Judge: Elaine Lu, Case: 21STCV28234, Date: 2022-08-02 Tentative Ruling
1. If you wish to submit on the tentative ruling,
please email the clerk at SMCdept26@lacourt.org (and “cc” all
other parties in the same email) no later than 7:30 am on
the day of the hearing, and please notify all other parties in advance that you
will not be appearing at the hearing. Include the word "SUBMISSION" in all caps in the
subject line and include your name, contact information, the case number, and
the party you represent in the body of the email. If you submit on the
tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may
nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the motion, and the Court may
decide not to adopt the tentative ruling.
2.
For any motion where no parties submit to the tentative ruling in
advance, and no parties appear at the motion hearing, the Court may elect to
either adopt the tentative ruling or take the motion off calendar, in its
discretion.
3. PLEASE DO NOT USE THIS
EMAIL (SMCdept26@lacourt.org) FOR ANY PURPOSE OTHER THAN TO SUBMIT TO A TENTATIVE
RULING. The Court will not read or
respond to emails sent to this address for any other purpose.
4. IN ORDER TO IMPLEMENT
PHYSICAL DISTANCING GOING FORWARD AND UNTIL FURTHER NOTICE, THE COURT STRONGLY
ENCOURAGES ALL COUNSEL AND ALL PARTIES TO APPEAR TELEPHONICALLY FOR NON-TRIAL
AND NON-EVIDENTIARY MATTERS. Thus, until further
notice, Department 26 strongly encourages telephonic appearances for motion
hearings that do not require the presentation of live testimony.
Case Number: 21STCV28234 Hearing Date: August 2, 2022 Dept: 26
|
ESTATE OF
RAYMOND STANLEY MOORE, SR., by and through its Successors-in-Interest ALMA
MOORE; ALMA MOORE; LOLA MOORE; MONA MOORE-SULLIVAN; and RAYMOND STANLEY
MOORE, JR, Plaintiffs, vs. FH & HF-TORRANCE I, LLC; FAMILY HEALTH AND HOUSING FOUNDATION;
FAMILY HEALTH & HOUSING FOUNDATION–TORRANCE I, LLC; et al.,
Defendants. |
Case No.: 21STCV28234 Hearing Date: August 2, 2022 [TENTATIVE] order RE: Defendants’ motion to stay ACTION |
Background
On February 26, 2022, Plaintiffs Estate
of Raymond Stanley Moore, Sr., by and through its successor-in-interest Alma Moore,
Alma Moore, Lola Moore, Mona Moore-Sullivan, and Raymond Stanley more, Jr.
(collectively “Plaintiffs”) filed the instant wrongful death action against
Defendants FH & HF-Torrance I, LLC, Family Health and Housing Foundation,
and Family Health & Housing Foundation – Torrance I, LLC (collectively
“Defendants”). The complaint asserts six
causes of action for (1) Breach of Implied Warranty of Habitability, (2) Elder
Abuse and Neglect, (3) Negligence/Negligence Per Se, (4) Violation of
Residents’ Bills of Rights, (5) Wrongful Death, and (6) Concealment.
On October 28, 2021, Defendants
filed a Notice of Removal to Federal Court transferring the matter to the
California Central District Court to a District Court for all further
proceedings. On January 10, 2022, a
Notice of Remand from the Central District Court was filed after Plaintiffs’
motion for remand was granted.
On February 4, 2022, Defendants
filed the instant motion to stay proceedings pending an appeal of the remand. On July 20, 2022, Plaintiffs filed an
opposition. On July 26, 2022, Defendants
filed a reply.
Legal Standard
“Trial courts generally have the inherent power to
stay proceedings in the interests of justice and to promote judicial
efficiency.” (Freiberg v. City of
Mission Viejo (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1484, 1489.) A stay of proceedings is an equitable remedy,
the issuance of which rests in the Court's discretion. (Webster v. Superior Court (1988)
46 Cal.3d 338, 345.)
Discussion
Defendants contend that the Central
District Court erred in remanding the instant action and that pursuant to the
federal officer removal statute 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1) and under the Public
Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act (“PREP Act”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 247d-6d,
247d-6e, this action should properly remain in the federal court. The crux of Defendants’ appeal to the Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeal is that the District Court had subject matter
jurisdiction. Defendants contend that a stay
is in order to conserve judicial resources and avoid the parties having to
litigate in both state court and on appeal.
The Court finds that a stay is not
warranted under the current circumstances.
While the instant action has been pending, three Circuit Courts -- including
the Ninth Circuit -- have issued their rulings finding that the federal officer
removal statute and the PREP Act – i.e., the issues raised by Defendants – in
nursing homes – such as Defendants – do not support removal to federal
court. (Saldana v. Glenhaven
Healthcare LLC (9th Cir. 2022) 27 F.4th 679; Mitchell v. Advanced
HCS, L.L.C. (5th Cir. 2022) 28 F.4th 580; Martin v. Petersen Health
Operations, LLC (7th Cir. 2022) 37 F.4th 1210.) In addtion, the Third Circuit also found that
the federal officer removal statute and PREP Act did not give federal
jurisdiction for nursing home cases such as the instant action. (Maglioli v. Alliance HC Holdings LLC (3d
Cir. 2021) 16 F.4th 393.) Given these
opinions and the countless district court cases supporting remanding under
these alleged circumstances, it does not appear that Defendants will be
successful on the appeal to the Ninth Circuit, which has already addressed and
rejected the arguments raised by Defendants in their appeal.
In reply, Defendants contend that the U.S.
Supreme Court may address the issue in a writ of certiorari in Saldana v.
Glenhaven Healthcare LLC (9th Cir. 2022) 27 F.4th 679. Though it is possible that the U.S. Supreme
Court may theoretically reverse Saldana given that four circuits have
already determined this issue and there has been no circuit split, it appears
unlikely. Rather, the stay of discovery
appears strongly prejudicial, with significant risk of loss of evidence. Two years have already elapsed since the
decedent has passed, with no discovery of any kind. It seems likely that it will take a few -- if
not more -- years for Defendants to pursue to finality the jurisdictional
questions that the Ninth Circuit has already addressed.
Conclusion and ORDER
Based
on the foregoing, Defendants FH & HF-Torrance I, LLC, Family Health and
Housing Foundation, and Family Health & Housing Foundation – Torrance I,
LLC’s motion for stay is DENIED.
Defendants
are to file a responsive pleading within 30 days.
The
case management conference is continued to September 20, 2022 at 8:30 am.
The
Moving party is to give notice of this order and file proof of service of such.
DATED: August 2, 2022 ___________________________
Elaine Lu
Judge of the Superior Court