Judge: Christian R. Gullon, Case: 22PSCV00977, Date: 2024-11-04 Tentative Ruling

The Court may change tentative rulings at any time. Therefore, attorneys are advised to check this website to determine if any changes or updates have been made to the tentative ruling.

Counsel may submit on the tentative rulings by calling the clerk in Dept. O at 909-802-1126 before 8:30 the morning of the hearing. Submission on the tentative does not bind the court to adopt the tentative ruling at the hearing should the opposing party appear and convince the court of further modification during oral argument.

The Tentative Ruling is not an invitation, nor an opportunity, to file any further documents relative to the hearing in question. No such filing will be considered by the Court in the absence of permission first obtained following ex-parte application therefore.

Case Number: 22PSCV00977    Hearing Date: November 4, 2024    Dept: O

Tentative Ruling

STRIDE ADULT RESIDENTIAL FACILITY L-3’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION OF ISSUES is CONTINUED for Plaintiff to complete the depositions.

Background

This case arises from inpatient care at an adult residential facility. Plaintiff PRISCILLA SALCEDO, an individual, by and through her co-conservator SARAH GONZALEZ alleges the following against Defendants Stride Adult Residential Facility L-3 (“Defendant Stride”), Los Angeles County Regional Center, and Does 1 through 200: Plaintiff was admitted as an inpatient to a 24-hour Adult Residential Facility for the developmentally disabled. While under the care and treatment of DEFENDANTS, Plaintiff developed severe dental issues, including the need for full extraction of her teeth, rehabilitation of her gums, and will need permanent implants.

On September 2, 2022, Plaintiff filed suit for (1) Dependent Adult Abuse and (2) Negligence.

On October 26, 2022, SAN GABRIEL POMONA VALLEYS DEVELOPMENTAL SERVICES, INC. dba SAN GABRIEL/PONOMNA REGIONAL CENTER (“SG/PRC”), a nonprofit corporation, erroneously sued herein as LOS ANGELES COUNTY REGIONAL CENTER (“Regional Center”) filed its Answer.

On November 8, 2022, Defendant Stride filed a demurrer with a motion to strike, which the court on 1/9/23 sustained with leave to amend. (The court did so because on the grounds of uncertainty in that the pleading improperly lumped the defendants.)

On February 22, 2023, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint (FAC).

On March 6, 2023, the Regional Center filed its Answer to the FAC.

On March 27, 2023, Stride filed its answer to the FAC.

On March 1, 2024, Stride filed the instant motion.

On April 11, 2024, the parties filed a Stipulation to Continue Trial and Other Related Dates.

On October 21 2024, Plaintiff filed a ‘DECLARATION OF STEVEN C. PECK IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION OF DEFENDANT, STRIDE ADULT RESIDENTIAL FACILITY L-3 AND REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCE UNDER CALIFORNIA CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 437C(H).’

On October 29, 2024, Strike filed its Reply.

Discussion

Defendant Strikes seeks summary judgment as to the Dependent Adult Abuse COA and summary adjudication as to the prayer for punitive damages. More specifically, Stride seeks summary judgment on the COA because for sixteen (16) years while a resident at the facility, neither Plaintiff nor her parents complained about the care Plaintiff was receiving; Plaintiffs' claims rest on an isolated event where Stride inadvertently delayed in scheduling a follow up for a period of time following a single dental visit. (See Motion generally.)

Plaintiff has not filed an opposition. Instead, Plaintiff seeks a continuance to complete the deposition testimony of Mr. Renee Hunt (“Hunt”), the administrator of Stride, as well as the Person Most Knowledgeable (PMK) deposition of the Regional Center scheduled for November 19, 2024.

California Code of Civil procedure § 437c(h) provides:

If it appears from the affidavits submitted in opposition to a motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication, or both, that facts essential to justify opposition may exist but cannot, for reasons stated, be presented, the court shall deny the motion, order a continuance to permit affidavits to be obtained or discovery to be had, or make any other order as may be just. The application to continue the motion to obtain necessary discovery may also be made by ex parte motion at any time on or before the date the opposition response to the motion is due.

Plaintiff’s Counsel’s declaration states that the discovery is necessary to reveal facts about the inadequate staffing and “Defendants’ awareness of insufficient training and qualifications.” (Peck Decl., pp. 3-4.) Further, Counsel Peck explains that the originally scheduled depositions were “unilaterally taken off calendar” by Stride.

In Reply, Stride provides a different narration: “Plaintiffs have taken a very lackadaisical approach to completing any depositions in the case despite their awareness of Stride's pending motion which has been on file with this court since February 29, 2024.” (Reply pp. 5-6.) More specifically, Plaintiffs did get two hours of Stride's PMK. As to Hunt’s deposition, Defendant Stride explains it was Plaintiff’s Counsel who unilaterally noticed the continued deposition for 9/13, to which Defendants' counsel emailed Plaintiffs' counsel and requested Ms. Hunt's unilaterally noticed deposition be advanced to September 12 and that Hunt would otherwise be unavailable until November. Plaintiff’s Counsel agreed to continue Hunt’s deposition to November, instead of 9/12/24.

Here, even if the depositions could have been completed sooner and even if it is “hard to imagine” that Hunt or the Regional Center will provide testimony to create a triable issue of material fact (Reply p. 7:5-7), the court seeks to rule on the merits of the motion.

Therefore, the court continues the hearing.

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, the motion is continued for Plaintiff to complete the depositions.