Leticia Castaon Garcia v. St. Mary's Medical Center

facts, the relevant legal standards, and the arguments made by the parties. 1. St. Mary’s motion to dismiss is denied because the complaint alleges sufficient facts to support an inference of ostensible agency, which is enough at this stage in the litigation. The plaintiffs have alleged that treatment for Reyes was sought at the hospital. Mejia v. Community Hospital of San Bernadino, 99 Cal. App. 4th 1448, 1458 (2002). The complaint provides no reason to believe that Reyes (or the police officers who brought him to St. Mary’s) sought treatment specifically from Tran, rather than from St. Mary’s. See Markow v. Rosner, 3 Cal. App. 5th 1027, 1038–39 (2016). St. Mary’s is right that the complaint does not specifically allege that Reyes was not notified that Tran was not an employee or agent of St. Mary’s. But given that a plaintiff is not even “required to allege evidentiary facts to support the allegation of agency in the pleading stage,” it doesn’t appear that it needed to. See Dones v. Life Insurance Company of North America, 55 Cal. App. 5th 665, 685 (2020). And the complaint implies that such notice would likely have been ineffective anyway, given its allegations that Reyes was…