Judge: Colin Leis, Case: 23STCV02029, Date: 2023-11-03 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23STCV02029 Hearing Date: November 3, 2023 Dept: 74
Mary J. Pinnere, et al. v. Rio Hondo
Healthcare, Inc., et al.
Defendants’ Demurrer
The court considered the moving papers, opposition,
and reply.
BACKGROUND
This
action arises from a dispute over alleged medical malpractice.
On
January 30, 2023, Plaintiff Mary J. Pinnere, by and through her successor in
interest Jon Pinnere (Plaintiff), filed a complaint against Defendant Arinder
Chadha (Defendant) and others. The complaint alleges elder abuse (neglect),
negligence, violation of resident’s bill of rights, elder abuse (financial),
and wrongful death.
On
April 5, 2023, Defendant filed this demurrer for the first and fourth causes of
action.
LEGAL STANDARD
A
demurrer can be used only to challenge defects that appear on the face of the
pleading under attack or from matters outside the pleading that are judicially
noticeable. (¿¿Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318¿¿.) “¿To
survive a demurrer, the complaint need only allege facts sufficient to state a
cause of action; each evidentiary fact that might eventually form part of the
plaintiff’s proof need not be alleged.¿” (¿¿C.A. v. William S. Hart Union
High School Dist. (2012) 53 Cal.4th 861, 872¿¿.) For the purpose of testing
the sufficiency of the cause of action, the demurrer admits the truth of all
material facts properly pleaded. (¿Aubry v. Tri-City Hospital Dist. (1992)
2 Cal.4th 962, 966-967¿.) A demurrer “¿does not admit contentions, deductions
or conclusions of fact or law.¿” (¿¿Daar v. Yellow Cab Co. (1967) 67
Cal.2d 695, 713¿¿.)
DISCUSSION
First Cause of Action – Elder Abuse
– Neglect
Defendant first argues the court
should sustain his demurrer for this cause of action because the complaint’s
allegations illustrate an inadequate undertaking of medical care, rather than a
failure to provide such care at all as required for an elder abuse claim. (Carter
v. Prime Healthcare Paradise Valley, LLC (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 396,
404-405.) Nowhere does the complaint claim that Defendant withheld medical care
from Plaintiff. In fact, the Plaintiff alleges otherwise. (Complaint, ¶ 75 [“It
wasn’t sufficient for [Defendant] to merely ‘go through the motions’ of treating
[Plaintiff] . . . [Defendant] made the affirmative decision to provide only
truncated care . . .”].)
Next,
Defendant contends the complaint fails to allege facts indicative of a
caretaking or custodial relationship. For an elder abuse claim, a plaintiff
must prove that a defendant is liable for physical abuse or neglect under
Welfare and Institutions Code section 15610.57, and that the defendant
committed the abuse with recklessness, oppression, fraud, or malice. (Winn
v. Pioneer Medical Group, Inc. (2016) 63 Cal.4th 148, 156.) In this
context, neglect means “the negligent failure of any person having the care or
custody of an elder or dependent adult to exercise that degree of care that a
reasonable person in a like position would exercise.” (Welf. & Inst. Code,
§ 15610.57, subd. (a)(1).) Care and custody in turn mean a relationship where a
party has assumed responsibility for attending to an elder’s basic needs that
an able-bodied and fully competent adult would ordinarily be capable of
managing without assistance. (Winn v. Pioneer Medical Group, Inc., supra, 63
Cal.4th at p. 158.)
Here,
the complaint alleges Defendant failed to properly treat Plaintiff’s health
conditions, endangered Plaintiff by prescribing sedatives, insufficiently monitored
and evaluated Plaintiff, and neglected to address any irregularities in
Plaintiff’s drug regimen. (Complaint, ¶¶ 40, 48, 49-51, 73, 75, 76.) An
able-bodied, competent adult could not ordinarily manage any of these needs on
her own. Such needs typically require the assistance of a medical professional.
Thus, the complaint does not state facts sufficient to support a cause of
action for elder abuse (neglect) against Defendant.
Fourth Cause of Action – Elder Abuse
– Financial
Defendant
notes that the complaint alleges this cause of action collectively against all
defendants. Thus, it is unclear which allegations apply to Defendant. When a
complaint alleges a cause of action in pursuit of punitive damages, the
complaint’s allegations must be more specific (who, what, where, when, how)
than liberal pleading rules ordinarily require. (G.D. Searle & Co. v
Superior Court (1975) 49 Cal. App.3d 22, 29.) Relying on future discovery
to clarify the allegations (see e.g. Khoury v Maly’s of California, Inc.
(1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 612, 616) does not suffice when the complaint
forces a defendant facing possible punitive damages to guess what the plaintiff
alleges the defendant did wrong. Accordingly, the court sustains the demurrer
with leave to amend.
CONCLUSION
The
court sustains Defendant’s demurrer to the first and fourth causes of action
with 20 days leave to amend.
Defendant
shall give notice.
//////////////////////////////////
Mary J. Pinnere, et al. v. Rio Hondo
Healthcare, Inc., et al.
Defendant’s Motion to Strike
Portions of Plaintiff’s Complaint
The court considered the moving
papers, opposition, and reply.
BACKGROUND
This
action arises from a dispute over alleged medical malpractice.
On
January 30, 2023, Plaintiff Mary J. Pinnere, by and through her successor in
interest Jon Pinnere (Plaintiff), filed a complaint against Defendant Arinder
Chadha (Defendant) and others. The complaint alleges elder abuse (neglect),
negligence, violation of resident’s bill of rights, elder abuse (financial),
and wrongful death.
On
April 5, 2023, Defendant filed this motion to strike.
LEGAL STANDARD
A court may strike any “¿irrelevant,
false or improper matter¿inserted in any pleading¿” or any part of a 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¿.) “¿The grounds for a
motion to strike shall appear on the face of the challenged pleading or from
any matter of which the court is required to take judicial notice.¿” (¿Code
Civ. Proc., § 437¿.)¿
DISCUSSION
Defendant
seeks to strike paragraphs 59 through 87 and 101
through 120, which are the allegations supporting Plaintiff’s elder abuse
claims. Because the court sustained Defendant’s demurrer for these causes of
action, the motion to strike these allegations is moot. Likewise moot is
Defendant’s request to strike the requests for punitive damages and attorney’s
fees stated in the prayers for the first and fourth causes of action (pages 23,
lines 21-22, and page 24, lines 4-5) because those prayers fall with their
concomitant causes of action.
CONCLUSION
Based
on the foregoing, the court finds Defendant’s motion to strike moot.
Defendant
shall give notice.