Superior Court of California 

County of Los Angeles – West District  

Beverly Hills Courthouse / Department 205 

 

 

This is an elder abuse and wrongful death case.  Decedent Patrick Deadrick suffered from autism, hypertensive heart disease, Fahr’s syndrome, and limited mobility.  He received home healthcare services from Comforcare Home Care – West Hollywood (“Comforcare”).  Deadrick’s condition required around the clock care.  

Deadrick was a high pressure ulcer risk and at high risk for complications associated with his existing wounds, including infection, due to his limited mobility and cognitive deficits. Further, Deadrick was at high risk for aspirating and required to have his head elevated to prevent him from aspirating and to be frequently monitored to ensure he did not aspirate.   

The Complaint alleges Comforcare staff were not providing Deadrick with proper wound care and treatment for his existing wounds.  As a result, Deadrick developed severe stage three and four pressure ulcers to his right and left ankles and heels.  

Also, Comforcare allegedly failed to prevent Deadrick from aspirating, which caused his death.  Even though Comforcare was supposed to provide around the clock care, it actually only provided 16 hours of care a day, and Deadrick was left unmonitored by Comforcare’s staff.  Deadrick was left unattended for nearly an entire day, resulting in Deadrick being left without his head properly elevated, causing him to aspirate on his own blood and die.  

The original complaint alleged claims for negligence, elder abuse and wrongful death against Defendants Maggie Artsvelian and Harry Artsvelian dba Comforcare Home Care-West Hollywood and Comforcare Health Care Holdings, LLC.  Plaintiff later amended his complaint to include Comforcare Franchise Systems, LLC (“Moving Defendant”).    

This hearing is on Moving Defendant’s motion to strike Plaintiff’s claim for punitive damages.  Moving Defendant argues that Plaintiff has not sufficiently alleged malice, oppression or fraud to support a claim for punitive damages.   

Code Civ. Proc. § 435.5 requires that before the filing of a motion to strike, the moving party “shall meet and confer in person or by telephone” with the party who filed the pleading that is subject to motion to strike for the purpose of determining whether an agreement can be reached that would resolve the objections to be raised in the motion to strike.  (Code Civ. Proc. § 435.5(a).)  The parties are to meet and confer at least five days before the date the responsive pleading is due. (Code Civ. Proc. §435.5(a)(2).)  Thereafter, the moving party shall file and serve a declaration detailing its meet and confer efforts.  (Code Civ. Proc. §435.5(a)(3).)  Moving Defendant submits the Declaration of Philip Lo which fails to show the parties met and conferred in person or by telephone.  Rather, Mr. Lo attests the parties exchanged emails.  This fails to satisfy the meet and confer requirements of Code Civ. Proc. § 435.5.  Accordingly, the Court continues the hearing on the motion to strike to February 10, 2025 at 8:30 a.m., to allow Moving Defendant to comply with its meet and confer obligations.    

 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 

DATED: January 22, 2025 ___________________________ 

Edward B. Moreton, Jr. 

Judge of the Superior Court