Judge: Deirdre Hill, Case: 22TRCV00776, Date: 2023-01-26 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22TRCV00776    Hearing Date: January 26, 2023    Dept: M

Hearing Date:                         January 26, 2023

Moving Parties:                      (1) Defendant UHS of Delaware, Inc., (2) defendant Del Amo Hospital, Inc.

Responding Party:                  Plaintiff Kaila M. Gutierrez

(1)   Motion to Strike FAC

(2)   Motion to Strike FAC

            The court considered the moving and opposition papers.

RULING

            The motions to strike are DENIED.

BACKGROUND

            On September 1, 2022, plaintiff Kaila M. Gutierrez, a minor by and through her parent and guardian ad litem, Nikkie Parra Dowding, filed a complaint against defendants Juden C. Valdez, M.D., UHS of Delaware, Inc., and Del Amo Hospital, Inc. for (1) medical negligence/malpractice and (2) premises liability – failure to protect from criminal acts of third parties.

            On November 14, 2022, plaintiff filed a FAC.

LEGAL AUTHORITY

“The court may, upon a motion . . . , or at any time in its discretion, and upon terms it deems proper:  (a) Strike any irrelevant, false, or improper matter inserted in any pleading.  (b) Strike out 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.”  CCP §436(b).

            CCP §431.10 states:  “(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. 

(c) An ‘immaterial allegation’ means ‘irrelevant matter’ as that term is used in Section 436.”

The grounds for moving to strike must appear on the face of the pleading or by way of judicial notice.  CCP §437.

DISCUSSION

            Defendants UHS of Delaware, Inc. and Del Amo Hospital, Inc. request that the court strike the following in the FAC at page 6, lines 15-27 (para. 23).

            The FAC alleges that on June 12, 2021, plaintiff Kaila, age 13 at the time, became an inpatient resident at Del Amo Hospital.  Defendants were responsible for Kaila’s inpatient treatment at that time.  She had been brought to the hospital by her mother to receive inpatient treatment related to a recent exacerbation of her pre-existing bipolar disorder, generalized anxiety, and ADHD.  Kaila’s admission to Del Amo Hospital was directly in response to her ideations of self-harm and, thus, was largely for her own protection.  FAC, ¶16.  Kaila had a well-documented history of mental illness prior to admission to Del Amo Hospital.  Upon admission, Kaila’s mother notified defendants of her prior diagnosis, prescriptions, and of the fact that Kaila had been dealing with issues of conflicting gender identity.  Defendants were aware that Kaila was a high risk of self-harm and other types of high risk behavior.  Notwithstanding Kaila’s gender identity issues, Kaila’s mother specifically instructed defendants not to allow her to sleep with the boys in a mixed ward, have close social contact with the boys, or to use the male restroom.  Id., ¶17.

            The FAC further alleges that notwithstanding these specific instructions from Kaila’s mother, defendants nevertheless allowed Kaila to use the male restroom, based upon her requests and statements to the staff that she identified as a “boy” at that time.  Kaila’s mother was never informed that her daughter was being allowed to use the men’s restroom or allowed to be in close social contact with the male patients.  More than one of the male patients at the hospital at that time had a known history of sexual misconduct and taking advantage of other minor patients in the facility.  Defendants were aware of the danger that these male patients posed to Kaila and other inpatient residents and took no action to protect her.  Id., ¶18.  On June 16, 2021, Kaila was sexually assaulted by two minor boys in the men’s restroom.  The assault involved non-consensual intercourse with both boys.  The assault occurred after the two boys physically threatened Kaila and told her to come with them to the restroom.  Although Del Amo Hospital had a policy allowing only two patients into he bathroom at a time, this policy was ignored and not enforced at the time Kaila was sexually assaulted.  Id., ¶19.  Moreover, Kaila had been given the psychotropic medication of another patient and had snorted it just prior to the assault.  The medication given to Kaila was not one of the approved medications to be provided to Kaila during her stay at Del Amo Hospital.  Not only was it improper for Kaila to have access to another patient’s medication, but the medication altered Kaila’s mental and physical state such that she was more easily manipulated during the course of the assault.  Id., ¶20.  After the assault, Del Amo Hospital did not perform a “rape kit” exam or any other type of physical examination on Kaila to ascertain her post-assault well-being.  Defendants did not notify Kaila’s mother of the sexual assault until nearly more than two days after it occurred.  Kaila was discharged on June 18, 2021, the same day Del Amo Hospital first notified her mother of the sexual assault.  Id., ¶21. 

            The FAC further alleges that also during the course of her stay at Del Amo Hospital, Kaila and another minor patient had been allowed to perform unauthorized self-inflicted body piercing, without parental consent or parental notification.  The doctors and staff at Del Amo Hospital did nothing to prevent Kaila and her peers from engaging in such self-harming behavior.  At no time did defendants report the assault and other behavior to the California Department of Public Health.  Id., ¶22.  Defendants failed to meet the applicable standard of care.  Id., ¶24.

            At lines page 6, lines 15-27, plaintiff alleges that defendants “were aware of numerous prior similar incidents at Del Amo Hospital which had resulted in harm to its residents as a result of negligence on their part including, but not limited to, the following:” listing incidents in 2009 [person admitted for attempting to commit suicide, committed suicide at hospital], 2014 [patient died of seizure, hospital had not gathered a medical history of patient], 2017 [child was sexually assaulted by another patient and defendants failed to investigate or report incident], 2018 [employee failed to perform patient’s 15-minute check and patient died], and 2019 [suicidal patient escaped, employee had left the door unlocked].

            Defendants argue that plaintiff’s references to “prior similar incidents” are false, irrelevant, and/or improper and should be stricken.  Defendants assert that the incidents are dissimilar and are not verified and fail to establish the allegations concerning plaintiff as there are no allegations regarding an attempted suicide or completed suicide, a failure to take a medical history or any allegations of seizures or related to death or that plaintiff escaped from the hospital.

            In opposition, plaintiff argues that the allegations regarding prior incidents at defendants’ hospital are relevant to establish notice in support of the cause of action for premises liability – failure to protect.  Plaintiff contend that each one of the prior incidents alleged are relevant to establish that defendants were aware of the likelihood of serious harm as a result of failure to implement and enforce its security and safety protocols for the protection of its residential population.  Plaintiff argues that as such defendants, as a mental hospital, could have and should have taken significant measures to protect its residential population against harm from third parties and other patients.  Plaintiff further argues that the alleged prior incidents are substantially similar to plaintiff’s incident as they all occurred while a resident patient was under the care of Del Amo Hospital while experiencing a mental health crisis in a compromised and vulnerable state, requiring a heightened level of security.

            The court finds that the allegations are not irrelevant, false, or improper matter.

            The motions are DENIED.

            Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of ruling.