Doan v. Ghoshal CA3


Filed 11/17/20 Doan v. Ghoshal CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento) ---- WILLIAM DOAN, C088128 Plaintiff and Appellant, (Super. Ct. No. 34201700214451CUMCGDS) v. ASISH GHOSHAL, Defendant and Respondent. On June 21, 2017, plaintiff, serving as a caretaker, transported a patient to defendant’s medical office. When plaintiff presented the receptionist with the patient’s insurance card, the receptionist bent the card and got into a loud verbal altercation with plaintiff and the patient, culminating in plaintiff and the patient being ejected from the office. Plaintiff commenced this action asserting causes of action to recover damages 1 under Civil Code section 52.11 and for intentional infliction of emotional distress.2 The trial court sustained defendant’s demurrer to the original complaint with leave to amend. After numerous additional procedural steps, the trial court sustained defendant’s demurrer to plaintiff’s third amended complaint without leave to amend and entered judgment in favor of defendant.3 Plaintiff, appearing in propria persona, asserts on appeal: (1) the trial court abused its discretion in sustaining the demurrer without leave to amend, (2) plaintiff’s proposed amendments relate to the same general set of facts, and (3) his proposed third amended complaint was not a sham pleading.4 We affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Alleged Facts5 Plaintiff transported the patient to defendant’s medical practice. Upon their arrival, the receptionist directed plaintiff to fill out an admittance form and requested the patient’s insurance card. The patient was a MediCal recipient who ordinarily had both a MediCal card and a Health Management Organization (HMO) card issued by the 1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Civil Code. 2 The patient is not a party to this action. 3 In actuality, this pleading was only the second amended complaint. As plaintiff acknowledges, he misnamed it the third amended complaint. We adhere to that name for consistency. 4 Regarding his third contention, plaintiff refers to both a second and third amended complaint. We assume this results from the confusion resulting from his erroneous denomination of the operative complaint as the third amended complaint even though it was, in actuality, the second amended complaint. 5 The underlying facts are derived from the third amended complaint, as it is the operative pleading. 2 contracted health care provider for MediCal. At the time, however, the patient only had her MediCal card with her. The receptionist “rejected the MediCal card, stating that it was the wrong card.” Plaintiff attempted to explain the patient’s insurance circumstances and urged the receptionist to contact the patient’s insurer. However, the receptionist “refused to do so and immediately bent the patient’s MediCal card in an attempt to destroy the card.” Plaintiff stopped the receptionist before she could destroy the ...

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals