the pleading; and the party or parties to whom it is directed. Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint violates this rule because the second cause of action, medical malpractice – survival action, does not indicate the identity of the party asserting it because there are two plaintiffs. Although on the caption of the second cause of action it indicates that the action is against Does 6-20, in the body of the cause of action it identifies Dr. Hill, Dr. Goldstein, Dr. Martinez, and Valley Medical Center, as well as Does 6-20, as being negligent in causing harm to decedent. The third cause of action does not identify which plaintiff is asserting the cause of action, nor does it identify which defendant it is being directed against. Therefore, the First Amended Complaint is uncertain, ambiguous and unintelligible. Thus, the court should grant defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings.
For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.
CONCLUSION
For all of the reasons stated herein, Dr. Goldstein respectfully requests that the court grant his motion for judgment on the pleadings.
For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.