Judge: Elaine W. Mandel, Case: 25SMCV00771, Date: 2025-06-10 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 25SMCV00771    Hearing Date: June 10, 2025    Dept: P

Tentative Ruling

Moole v. Rise Luxury Rehab, Case no. 25SMCV00771

Hearing date June 10, 2025

Defendants Rise and Ascentions’ Demurrer with Motion to Strike

Plaintiff Moole sues defendants Rise Luxury Rehab, LLC dba Rise in Malibu, LLC, Ascentions Treatment Center, LLC and Finnerman, alleging that while at defendants’ residential substance abuse treatment facility, he was subject to harassment, discrimination and emotional abuse by staff and other patients.

Defendants Rise and Ascentions (“defendants”) demur to claims for: (1) attempted murder (first claim); (2) IIED (second claim); (3) NIED (third claim); (4) fraud and intentional misrepresentation (fifth claim); (5) violation of Cal. Health & Safety Code §123110 (seventh claim); and (6) HIPAA violations (tenth claim). Defendants move to strike: (1) paragraph 30; (2) paragraph 35; and (3) prayer 3 for punitive and exemplary damages.

Defendants Rise and Ascentions’ Demurrer to the Complaint

“The function of a demurrer is to test the sufficiency of the complaint as a matter of law.” Holiday Matinee, Inc. v. Rambus, Inc. (2004) 118 Cal.App.4th 1413, 1420. A complaint “is sufficient if it alleges ultimate rather than evidentiary facts” Doe v. City of Los Angeles (2007) 42 Cal.4th 531, 550, but plaintiff must set forth the essential facts of the case “with reasonable precision and with particularity sufficient to acquaint [the] defendant with the nature, source and extent” of the plaintiff’s claim. Doheny Park Terrace Homeowners Ass’n., Inc. v. Truck Ins. Exchange (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 1076, 1099. In reviewing the legal sufficiency of a complaint against a demurrer, a court will treat the demurrer as admitting all material facts properly pleaded. Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318; C & H Foods Co. v. Hartford Ins. Co. (1984) 163 Cal.App.3d 1055, 1062.

Defendants demur to the first claim for “attempted murder.” Compl. 5:3. Attempted murder is not a recognized theory of recovery. Plaintiff argues the claim “seeks redress based on common law battery and intentional infliction theories.” Opp. 2:17-18. This argument is not well taken. If plaintiff wishes to plead a claim under theories of intentional tortious conduct, he must specify a viable theory. SUSTAINED with 15 days leave to amend.

Defendants demur to the second claim for IIED. The elements are: (1) outrageous conduct by defendant; (2) defendant’s intention of causing or reckless disregard of the probability of causing emotional distress; (3) severe emotional distress; and (4) causation. Vasquez v. Franklin Mgmt. Real Estate Fund, Inc. (2013) 222 Cal.App.4^th 819, 832. Defendants argue plaintiff fails to plead facts showing outrageous conduct with sufficient specificity.

Plaintiff alleges a “systemic and coordinated campaign of psychological torture and abuse” (Compl. paras. 14, 21) intended to “cause plaintiff’s death by suicide.” Compl. para. 25. Plaintiff alleges this conduct caused severe emotional distress. Compl. para. 34. Plaintiff alleged specific forms of harassment, i.e., “deliberate social isolation techniques” (compl. para. 21) but fails to allege how said harassment constitutes “extreme or outrageous conduct.” See Yurick v. Superior Court (1989) 209 Cal.App.3d 116, 1123. It is not enough to allege harassment and assert that defendants wanted plaintiff to commit suicide; plaintiff must allege facts demonstrating the harassment itself was extreme or outrageous. SUSTAINED with 15 days leave to amend.

Defendants demur to the third claim for NIED. Plaintiff alleges emotional distress as a result of defendants’ negligence. Compl. para. 38. There is no independent tort for negligent infliction of emotional distress; an NIED claim is a negligence claim. See Lawson v. Management Activities, Inc. (1999) 69 Cal.App.4th 652, 656. Plaintiff pleads a claim for negligence as the sixth cause of action. The third cause of action is duplicative of the sixth and may be demurred to on those grounds. See Palm Springs Villas II Homeowners Assn., Inc. v. Parth (2016) 248 Cal.App.4th 268, 290. SUSTAINED without leave to amend.

Defendants demur to the fifth claim for fraud and intentional misrepresentation. The elements are: (1) a misrepresentation; (2) knowledge of falsity; (3) intent to defraud; (4) justifiable reliance; and (5) damage. See Lazar v. Superior Court (1996) 12 Cal.App.4th 631, 638. Plaintiff must allege specific facts giving rise to the allegations with detail so defendants can prepare defenses. See Committee on Children’s Television, Inc. v. General Foods Corp. (1983) 35 Cal.3d 197, 216.

Plaintiff alleges defendants knowingly made false representations about providing substance abuse treatment, inducing plaintiff’s reliance and causing plaintiff harm. Compl. paras. 46-50. Plaintiff fails to plead specific misrepresentations, the contents thereof, when they were made or who made them. This is insufficient. SUSTAINED with 15 days leave to amend.

Defendants demur to the seventh claim for violation of Cal. Health & Safety Code §123110. Defendants acknowledge §123110 grants patients the right to obtain and inspect copies of medical records but assert plaintiff failed to comply with the request process. Any patient is “entitled to inspect patient records upon presenting to the health care provider a written request for those records…” Cal. Health & Safety Code §123110(a).

Plaintiff alleges defendants failed to maintain proper records, made false entries and refused to provide access to facility security footage. Compl. para. 56. Plaintiff fails to allege any written requests were made, as is required per the Code. Further, plaintiff is not entitled to security footage under §123110. SUSTAINED with 15 days leave to amend.

Defendants demur to the tenth claim for HIPAA violations. Defendants argue plaintiff offers no facts in support of this claim. Plaintiff alleges defendants disclosed plaintiff’s health information and failed to maintain confidentiality. Compl. para. 66. Plaintiff offers no allegations as to how defendants breached confidentiality or shared plaintiff’s information. Further, HIPAA does not provide a private right of action. Doe v. Bd. Of Trs. of the Univ. of Ill. (N.D. III 2006) F.Supp.2d 930, 944. Plaintiff argues the tenth claim should be construed as a negligence per se claim. This argument is unavailing; plaintiff pled a claim for negligence. See Palm Springs, supra. SUSTAINED without leave to amend.

Defendants Rise and Ascentions’ Motion to Strike

Defendants move to strike the following from the complaint: (1) paragraph 30; (2) paragraph 35; and (3) prayer 3 for punitive and exemplary damages. The motion to strike targets allegations arising from the first and second claims and a related prayer. The court sustained defendants’ demurrer to the first and second claims with leave to amend. The motion is MOOT.