Judge: Elaine W. Mandel, Case: 24SMCV01901, Date: 2024-09-12 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24SMCV01901    Hearing Date: September 12, 2024    Dept: P

Tentative Ruling

Springman v. Cleanslate Medical Group of California, P.C., et al., Case No. 24SMCV01901

Hearing Date: September 12, 2024

Defendants Natella and Tigran Petrosyan’s Demurrer to the Complaint    

Plaintiff Springman sues for negligence, premise liability and other intentional torts, alleging repeated sexual assaults from May-September 2021 by employee defendant Pontius at defendant Solstice, an inpatient mental health/substance abuse treatment facility. Doe defendants Natella and Tigran Petrosyan are alleged to be owners/operators of the facility and employers of defendant Pontius. Suit was filed April 22, 2024. The Petrosyan defendants demurrer to the first and second causes of action on statute of limitations, failure to state facts, and uncertainty grounds.

Defendants Petrosyan contented the negligence and premises claims are time-barred by the two-year statute of limitations under CCP §335.1. In opposition, Springman argues the claims are not time-barred, citing CCP §340.16, which creates a 10-year statute of limitation for civil actions for damages stemming from a sexual assault that occurs after plaintiff’s 18th birthday.

Defendants argue plaintiff does not cite authority that CCP §340.16 applies to the negligence and premises liability claims. The Code clear states it applies to “any civil action for recovery of damages suffered as a result of sexual assault…” (emphasis added). There is no limitation as to the specific causes of actions or claims to which the Code applies.

Though the causes of action alleged are for negligence and premises liability, the damages stem from the multiple alleged rapes between May and September 2021. Compl. ¶¶1, 10, 26, 37. CCP §340.16 applies to any civil action for recovery of damages suffered due to alleged sexual assault, so the claims are not time-barred. Plaintiff filed his complaint well within the ten year statute running from 2021.

The Petrosyans assert the negligence claim fails because it does not properly allege a duty. To state a claim for negligence, plaintiff must allege duty, breach, causation and damages. See, e.g. McIntyre v. Colonies-Pacific, LLC (2014) 228 Cal.App.4th 664, 671.

The complaint alleges a duty under Civil Code §1714(a). Compl. ¶17. Springman further claims moving defendants owed a duty to take reasonable steps to protect vulnerable residents suffering from emotional and/or substance abuse issues, such as plaintiff, by employing sufficiently and adequately trained personnel, including security personnel. Id. ¶20.

Defendants are alleged to have breached that duty by failing to take reasonable steps to ensure the safety of residents, such as plaintiff, and to prevent them from being exposed to dangerous conditions and criminal activities, including the repeated alleged sexual assaults on plaintiff. Id. ¶¶4, 11, 18. Plaintiff alleges defendants failed to prevent the assaults from occurring (Id. ¶21) and damages. Id. ¶ 23. On demurrer, this is sufficient to state a negligence claim.

The Petrosyans argue the premises liability claim fails because the allegations are based on “information and belief.” Various allegations were made against Doe defendants, including moving parties. This would be an improper basis for a demurrer, as the court must take the allegations as true for a demurrer. Aubry v. Tri-City Hosp. Dist. (1992) 2 Cal.4th 962, 967. As previously discussed, the complaint adequately alleges a premises liability action to put the Petrosyans on notice, which is all that is required. Castellon v. U.S. Bancorp (2013) 220 Cal.App.4th 994, 998. OVERRULED. Defendants Petrosyan to answer within ten days.