Source: https://trellis.law/ca/issue-type/professional-negligence-general-61
Timestamp: 2020-07-10 23:10:26
Document Index: 535800228

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 340', '§ 340', '§ 340', '§ 1621', '§ 340', '§ 340', '§ 17200', '§ 339', '§ 340', '§ 340', '§ 1281']

The elements of a claim for professional negligence are:
the duty of the professional to use such skill, prudence, and diligence as to other members of his profession commonly possess and exercise;
a proximate causal connection between the negligent conduct and the resulting injury; and
actual loss of damage resulting from the professional’s negligence.
Osornio v. Weingarten (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 304, 319 (quotations and citation omitted); Turpin v. Sortini (1982) 31 C.3d 220, 229-230; Budd v. Nixen (1971) 6 Cal. 3d 195, 200.
A cause of action for professional negligence is generally governed by the two-year statute of limitations under Code of Civil Procedure section 339, subdivision 1 for an “action upon a contract, obligation or liability not founded upon an instrument of writing.” See Slavin v. Trout (1993) 18 Cal.App.4th 1536, 1539; Cyr v. McGovran (2012) 206 C.A.4th 645, 651 (quoting Thomson v. Canyon (2011) 198 C.A.4th 594, 604..
Professional negligence can be brought against many providers. A few examples are below.
“Professional negligence” means a negligent act or omission to act by a health care provider in the rendering of professional services, which is the proximate cause of a personal injury, provided such services are within the scope of services for which the provider is licensed and which are not within any restriction. Code Civ. Proc., § 340.5(2).
A “health care provider” is any person licensed or certified under Division 2 of the Business and Professions Code, Division 2 of the Health and Safety Code, any clinic, health dispensary, or health facility. Code Civ. Proc., § 340.5(1).
“[I]n an action for injury or death against a health care provider based upon such person’s alleged professional negligence, the time for the commencement of action shall be three years after the date of injury or one year after the plaintiff discovers, or through the use of reasonable diligence should have discovered, the injury, whichever occurs first.” Code Civ. Proc., § 340.5.
Attorney's Clients
“The failure to provide competent representation in a civil or criminal case may be the basis for civil liability under a theory of professional negligence.” Coscia v. McKenna & Cuneo (2001) 25 Cal.4th 1194, 1199.
The elements of a professional negligence or legal malpractice claim arising out representation in a civil proceeding are:
“the duty of the attorney to use such skill, prudence, and diligence as members of his or her profession commonly possess and exercise;
Coscia v. McKenna & Cuneo (2001) 25 Cal.4th 1194, 1199.
“One of the requisite elements of a legal malpractice claim is the existence of an attorney-client relationship or other basis for a duty of care owed by the attorney.” Jager v. County of Alameda (1992) 8 Cal.App.4th 294, 297. Such a relationship is formed by express contract, appointment by the court, or implied contract. Responsible Citizens v. Super. Ct. (1993) 16 Cal.App.4th 1717, 1732.) As defined by the Code of Civil Procedure, an implied contract is one “the existence and terms of which are manifested by conduct” of the parties. Code of Civ. Proc., § 1621. Further, it is well-settled in California that in the absence of an agreement to the contract, “the retention of an attorney in a law firm constitutes the retention of the entire firm.” PCO, Inc. v. Christensen, Miller, Fink, Jacobs, Glaser, Weil & Shapiro, LLP (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 384, 392.
Code of Civil Procedure section 340.6, subdivision (a) states in relevant part “An action against an attorney for a wrongful act or omission, other than for actual fraud, arising in the performance of professional services shall be commenced within one year after the plaintiff discovers, or through the use of reasonable diligence should have discovered, the facts constituting the wrongful act or omission.” Code of Civ. Proc., § 340.6(a). It is further provided that the limitations period is tolled during the time in which “the plaintiff has not sustained actual injury.” Code of Civ. Proc., § 340.6(a)(1).
In Jordache Enterprises, Inc. v. Brobeck, Phleger & Harrison 18 Cal.4th 739 (1998), the California Supreme Court addressed the issue of “actual injury.” In Jordache, the Court ruled that California Civil Code, Section 340.6(a)(1), “will not toll the limitations period once the client can plead damages that could establish a cause of action for legal malpractice.” Jordache Enterprises, Inc. v. Brobeck, Phleger & Harrison (1998) 18 Cal.4th 739, 743. The court also stated that:
The loss or diminution of a right or remedy constitutes injury or damage. Neither uncertainty of amount nor difficulty of proof renders that injury speculative or inchoate.
Attorney's Nonclients
Generally, an attorney has no professional obligation to nonclients and thus cannot be held liable to nonclients for the consequences of the attorney's professional negligence. Moore v. Anderson Zeigler Disharoon Gallagher & Gray (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 1287, 1294.
An attorney may be liable to nonclients for professional negligence when the nonclients were intended beneficiaries of the attorney's services, as this does not place an undue burden on the profession. Lucas v. Hamm (1961) 56 Cal.2d 583, 588-589; Meighan v. Shore (1995) 34 Cal.App.4th 1025, 1041; Moore v. Anderson Zeigler Disharoon Gallagher & Gray (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 1287, 1294–1295; see also Goodman v. Kennedy (1976) 18 Cal.3d 335, 342 (policy considerations for and against the imposition of liability).
“[A]n architect who plans and supervises construction work, as an independent contractor, is under a duty to exercise ordinary care in the course thereof for the protection of any person who foreseeably and with reasonable certainty may be injured by his failure to do so.” Montijo v. Swift (1963) 219 Cal. App. 2d 351, 353.
Real estate agents and brokers are subject to a high degree of good faith and fair dealing to their principals, including the duty to use such reasonable skill and care as would be exercised by a reasonably prudent real estate professional under similar circumstances. See Wilson v. Hisey (1957) 147 Cal.App.2d 433, 438; Carlton v. Quint (2000) 77 Cal.App.4th 690, 698–699.
Such duties include: a duty of loyalty and good faith; duty to be honest and truthful; duty to investigate and disclose material facts that might affect the principal’s decision; and statutory disclosure duties. See William L. Lyon & Associates, Inc. v. Super. Ct. (2012) 204 Cal.App.4th 1294, 1304, 1312; Roberts v. Lomanto (2003) 112 Cal.App.4th 1553, 1567; Burch v. Argus Properties, Inc. (1979) 92 Cal.App.3d 128, 131; Ward v. Taggart (1959) 51 Cal.2d 736, 741.
Useful Rulings on Professional Negligence – General
EMAD AWAD ET AL VS NORTHRIDGE HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER ET AL
EMAD AWAD, et al., Plaintiffs, v. NORTHRIDGE HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER, et al., Defendant. Case No.: BC587256 Hearing Date: December 7, 2016 [TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE SUMMARY ADJUDICATION BY DEFENDANT AZMI ATIYA, M.D. BACKGROUND Plaintiffs allege that on April 7, 2014, Awad Emad Awad (“Awad”) underwent a triple bypass surgery and on April 24, 2014, we...
..pain, [] opened up [Awad’s] chest wound over the sternum with a pair of scissors.” (Complaint ¶ 10.) Plaintiffs contend that on the next day, Awad experienced swelling in the size of a small lemon, bleeding and pain from his opened chest wound. (Complaint ¶ 11.) Awad was thereafter transported to a hospital and was eventually diagnosed with having an infection in his wound. Awad asserts causes of...
J. GUADALUPE DE LA ROSA HERNANDEZ VS ALL SEASON VENTURES, INC.
[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: DEFENDANT’S DEMURRER TO THE SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION FOR PROFESSIONAL NEGLIGENCE I. INTRODUCTION On October 9, 2018, Plaintiff J. Guadalupe De La Rosa Hernandez (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendant All Season Ventures, Inc. (“Defendant”) for negligence and professional negligence arising out of injuries sustained on October 10, 2017 when Plaintiff was being trans...
..ions or conclusions of fact or law. We accept the factual allegations of the complaint as true and also consider matters which may be judicially noticed. [Citation.]” (Mitchell v. California Department of Public Health (2016) 1 Cal.App.5th 1000, 1007; Del E. Webb Corp. v. Structural Materials Co. (1981) 123 Cal.App.3d 593, 604 [“the facts alleged in the pleading are deemed to be true, however impr...
MONICA PARRILLA VS PIH HEALTH HOSPITAL-DOWNEY
[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: DEEFENDANT PIH HEALTH HOSPITAL-DOWNEY’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION; DENIED I. INTRODUCTION On November 13, 2017, Plaintiff Monica Parrilla (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendant PIH Health Hospital-Downey (“Defendant”) for general negligence and premises liability arising out of a December 6, 2015 slip and fall. Defen...
..diagnosis before discharging Plaintiff. (Undisputed Material Fact “UMF” No. 6.) While Plaintiff waited to be discharged, Plaintiff went to the bathroom located nearby her room to relieve herself. (AMF Nos. 15, 16.) Plaintiff was not directed to use the bathroom and was not told she could not use the bathroom. (AMF No. 18.) When she entered the bathroom, Plaintiff slipped and fell in a large puddl...
ALLEN LETGOLTS ET AL VS SCOTT MARKS ET AL
ALLEN LETGOLTS AND GABRIELLA PLATTNER, Plaintiffs, v. SCOTT MARKS, et al., Defendants. Case No.: BC537637 Hearing Date: January 13, 2017 [TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: DEFEDANT’S DEMURRER TO THE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT BACKGROUND The complaint in this action was filed by Plaintiffs Allen Letgolts and Gabriella Plattner on February 27, 2014 and a first amended complaint was filed on March 3, 2...
..tiffs to file a second amended complaint within 30 days. The operative second amended complaint (“SAC”) was filed on September 16, 2016 by Plaintiffs Allen Letgolts (“Letgolts”) and Gabriella Plattner (“Plattner”) (collectively “Plaintiffs”) alleging causes of action for professional negligence, breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, intentional misrepresentation, violation of Business an...
GHEZAVAT VS TOWN OF DANVILLE
HEARING ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION RE WRONGFUL DEATHCLAIMS FILED BY THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA,* TENTATIVE RULING: *The motion of defendants The Regents of the University of California and Susannah Brock Cornes, M.D., for summary adjudication of the applicability of the Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act of 1975 (“MICRA”) to the sole cause of action alleged against the...
..art, because Dr. Cornes failed to comply with Health and Safety Code section 103900 and report to the local health officer that she had diagnosed her patient, John Harris, as having a disorder characterized by lapses of consciousness. (See F...
JEE YONG SHIN ET AL VS HILTON & HYLAND REAL ESTATE ET AL
Jee yong shin & STEFAN J. SHINN Plaintiffs, v. HILTON & HYLAND REAL ESTATE, INC., et. al. Defendants. Case No.: BC673414 Hearing Date: July 8, 2019 [TENTATIVE] order RE: DEMURRERS TO SHIN/ShinN’s and Hansens’ first amended complaints BACKGROUND A. Shinn Action On August 22, 2017, Plaintiffs Jee Yong Shin and Stefan J. Shinn (“Shin/Shinn”) commenced this action against Defendants Hilton & Hy...
..and Deanna Hansen (“Hansens”) filed a complaint against Defendants. On May 28, 2019, the Hansens filed a First Amended Complaint (“Hansen FAC”) against Defendants for (1) professional negligence, (2) breach of fiduciary duty, and (3) violations of the Unfair Competition Law (Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200, et seq.). On April 5, 2019, the Court consolidated the Shinn/Shinn Action (BC673414) with the H...
Recent Rulings on Professional Negligence – General
1-25 of 3422 results
Civil - Unlimited (256)
Civil Case Management Conference (73)
Civil Jury Trial (2)
Demurrer / Motion To Strike (124)
Discovery Hearing (7)
Fee Waiver Hearing (Civil) (1)
Motion Hearing (Civil) (96)
Osc - Why Case Should Not Be Dismissed (3)
Slapp / Slappback Motion Hearing (14)
Settlement Conference (Civil) (3)
Summary Judgment / Summary Adjudication (Civil) (64)
Trial Readiness Conference (Civil) (14)
A. James Robertson Ii (3)
Andrew Sweet (6)
Angel Bermudez (5)
Barbara A. Lane (11)
Barry Labarbera (9)
Benny C. Osorio (39)
Charlotte W. Woolard (3)
Chad Firetag (7)
Charles Treat (19)
Colleen Sterne (67)
Craig D. Karlan (7)
Curtis A. Kin (13)
Dalila Corral Lyons (5)
Dan Thomas Oki (41)
Daniel M. Crowley (11)
Daniel S. Murphy (49)
David C. Mathias (4)
David De Alba (9)
David M. Chapman (18)
David R Chaffee (18)
David Sotelo (40)
David Worley (6)
Deborah C Servino (8)
Deborah C. Servino (5)
Dennis J. Landin (62)
Donald Black (16)
Donna Geck (75)
Ernest H. Goldsmith (14)
Ed Weil (12)
Eddie C Sturgeon (17)
Elaine Lu (58)
Elaine W. Mandel (8)
Elia Ortiz (1)
Elliot L (1)
Frederick C. Shaller (9)
Frederick Horn (19)
Gail Ruderman Feuer (21)
Gary Y. Tanaka (2)
George V. Spanos (5)
Georgina Torres Rizk (11)
Gerald Rosenberg (20)
Ginger E. Garrett (7)
Glen Reiser (14)
Gloria White-Brown (20)
Gregory Lewis (15)
Harold E. Kahn (17)
Henry Walsh (6)
Holly J. Fujie (80)
Holly J. Fujie Or Michael M. Johnson (3)
Jacqueline M. Stern (12)
James Di Cesare (24)
James E. Blancarte Or Wendy Chang (6)
James F. Rigali (11)
James Herman (21)
James T. Latting (4)
Jeff Hamilton (20)
Jeffrey G. Bennett (3)
Jeffrey Y. Hamilton (5)
Jill Fannin (16)
Joan M. Lewis (14)
Joel M. Pressman (9)
Joel R. Wohlfeil (35)
John C. Gastelum (16)
John Nguyen (8)
John S. Meyer (25)
Jon R. Takasugi (19)
Judith Craddick (15)
Judith F. Hayes (18)
Katherine Bacal (52)
Kenneth J Medel (25)
Kent Kellegrew (18)
Kevin Denoce (74)
Kristi Culver Kapetan (6)
Kristin S. Escalante (9)
Laura A. Seigle (33)
Laurie M. Earl (8)
Lawrence Cho (5)
Layne H. Melzer (6)
Lisa Hart Cole (12)
Lori Ann Fournier (33)
Marla J. Miller (11)
Marc D. Gross (16)
Marc Marmaro (21)
Mark Borrell (23)
Mark C. Kim (12)
Mark Snauffer (9)
Martha K. Gooding (17)
Mary E. Arand (10)
Matthew P. Guasco (20)
Maurice A. Leiter Or Salvatore Sirna (6)
Michael J. Raphael (27)
Michael P. Linfield (62)
Monique Langhorne (2)
Patrick J. Mahoney (3)
Patrick M. Broderick3035 Cleveland Avenue, Suite 200, Santa Rosa (1)
Peter A. Hernandez (6)
Presiding (7)
Richard H. Dubois (2)
Rafael A. Ongkeko (18)
Ralph C. Hofer (41)
Randa Trapp (9)
Randall S. Stamen (3)
Randolph M. Hammock (60)
Raquel A. Marquez (13)
Rebecca Susan Riley (38)
René Auguste Chouteau (2)
Richard J. Henderson For The Hon. Allan D. Hardcastle (1)
Richard Lee (11)
Robert A. Dukes (15)
Robert B. Broadbelt (12)
Robert C. Hight (29)
Robert P Dahlquist (10)
Robert S. Draper (25)
Rocky Baio (16)
Ronald F. Frazier (19)
Ronald L. Styn (40)
Ross Klein (11)
Salvatore Sirna Or Gary Y. Tanaka (8)
Sanjay T. Kumar Or Patti Jo Mckay Or Alex Ricciardulli Or Tony L. Richardson (1)
Sharon J. Waters (1)
Stephen I. Goorvitch (69)
Steve K. Austin (16)
Steve White (9)
Sunshine S. Sykes (2)
Susanne Fenstermacher (9)
Tana L. Coates (14)
Tari Cody (6)
Teresa A. Beaudet (46)
Theodore C. Zayner (6)
Theodore R. Howard (17)
Theresa M. Traber (24)
Thierry Patrick Colaw (5)
Thomas D. Long (2)
Timothy M. Casserly (19)
Timothy Taylor (144)
Vincent O'Neill (20)
Walter Schwarm (13)
Wendy Chang (3)
Wendy Chang Or Jon R. Takasugi (11)
William D. Stewart (98)
Yolanda Orozco (77)
Yolanda Orozco Or Georgina Torres Rizk (25)
Contra Costa County, CA (95)
Fresno County, CA (95)
Los Angeles County, CA (1,620)
Marin County, CA (10)
Napa County, CA (8)
Orange County, CA (219)
Riverside County, CA (59)
Sacramento County, CA (72)
San Diego County, CA (456)
San Francisco County, CA (64)
San Joaquin County, CA (13)
San Luis Obispo County, CA (39)
Santa Barbara County, CA (297)
Santa Clara County, CA (41)
Solano County, CA (5)
Sonoma County, CA (15)
Stanislaus County, CA (5)
Tulare County, CA (10)
Ventura County, CA (270)
KOUROSH IZADPANAHI VS MARIA ALMA YOLANDA IBARRA DABDOUB, ET AL.
., § 339, subd. (1)), and (4) negligence on or before December 31, 2016 (one-year statute of limitations for professional negligence, per Code Civ. Proc., § 340.6, subd. (a)). Even if the Court were to find that all of these claims were subject to the “last overt act doctrine” of a civil conspiracy theory, which would delay the running of the statute of limitations until the final act in furtherance of the conspiracy had been committed (Kenworthy v.
DANA LUMPKIN ET AL VS LYNN GORDON M D ET AL
.; and Does 1-100 (“Defendnats”) for professional negligence and loss of consortium. On July 26, 2019, Plaintiffs filed an amendment to complaint, substituting in Regents of the University of California for Doe 1. On August 26, 2019, dismissal was entered as to Defendants Lynn Gordon, M.D.; Joseph Lynch III, M.D.; Thomas Mattimore, M.D.; Neesa Patel, M.D.; Stanley Korenman, M.D.
DANA LUMPKIN ET AL VS REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNI
Plaintiffs allege professional negligence and loss of consortium in the complaint in relation to deficient treatment rendered from August 2016 through June 2017. On September 6, 2019, the Court dismissed Defendants Joseph Lynch III, M.D.; Thomas Mattimore, M.D.; Neesa Patel, M.D., Lynn Gordon, M.D.; Stanley Korenman M.D.; Russell Kerbel, M.D.; Michael Pfeffer, M.D.; Hamid Hajmomenian, M.D.; Thanh Neville, M.D.; Soo-In Choi, M.D.; Andrew Day, M.D.
GUERRERO VS. BALLARD
The elements for a cause of action for professional negligence is the same as that of negligence: (i) that defendants had a legal duty to use due care; (i) a breach of such legal duty; and (iii) the breach as the proximate or legal cause of the resulting injury. (Flowers v. Torrance Memorial Hosp. Med. Ctr. (1994) 8 Cal.4th 992, 997-998; Ladd v. County of San Mateo (1996) 12 Cal.4th 913, 917.) Motion for Summary Judgment as to Defendant Dr. Ho. Defendant Dr.
FILIPPINI WEALTH MANAGEMENT INC ET AL VS MEISTER & NUNES PC ET AL
Plaintiffs’ second amended complaint (“SAC”), filed on August 6, 2019, alleges causes of action for (1) professional negligence, (2) breach of fiduciary duty, (3) violation of Business and Professions Code Section 17200 et seq., and (4) conversion. On October 15, 2019, defendant separately served its Request for Production of Documents, Set One, on each plaintiff.
RANDY MCCLOUD VS SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA HOSPITAL AT CULVER CITY
As the Court stated above, Plaintiff has alleged dependent adult neglect by these defendants in failing to properly treat his eye injury, going beyond mere professional negligence, and the facts alleged rise to the level of malice or oppression, as Defendants operated with a willful and conscious disregard of Plaintiff’s rights and safety by failing to sufficiently examine and treat his eye injury for four days while he was under a 5150 psychiatric hold.
XIAOFAN SUN VS HRC FERTILITY CLINIC, ET AL.
Plaintiff filed a Complaint on May 15, 2019, alleging six causes of action sounding in: (1) Fraud; (2) Fraudulent Concealment; (3) Intentional Interference with Contractual Relations; (4) Professional Negligence; (5) Negligent Training and Supervision; and (6) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress.
Motion to Strike Emotional Distress Damages “[M]ere negligence will not support a recovery for mental suffering where the defendant's tortious conduct has resulted in only economic injury to the plaintiff…. where a plaintiff sufficiently alleges intentional or affirmative misconduct by an attorney or noneconomic injury resulting from an attorney's professional negligence, recovery of emotional distress damages is permitted.” (Smith v. Superior Court (1992) 10 Cal.App.4th 1033, 1040.)
SUSAN KEETON, ET AL. VS THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA
CCP § 340.5 states, “In an action for injury or death against a health care provider based upon such person's alleged professional negligence, the time for the commencement of action shall be three years after the date of injury or one year after the plaintiff discovers, or through the use of reasonable diligence should have discovered, the injury, whichever occurs first.”
LINDA MENDOZA RAZO VS JIMMY HANG, DPT
Plaintiff’s claims against Hang do not arise out of any alleged professional negligence. Plaintiff has not made a claim against Hang for professional negligence. The fact that Hang’s position as Plaintiff’s physical therapist gave him the opportunity to allegedly sexually batter her does not mean that this action arises out of the professional negligence of Hang as a health care provider. As such, CCP 425.13 does not apply and Plaintiff may seek punitive damages without first obtaining a court order.
HUYNH, ET AL. V. MISSION DE LA CASA NURSING AND REHABILITATION CTR., ET AL.
Because in Delaney we were construing the term “professional negligence” as used in the Elder Abuse Act, our actual holding did not impinge on the holding of Central Pathology that professional negligence within the meaning of section 425.13 can encompass intentional torts. (Central Pathology, supra, 3 Cal.4th at p. 192….)
JEFF GRABOW VS NEELAKANTAN ANAND, MD, ET AL.
Relevant portions of California Code of Civil Procedure section 340.5 states the following: In an action for injury or death against a health care provider based upon such person’s alleged professional negligence, the time for the commencement of action shall be three years after the date of injury or one year after the plaintiff discovers, or through the use of reasonable diligence should have discovered, the injury, whichever occurs first . . . .
HELEN DOMINGUEZ ET AL VS JAMES B KIRK MD ET AL
Stringent statutory requirements must be met before punitive damages can be alleged in a professional negligence action against a health care provider: In any action for damages arising out of the professional negligence of a health care provider, no claim for punitive damages shall be included in a complaint or other pleading unless the court enters an order allowing an amended pleading that includes a claim for punitive damages to be filed.
SUSAN CHAN CHOW ET AL VS MA LEYBA ET AL
Wrongful Death, Medical Malpractice, & Survival Action A cause of action for professional negligence (medical malpractice) requires the following elements: (1) duty of care owed plaintiff to use such skill, prudence and diligence as other members of the profession commonly possess and exercise; (2) breach; (3) causation; and (4) damage. (Burgess v. Superior Court (1992) 2 Cal. 4th 1064, 1077.)
ELMAR PEREZ VS WB SIMI VALLEY CDJR, LLC, ET AL.
This subdivision shall not be applicable to an agreement to arbitrate disputes as to the professional negligence of a health care provider made pursuant to Section 1295. (CCP § 1281.2.) Discussion Existence of an Arbitration Agreement Under both the Federal Arbitration Act and California law, arbitration agreements are valid, irrevocable, and enforceable, except on such grounds that exist at law or equity for voiding a contract. (Winter v.
JOSEPH K COFEY VS P.L.S. CHECK CASHING
Second Cause of Action for Professional Negligence The demurrer is sustained with 20 days leave to amend. Plaintiff fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, and the cause of action is uncertain.
To distinguish dependent adult abuse from professional negligence, there must be a showing of recklessness, fraud, malice, or oppression. (Ibid.)
In Flowers, the court considered the distinction between “ordinary” and “professional” negligence and concluded “that with respect to questions of substantive law they comprise essentially one form of action.” (Flowers, supra, 8 Cal.4th at p. 995.)
RICHARD ZAJAC VS THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, ET AL.
Defendants counter that the gravamen of Plaintiff’s claim is one for professional negligence, not dependent adult abuse, and Plaintiff cannot assert a claim for dependent adult abuse where he provides only conclusory allegations that Defendants were responsible for Plaintiff’s care. In short, Plaintiff alleges he underwent a surgical procedure with Defendants, which required them to meet his basic needs, including medical care.
2301 SM, L.P. VS ADAM WHEELER DESIGN, CORP ET AL.,
Sixth Cause of Action: Professional Negligence “The elements of a cause of action for professional negligence are (1) the existence of the duty of the professional to use such skill, prudence, and diligence as other members of the profession commonly possess and exercise; (2) breach of that duty; (3) a causal connection between the negligent conduct and the resulting injury; and (4) actual loss or damage resulting from the professional negligence.” (Oasis West Realty, LLC v.
LIU VS. GALLARDO
The First Amended Complaint only alleges two causes of action against Liu Architects which are for professional negligence and breach of contract. On the other hand, the claims against the other defendants far exceed the claims against Liu Architects and those claims have nothing to do with Liu Architects or the contract executed between the parties. In addition, the amount paid is $35,000.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 137 next last »