Judge Ashfaq G. Chowdhury, Case Number: 24NNCV05308, Date: 2025-01-30 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Ashfaq G. Chowdhury, Case: 24NNCV05308, Date: 2025-01-30 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24NNCV05308 Hearing Date: January 30, 2025 Dept: E

Case No: 24NNCV05308
Hearing Date: 1/30/2025 – 8:30am

Trial Date: UNSET

Case Name: LOLITA MATEVOSSIAN, Individually and as Hier and Successor-in-Interest to ROSEMARY NAZARIANS Deceased v. PROVIDENCE HEALTH SYSTEM SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA d/b/a PROVIDENCE ST. ELIZABETH CARE CENTER; PROVIDENCE HEALTH SYSTEM; DOES 1-50, and DOES 51-60

TENTATIVE RULING ON MOTION TO STRIKE

Moving Party: Defendant, Providence Health System Southern California dba Providence St. Elizabeth Care Center

Responding Party: No Opposition by Plaintiff

Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC Rule 3.1300(c)): Ok
16/21 Court Days Lapsed (CCP § 1005(b)): Ok
Correct Address (CCP § 1013, § 1013a, § 1013b): Ok

Moving Papers: Notice/Motion; Christina Stillwagon Declaration; Proposed Order

Opposition Papers: No Opposition by Plaintiff

Reply Papers: No Reply

RELIEF REQUESTED
“[D]efendant PROVIDENCE HEALTH SYSTEM – SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA dba PROVIDENCE ST. ELIZABETH CARE CENTER will move to strike portions of Plaintiffs’ Complaint as follows:

1. Page 19, paragraph 71, lines 19-22: “Ms. Nazarians is thus entitled to punitive damages in an amount to be determined according to proof, as well as attorney's fees and costs pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 15657.5.

2. Plaintiffs’ prayer for relief, page 24, lines 18-19: “Punitive damages according to proof, including treble punitive damages per Civil Code section 3345.

3. Plaintiffs’ prayer for relief, page 24, line 24: “For attorneys’ fees, according to proof, as permitted by Welf. & Inst. Code § 15657.”

PROCEDURAL
Meet and Confer
Before filing a motion to strike pursuant to this chapter, the moving party shall meet and confer in person or by telephone with the party who filed the pleading that is subject to the motion to strike for the purpose of determining if an agreement can be reached that resolves the objections to be raised in the motion to strike. If an amended pleading is filed, the responding party shall meet and confer again with the party who filed the amended pleading before filing a motion to strike the amended pleading. (CCP § 435.5(a).)

“A determination by the court that the meet and confer process was insufficient shall not be grounds to grant or deny the motion to strike.” (CCP § 435.5(a)(4).)

Here, Defendant’s counsel states that a meet and confer occurred. (Tredway Decl. ¶ 2.)

Legal Standard Motion to Strike
The court may, upon a motion, or at any time in its discretion, and upon terms it deems proper, strike any irrelevant, false, or improper matter inserted in any pleading. (Code Civ. Proc. § 436(a).) The court may also strike all or any part of any pleading not drawn or filed in conformity with the laws of this state, a court rule, or an order of the court. (Code Civ. Proc. § 436(b).) A motion to strike cannot be based upon the grounds that a complaint fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, but instead is properly based on grounds of superfluous or abusive allegations, or improprieties in form or procedure. (Ferraro v. Camarlinghi (2008) 161 Cal.App.4th 509, 528-29.)

The grounds for moving to strike must appear on the face of the pleading or by way of judicial notice. (Code. Civ. Proc. § 437; Turman v. Turning Point of Central California, Inc. (2010) 191 Cal.App.4th 53, 63 [“judges read allegations of a pleading subject to a motion to strike as a whole, all parts in their context, and assume their truth”].)

Further, CCP §431.10(a)-(c) states as follows:

(a) A material allegation in a pleading is one essential to the claim or defense and which could not be stricken from the pleading without leaving it insufficient as to that claim or defense.

(b) An immaterial allegation in a pleading is any of the following:

(1) An allegation that is not essential to the statement of a claim or defense.

(2) An allegation that is neither pertinent to nor supported by an otherwise sufficient claim or defense.

(3) A demand for judgment requesting relief not supported by the allegations of the complaint or cross-complaint.

(CCP § 431.10(a)-(c).)

TENTATIVE RULING
Defendant, Providence Health System Southern California dba Providence St. Elizabeth Care Center, moves to have the following three portions of Plaintiff’s Complaint stricken:

2. Plaintiffs’ prayer for relief, page 24, lines 18-19: “Punitive damages according to proof, including treble punitive damages per Civil Code section 3345.

3. Plaintiffs’ prayer for relief, page 24, line 24: “For attorneys’ fees, according to proof, as permitted by Welf. & Inst. Code § 15657.”

(Def. Notice, p. 2.)

Defendant moves to strike the aforementioned three portions on the basis that Plaintiff did not comply with CCP § 425.14.

Under CCP § 425.15:

No claim for punitive or exemplary damages against a religious corporation or religious corporation shall be included in a complaint or other pleading unless the court enters an order allowing an amended pleading that includes a claim for punitive or exemplary damages to be filed. The court may allow the filing of an amended pleading claiming punitive or exemplary damages on a motion by the party seeking the amended pleading and upon a finding, on the basis of the supporting and opposing affidavits presented, that the plaintiff has established evidence which substantiates that plaintiff will meet the clear and convincing standard of proof under Section 3294 of the Civil Code.

Nothing in this section is intended to affect the plaintiff’s right to discover evidence on the issue of punitive or exemplary damages.

(CCP § 425.14.)

Defendant argues that because it is a nonprofit, religious organization pursuant to § 425.14, Plaintiff cannot seek punitive damages without obtaining a court order allowing an amended pleading that includes a claim for punitive damages to be filed.

Defendant submitted the declaration of Christina Stillwagon, the Director of Risk of Defendant Providence Health System Southern California.

In relevant part, Stillwagon stated:

2. Providence Health System-Southern California, which operates St. Elizabeth Care Center, was formed to establish, operate, manage and maintain for charitable purposes, hospitals, long-term care, housing, medical clinics, health plans, managed care, and other health care facilities, and educational facilities, and programs designed to meet the health, education and social needs of all people, and to provide scientific research, charitable education, charitable and such other activities, services and programs related to its health care facilities, educational facilities and other services.

3. Providence Health System-Southern California is a religious corporation and is not organized for the private gain of any person. It is organized under the Nonprofit Religious Corporation Law primarily for religious purposes. The corporation is organized and is to be operated exclusively for religious, charitable, hospital, scientific, and charitable and educational purposes. The property of the corporation is irrevocably dedicated to religious, charitable, hospital, scientific, and charitable and educational purposes meeting the requirements for exemption provided by Section 214 of the California Revenue and Taxation Code.

(Stillwagon Decl. ¶¶ 2-3.)

Because Stillwagon declared that Defendant is a religious corporation, this Court finds Defendant’s arguments partially availing.

With respect to portion 1 that Defendant seeks to strike – Page 19, paragraph 71, lines 19-22: “Ms. Nazarians is thus entitled to punitive damages in an amount to be determined according to proof, as well as attorney's fees and costs pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 15657.5” – the Court GRANTS Defendant’s motion in part. The Court grants Defendant’s motion regarding portion 1 only with respect to the portion “punitive damages in an amount to be determined according to proof.” The Court denies the motion and does not strike portion 1 with respect to the portion “as well as attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 15657.5.” The Court denies the motion with respect to attorney’s fees and costs because Defendant made no argument providing the legal authority or basis as to why this Court should strike that portion. Defendant only made an argument with respect to punitive damages.

With respect to portion 2 – Plaintiffs’ prayer for relief, page 24, lines 18-19: “Punitive damages according to proof, including treble punitive damages per Civil Code section 3345” – the Court GRANTS Defendant’s motion to strike in its entirety with respect to portion 2 because all of portion 2 pertains to punitive damages, and Plaintiff did not comply with CCP § 425.14.

With respect to portion 3 – Plaintiffs’ prayer for relief, page 24, line 24: “For attorneys’ fees, according to proof, as permitted by Welf. & Inst. Code § 15657” – the Court DENIES Defendant’s motion in whole. The Court denies the motion in whole as to portion 3 because Defendant made no argument providing the legal authority or basis as to why this Court should strike this portion. Defendant only made an argument with respect to punitive damages, and this request has nothing to do with punitive damages.

The Court notes that with respect to Defendant’s motion wherein this Court granted the motion to strike, this Court grants the motion to strike without prejudice to Plaintiff bringing a motion under CCP § 425.14, if appropriate.

Further, the Court notes that the portions that it struck in this ruling only pertain to moving Defendant (Providence Health System Southern California dba Providence St. Elizabeth Care Center). The Court is not striking anything in reference to the other named Defendant, Providence Health System, because Providence Health System did not file a motion to strike.

Website by Triangulus