There was a problem locating the requested document.
Page 1 oOo OA Nn ODO oO BP WD DN —
no NO: NO Nh NO NO DO RO No — — = — = — = = = =
eo ™s °o ao A w N = oO co oC “NO oa A Ow Nh = oO
2
HASSARD BONNINGTON LLP i { L KR D
Joseph C. Gharrity, Esq. (#117013) jcq@hassard.com
Gregory J. Lewis, Esq. (#305429) gil@hassard.com San Francisco County Superior Court
111 Pine Street, Suite 1530 OCT 29 2025
San Francisco, California 94111
Telephone: (415) 288-9800 CLERK we
Fax: (415) 288-9801 wy}
. \/ Deputy Clerk
Attorneys for Defendants:
(1) Lloyd Damon; (2) Matthew Oertli; (3) Shagun Arora; (4) Feifei Xue; (5) Nicole
Appelle; (6) Matthew Aldrich; (7) Miguel Cerejo; (8) The Regents of the University of
California, erroneously sued herein as “UCSF Health by and through the Regents of
The University of California’; (9) UCSF Health ACO, LLC; (10) UCSF Health
Community Hospitals; and (11) UCSF Medical Foundation
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
UNLIMITED JURISDICTION
MYHOA NGUYEN, No. CGC-22-599966
“qh
Plaintiff, {PROPOSED} ORDER SUSTAINING
DEFENDANTS’ DEMURRER TO
vs. PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED
COMPLAINT WITHOUT LEAVE TO
REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF AMEND
CALIFORNIA, UCSF MEDICAL CENTER,
et al, Date: October 29, 2025
Time: 9:00 a.m.
Defendants. Department: 302
Complaint Filed: June 3, 2022
Trial Date: None
Defendants’ ((1) Lloyd Damon; (2) Matthew Oertli; (3) Shagun Arora; (4) Feifei
Xue; (5) Nicole Appelle; (6) Matthew Aldrich; (7) Miguel Cerejo; (8) The Regents of
the University of California, erroneously sued herein as “UCSF Health by and through
the Regents of The University of California’; (9) UCSF Health ACO, LLC; (10) UCSF
Health Community Hospitals; and (11) UCSF Medical Foundation) demurrer to Third
Amendment to Complaint is sustained without leave to amend.
Defendant’s demurrer is based on Code of Civil Procedure section 430.10(e).
Thép “t-
ORDER SUSTAINING DEFENDANTS’ DEMURRER TO
7
PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMENDPage 2 And
oO an mo om KR WO DN =
pO mM NM DMO DO HB YD YDB NO FSF | FSF FSP BF FP PF FPF - 2s
on ODO oO KR WD HBS |= ODO Oo AN DO a fF WO NY | O
The issue under section 430.10(e) is taking the facts properly pleaded as true does
the challenged cause of action necessarily fail to state a cause for relief. (See Code
of Civil Procedure section 430.10(e); Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318.) In
assessing whether the complaint states a cause of action, the court accepts all
properly pleaded material facts, but not contentions, deductions, or conclusions of
fact or law. (Minton v. Dignity Health (2019) 39 Cal.App.5th 1155, 1161.) “[I]f, on
consideration of all facts stated, it appears that plaintiff is entitled to any relief against
defendant, the complaint will be held good, though facts may not be clearly stated, or
may be intermingled with a statement of other facts irrelevant to cause of action
shown, or though plaintiff may demand relief to which he is not entitled under facts
alleged.” (Augustine v. Trucco (1954) 124 Cal.App.2d 229, 236, quoting Matteson v.
Wagoner (1905) 147 Cal. 739, 742.) The court liberally construes the complaint
pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 452.
The court finds Defendants met their meet and confer obligation.
Sig certs bes cms idaved | inkidd: late Ried
Defendant’s demurrer is sustained on the meritspas“well. Plaintiff's principal
causes of action are time barred. Code of Civil Procedure section 340.5 provides: “In
an action for injury...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.” As the court observed in its July 17, 2025 Order, Plaintiff alleges Defendants
negligently treated her mother and caused her death on May 16, 2021, yet she did
not bring a claim against Defendants until three and a half years later. Further i in its
July 2025 Order, the court expressly rejected the contention that Plaintiff's October
2024 amendment in which she first made claims against these parties should relate
-2-
[PROPOSED] ORDER SUSTAINING DEFENDANTS’ DEMURRER TO
PLAINTIFF’ $ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMENDPage 3 |.
#
me (see pase
4.)
oO Oo ON ODO A
back to her initial complaint, filed in June 2022. Plaintiffs claims are untimely and,
thus, barred.
‘In its July 2025 Order, the court gave Plaintiff leave to amend to allege facts
that would except her claims from the time bar. Plaintiffs August 2025 Third
Amendment to the Complaint fails to allege facts that would support a finding that her
claims were timely. Plaintiffs belated challenge to her own July 2024 dismissal of the
Doe Defendants is without effect. Plaintiff has neither brought a motion under Code of
Civil Procedure section 473 nor alleged facts that would support relief under section
473. Plaintiffs apparent challenge to the court's July 2025 ruling on the relation back
issue is unsupported and does not amount to factual allegations that would support a
finding that Plaintiff's claims were timely. Plaintiff has failed to allege facts that could
support a finding that her October 2024 claims Defendants were timely. Notably,
equitable tolling has limited application in actions under MICRA and Plaintiff has not
alleged fact that would support two and a half years of tolling. (See Code of Civil
Procedure section 340.5: Belton v. Bowers Ambulance Serv. (1999) 20 Cal.4th 928,
934.) Plaintiffs “new information since the filing of the case” does not amount to
factual allegations that would support a finding that Plaintiffs claims were timely. To
the extent Plaintiff is alleging fraudulent concealment, Plaintiff has not established any
of the alleged fraudulent conduct had any bearing on her June 2022 initial complaint,
her June 2023 dismissal or her October 2024 amendment to add claims against
Defendants.
In July 2025 order, the court granted Plaintiff leave to amend “to allege facts to
support equitable tolling or other relief from the apparent time bar.” As discussed
above, Plaintiff's allegations in her Third Amendment to Complaint are inadequate. In
her Third Amendment to Complaint, Plaintiff also seems to add new substantive
causes of action. Those causes of action fail to state a claim for which relief can be
granted. “Relation back” is not a cause of action upon which relief can be granted.
Plaintiff now has twice pled fraud, but neither time, including now in her Third
3.
[PROPOSED] ORDER SUSTAINING DEFENDANTS’ DEMURRER TO
PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND \Page 4 oclUlUCcOlUlUCUCONOUCUMNN CUCU OO ROOT
mM NH NY DB NY HDB NDB NY NYO | | HF SP BP SP FP Fs
aon co uo fh ODO DBS | CO O DN OD FH F&F WO ND =
Amendment to Complaint, has she pled facts sufficient to establish the elements of
fraud, let alone satisfy the particularity pleading requirement. (See Lazar v. Superior
Court (1996) 12 Cal.4th 631.)
Defendants’ request for judicial notice of exhibits 1 through 12 is granted. (See
Evidence Code sections 452(c) & (d).) Defendants’ request the court take judicial
notice of its entire docket “[p]ursuant to Evid, Code [sections] 540, et seq.” is denied.
Requests for judicial notice must be addressed to specific relevant material and
supported by adequate authority and argument. Defendants’ request in a footnote
was not accompanied by adequate authority or argument, and section 450 does not
provide a basis for judicial notice of any kind. Further, Defendant did not establish the
entire docket is relevant.
Plaintiff has not made any showing regarding an ability to amend her claims to
overcome these deficiencies and no basis for amendment is apparent on this record.
Thus, the court denies leave to amend. V
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: Oor-23, Zozs Ve.
tx GE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT
JOSEPH M. QUINN
T+ is tre thes a A Lfowrst OnrDysic me ts The Keagnrs, WhO War @P dy ths baa
Prime tough June 2023 wall To8 202% whe Plornh ly eomiavedl ob om 4h. ee A thabansind
mn Aki mohin for Survey | Mehr east Td is chro Plataidd Kned odor her clare eprined
(lu Keparte no lotntho. Tene 2022. be Acsmizseal Tr Rpten Toh 2023 acl worrect urn
Dede 2024 to Line nud chains of fevive her elouns. Even iP Plann equtol hencfit fre
Some Wl |iry bot town June? bad ed July 2022 he Oppo 2O2Y Rein, ahich v4 th claur
quer? bifes Ce covel pina Tha Rape one ton late woke sechn B46, cea
Plan bf heeoforhad te elepe % Joed-suppahe/ Lavi table polling OF On adi Keep Tr
te time ban, 4
[PROPOSED] ORDER SUSTAINING DEFENDANTS’ DEMURRER TO
PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND
PDF Page 1
PlainSite Cover Page
PDF Page 2
oOo OA Nn ODO oO BP WD DN —
no NO: NO Nh NO NO DO RO No — — = — = — = = = =
eo ™s °o ao A w N = oO co oC “NO oa A Ow Nh = oO
2
HASSARD BONNINGTON LLP i { L KR D
Joseph C. Gharrity, Esq. (#117013) jcq@hassard.com
Gregory J. Lewis, Esq. (#305429) gil@hassard.com San Francisco County Superior Court
111 Pine Street, Suite 1530 OCT 29 2025
San Francisco, California 94111
Telephone: (415) 288-9800 CLERK we
Fax: (415) 288-9801 wy}
. \/ Deputy Clerk
Attorneys for Defendants:
(1) Lloyd Damon; (2) Matthew Oertli; (3) Shagun Arora; (4) Feifei Xue; (5) Nicole
Appelle; (6) Matthew Aldrich; (7) Miguel Cerejo; (8) The Regents of the University of
California, erroneously sued herein as “UCSF Health by and through the Regents of
The University of California’; (9) UCSF Health ACO, LLC; (10) UCSF Health
Community Hospitals; and (11) UCSF Medical Foundation
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
UNLIMITED JURISDICTION
MYHOA NGUYEN, No. CGC-22-599966
“qh
Plaintiff, {PROPOSED} ORDER SUSTAINING
DEFENDANTS’ DEMURRER TO
vs. PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED
COMPLAINT WITHOUT LEAVE TO
REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF AMEND
CALIFORNIA, UCSF MEDICAL CENTER,
et al, Date: October 29, 2025
Time: 9:00 a.m.
Defendants. Department: 302
Complaint Filed: June 3, 2022
Trial Date: None
Defendants’ ((1) Lloyd Damon; (2) Matthew Oertli; (3) Shagun Arora; (4) Feifei
Xue; (5) Nicole Appelle; (6) Matthew Aldrich; (7) Miguel Cerejo; (8) The Regents of
the University of California, erroneously sued herein as “UCSF Health by and through
the Regents of The University of California’; (9) UCSF Health ACO, LLC; (10) UCSF
Health Community Hospitals; and (11) UCSF Medical Foundation) demurrer to Third
Amendment to Complaint is sustained without leave to amend.
Defendant’s demurrer is based on Code of Civil Procedure section 430.10(e).
Thép “t-
ORDER SUSTAINING DEFENDANTS’ DEMURRER TO
7
PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND
PDF Page 3
And
oO an mo om KR WO DN =
pO mM NM DMO DO HB YD YDB NO FSF | FSF FSP BF FP PF FPF - 2s
on ODO oO KR WD HBS |= ODO Oo AN DO a fF WO NY | O
The issue under section 430.10(e) is taking the facts properly pleaded as true does
the challenged cause of action necessarily fail to state a cause for relief. (See Code
of Civil Procedure section 430.10(e); Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318.) In
assessing whether the complaint states a cause of action, the court accepts all
properly pleaded material facts, but not contentions, deductions, or conclusions of
fact or law. (Minton v. Dignity Health (2019) 39 Cal.App.5th 1155, 1161.) “[I]f, on
consideration of all facts stated, it appears that plaintiff is entitled to any relief against
defendant, the complaint will be held good, though facts may not be clearly stated, or
may be intermingled with a statement of other facts irrelevant to cause of action
shown, or though plaintiff may demand relief to which he is not entitled under facts
alleged.” (Augustine v. Trucco (1954) 124 Cal.App.2d 229, 236, quoting Matteson v.
Wagoner (1905) 147 Cal. 739, 742.) The court liberally construes the complaint
pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 452.
The court finds Defendants met their meet and confer obligation.
Sig certs bes cms idaved | inkidd: late Ried
Defendant’s demurrer is sustained on the meritspas“well. Plaintiff's principal
causes of action are time barred. Code of Civil Procedure section 340.5 provides: “In
an action for injury...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.” As the court observed in its July 17, 2025 Order, Plaintiff alleges Defendants
negligently treated her mother and caused her death on May 16, 2021, yet she did
not bring a claim against Defendants until three and a half years later. Further i in its
July 2025 Order, the court expressly rejected the contention that Plaintiff's October
2024 amendment in which she first made claims against these parties should relate
-2-
[PROPOSED] ORDER SUSTAINING DEFENDANTS’ DEMURRER TO
PLAINTIFF’ $ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND
PDF Page 4
|.
#
me (see pase
4.)
oO Oo ON ODO A
back to her initial complaint, filed in June 2022. Plaintiffs claims are untimely and,
thus, barred.
‘In its July 2025 Order, the court gave Plaintiff leave to amend to allege facts
that would except her claims from the time bar. Plaintiffs August 2025 Third
Amendment to the Complaint fails to allege facts that would support a finding that her
claims were timely. Plaintiffs belated challenge to her own July 2024 dismissal of the
Doe Defendants is without effect. Plaintiff has neither brought a motion under Code of
Civil Procedure section 473 nor alleged facts that would support relief under section
473. Plaintiffs apparent challenge to the court's July 2025 ruling on the relation back
issue is unsupported and does not amount to factual allegations that would support a
finding that Plaintiff's claims were timely. Plaintiff has failed to allege facts that could
support a finding that her October 2024 claims Defendants were timely. Notably,
equitable tolling has limited application in actions under MICRA and Plaintiff has not
alleged fact that would support two and a half years of tolling. (See Code of Civil
Procedure section 340.5: Belton v. Bowers Ambulance Serv. (1999) 20 Cal.4th 928,
934.) Plaintiffs “new information since the filing of the case” does not amount to
factual allegations that would support a finding that Plaintiffs claims were timely. To
the extent Plaintiff is alleging fraudulent concealment, Plaintiff has not established any
of the alleged fraudulent conduct had any bearing on her June 2022 initial complaint,
her June 2023 dismissal or her October 2024 amendment to add claims against
Defendants.
In July 2025 order, the court granted Plaintiff leave to amend “to allege facts to
support equitable tolling or other relief from the apparent time bar.” As discussed
above, Plaintiff's allegations in her Third Amendment to Complaint are inadequate. In
her Third Amendment to Complaint, Plaintiff also seems to add new substantive
causes of action. Those causes of action fail to state a claim for which relief can be
granted. “Relation back” is not a cause of action upon which relief can be granted.
Plaintiff now has twice pled fraud, but neither time, including now in her Third
3.
[PROPOSED] ORDER SUSTAINING DEFENDANTS’ DEMURRER TO
PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND \
PDF Page 5
oclUlUCcOlUlUCUCONOUCUMNN CUCU OO ROOT
mM NH NY DB NY HDB NDB NY NYO | | HF SP BP SP FP Fs
aon co uo fh ODO DBS | CO O DN OD FH F&F WO ND =
Amendment to Complaint, has she pled facts sufficient to establish the elements of
fraud, let alone satisfy the particularity pleading requirement. (See Lazar v. Superior
Court (1996) 12 Cal.4th 631.)
Defendants’ request for judicial notice of exhibits 1 through 12 is granted. (See
Evidence Code sections 452(c) & (d).) Defendants’ request the court take judicial
notice of its entire docket “[p]ursuant to Evid, Code [sections] 540, et seq.” is denied.
Requests for judicial notice must be addressed to specific relevant material and
supported by adequate authority and argument. Defendants’ request in a footnote
was not accompanied by adequate authority or argument, and section 450 does not
provide a basis for judicial notice of any kind. Further, Defendant did not establish the
entire docket is relevant.
Plaintiff has not made any showing regarding an ability to amend her claims to
overcome these deficiencies and no basis for amendment is apparent on this record.
Thus, the court denies leave to amend. V
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: Oor-23, Zozs Ve.
tx GE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT
JOSEPH M. QUINN
T+ is tre thes a A Lfowrst OnrDysic me ts The Keagnrs, WhO War @P dy ths baa
Prime tough June 2023 wall To8 202% whe Plornh ly eomiavedl ob om 4h. ee A thabansind
mn Aki mohin for Survey | Mehr east Td is chro Plataidd Kned odor her clare eprined
(lu Keparte no lotntho. Tene 2022. be Acsmizseal Tr Rpten Toh 2023 acl worrect urn
Dede 2024 to Line nud chains of fevive her elouns. Even iP Plann equtol hencfit fre
Some Wl |iry bot town June? bad ed July 2022 he Oppo 2O2Y Rein, ahich v4 th claur
quer? bifes Ce covel pina Tha Rape one ton late woke sechn B46, cea
Plan bf heeoforhad te elepe % Joed-suppahe/ Lavi table polling OF On adi Keep Tr
te time ban, 4
[PROPOSED] ORDER SUSTAINING DEFENDANTS’ DEMURRER TO
PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND
Back to 
