cmia claim in California

2026(Id. at pp. 554–555 & fn. 3.) On demurrer, the Court of Appeal said that a plaintiff filing suit under section 56.36, subdivision (b) must “plead[], and ultimately prov[e], that the confidential nature of the plaintiff’s medical information was breached as a result of the health care provider’s negligence.” (Id. at p. 570.) Because “no one (except perhaps the thief) knows what happened to the [stolen hard drive], [the plaintiff] cannot allege her medical records were, in fact, viewed by an unauthorized individual.” (Ibid.) According to the court, the Legislature intended a CMIA violation to re

2022The trial court denied the motion, finding as to the CMIA claim 1 Unless otherwise indicated, all statutory references are to the Civil Code. 1 that each class member would have to show that the confidential nature of his or her medical information had been breached by an unauthorized party, as required by Sutter Health v. Superior Court (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 1546 (Sutter Health), and therefore that common issues would not predominate.

2022(See Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Oracle Corp. (2021) 65 Cal.App.5th 506 , 563.) 5 Thrifty Oil Co. (2000) 23 Cal.4th 429, 436 (Linder) [“ ‘Any valid pertinent reason stated will be sufficient to uphold the order’ ”].) I.

2022(See Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Oracle Corp. (2021) 65 Cal.App.5th 506 , 563.) 5 Thrifty Oil Co. (2000) 23 Cal.4th 429, 436 (Linder) [“ ‘Any valid pertinent reason stated will be sufficient to uphold the order’ ”].) I.

2024Dist. (1976) 56 Cal.App.3d 353, 356 [“statutory language clearly indicates that the [six- month] clause covers tort claims only”].) Whether an action “is contractual or tortious depends upon the nature of the right sued upon, and not the form of the pleading or the relief demanded. [Citations.] If the action is based on a breach of a promise, it is contractual; if it is based on a breach of a noncontractual duty, it is in tort. [¶] If the breach is both contractual and tortious, we must ascertain which duty is the quintessence of the action.” (Ibid.) As an initial matter, plaintiffs assert the

2024A. Standard of Review “ ‘The purpose of a demurrer is to test the sufficiency of a complaint by raising questions of law.’ ” (Candelore v. Tinder, Inc. (2018) 19 Cal.App.5th 1138, 1143 .) “We review an order sustaining a demurrer de novo, exercising our independent judgment as to whether a cause of action has been stated as a matter of law.” (Thompson v. Ioane (2017) 11 Cal.App.5th 1180, 1190 .) In doing so, “ ‘[w]e assume the truth of the properly pleaded factual allegations, [and] facts that reasonably can be inferred from those expressly pleaded.’ [Citation.] But we do not assume the truth

2023Code, §§ 328, subd. (a), 300, subds. (a), (c) [requiring social worker to investigate if there is cause to believe minor has suffered serious physical or emotional harm by parent]; Dwight R. v. Christy B. (2013) 212 Cal.App.4th 697, 711 (Dwight R.) [statements made in investigation by child protective services into suspected child abuse were made in anticipation of possible 5 juvenile dependency proceeding and fell within scope of anti-SLAPP statute].) Roller contends, however, that he met his burden to show his CMIA claim has minimal merit, because his declaration and Brady’s own statements s

2021The trial court granted Sutherland and the County’s motion for summary judgment, ruling as to the CMIA claim that plaintiffs’ circumstantial evidence was insufficient to create a triable issue that the confidential nature of the plaintiffs’ medical information had been breached by an unauthorized individual, as required by the Third District’s decision in Sutter Health v. 1 Statutory references are to this code unless otherwise stated. 2 Superior Court (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 1546, 1555 (Sutter Health) and this court’s decision in Regents of University of California v. Superior Court (2013) 220

2021The trial court granted Sutherland and the County’s motion for summary judgment, ruling as to the CMIA claim that plaintiffs’ circumstantial evidence was insufficient to create a triable issue that the confidential nature of the plaintiffs’ medical information had been breached by an unauthorized individual, as required by the Third District’s decision in Sutter Health v. 1 Statutory references are to this code unless otherwise stated. 2 Superior Court (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 1546, 1555 (Sutter Health) and this court’s decision in Regents of University of California v. Superior Court (2013) 220