 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Equality Emergency Medical Group v. Valley Presbyterian Hospital6/12/2002
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
Plaintiff Equality Emergency Medical Group (EEMG), appeals the dismissal of its action against defendant Valley Presbyterian Hospital (Hospital) after the trial court sustained demurrers to the first amended complaint without leave to amend. EEMG's action arises out of the Hospital's decision to permit EEMG's contract to administer the Hospital's emergency department to expire by its own terms, thereby terminating its relationship with EEMG. We conclude that the first amended complaint fails to allege facts sufficient to state a claim against the Hospital, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in sustaining the demurrers without leave to amend. We therefore affirm the judgment of dismissal.
"`On appeal from a judgment dismissing an action after sustaining a demurrer without leave to amend, the standard of review is well settled. The reviewing court gives the complaint a reasonable interpretation, and treats the demurrer as admitting all material facts properly pleaded. [Citations.] The court does not, however, assume the truth of contentions, deductions or conclusions of law. [Citation.] The judgment must be affirmed "if any one of the several grounds of demurrer is well taken. [Citations.]" [Citation.] However, it is error for a trial court to sustain a demurrer when the plaintiff has stated a cause of action under any possible legal theory. [Citation.] And it is an abuse of discretion to sustain a demurrer without leave to amend if the plaintiff shows there is a reasonable possibility any defect identified by the defendant can be cured by amendment. [Citation.]'" (Payne v. National Collection Systems, Inc. (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 1037, 1043-1044, quoting Aubry v. Tri-City Hospital Dist. (1992) 2 Cal.4th 962, 966-967.) Accordingly, we review EEMG's first amended complaint de novo to determine whether it contains facts sufficient to state a cause of action. (Hernandez v. City of Pomona (1996) 49 Cal.App.4th 1492, 1497.) If it does not, we then determine whether the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to allow EEMG another opportunity to amend its complaint. (Traders Sports, Inc. v. City of San Leandro (2001) 93 Cal.App.4th 37, 44.)
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Our summary of the facts is taken from the facts alleged in the first amended complaint (FAC). According to that pleading, EEMG, a professional medical corporation, agreed to provide emergency physician services and administer the Hospital's emergency department pursuant to a written contract dated July 1, 1990 (the contract). EEMG alleges that it "generated approximately $150,000.00 per month from the emergency room agreement with [the Hospital]." The contract contained a termination clause, requiring either party to give the other 120 days written notice prior to terminating the contract with or without cause.
On August 1, 1997, the parties amended the contract to eliminate the 120-day notice provision and to provide that the contract would remain in effect for one year from August 1, 1997 to July 31, 1998, subject to one-year renewal with the written consent of both parties, "unless terminated or cancelled sooner pursuant to the provisions of [the contract]." EEMG alleges that it agreed to the amendment because it determined that under section 13.8 of the Hospital's bylaws, EEMG would receive 180 days notice of termination rath
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 California Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|