Judge: Joel L. Lofton, Case: 23AHCV00220, Date: 2024-05-16 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23AHCV00220 Hearing Date: May 16, 2024 Dept: X
Tentative Ruling
Judge Joel L. Lofton,
Department X
HEARING DATE: May
16, 2024 TRIAL DATE: not set
CASE: VANESSA ZATARAIN,
individually and as successor in interest to GEORGE ZATARAIN, deceased; and
JOHN PAUL ZATARAIN, individually and as successor in interest to GEORGE
ZATARAIN, deceased v. ROYAL VISTA SAN GABRIEL, LLC; AHMC HEALTHCARE, INC.; and
DOES 1 through 100, Inclusive.
CASE NO.: 22AHCV00220
DEMURRER
WITH MOTION TO STRIKE
MOVING PARTY: Defendants Royal Vista San
Gabriel, LLC (CRS 6562) and AHMC Healthcare, Inc. (CRS 9714) (“Defendants”)
RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiffs Vanessa Zatarain and John Paul
Zatarain, both individually and as successors in interest to George Zatarain,
deceased. (“Plaintiffs”)
SERVICE: Demurrer
filed October 5, 2023
Motion
to strike filed September 26, 2023
OPPOSITION: Filed
May 3, 2024
REPLY: Filed May 7, 2024
RELIEF
REQUESTED
Defendants demur to Plaintiffs’ first cause of action for elder abuse.
Defendants also move to strike portions of the complaint that pertain to punitive
damages and Plaintiffs’ prayer for statutory damages under Welfare &
Institutions Code section 15657(a).
BACKGROUND
This case arises out of Plaintiffs
Vanessa Zatarain and John Paul Zatarain’s (“Plaintiffs”) claims that that
Defendants Royal Vista San Gabriel, LLC and AHMC Healthcare, Inc.
(“Defendants”) engaged in elder abuse and negligence in their care and treatment
of George Zatarain (“Decedent”).
On July 17, 2023, the Court sustained
Defendants’ demurrer to the elder abuse cause of action in Plaintiffs’ original
complaint and granted Defendants’ motion to strike punitive damages.
On August 16, 2023, Plaintiffs filed the
operative First Amended Complaint (“FAC”). Just like the original complaint,
the alleges two causes of action for (1) elder abuse/Dependent Adult Civil Protection
Act and (2) negligence/wrongful death. The FAC alleges the following: Decedent
was admitted to Royal Vista, a residential care facility for the elderly, on
July 22, 2021. (FAC ¶ 11.) The decedent required a special diet and was unable
to manage his own medication. (FAC ¶ 12.) Defendants failed to properly provide
Decedent with his specialty diet. (FAC ¶ 15.) Defendants allowed Decedent to
exit the facility unassisted. (FAC ¶ 16.) On February 12, 2022, Decedent was
allowed to leave the facility but was unable to reenter the facility. (Id.)
Decedent was stuck outside and found dead outside the front door of the
facility. (Id.)
TENTATIVE RULING
Defendants’ demurrers to Plaintiffs’ first cause of action
for elder abuse/dependent adult abuse is OVERRULED.
Defendants’ motion to strike Plaintiffs’ prayer for statutory
and punitive damages is DENIED.
LEGAL STANDARD
A general
demurrer may be taken to a complaint where “[t]he pleading does not state facts sufficient to
constitute a cause of action.” (Code of Civ. Proc. § 430.10(e).) A demurrer for sufficiency tests whether the
complaint states a cause of action. (Hahn
v. Mirda (2007) 147 Cal. App. 4th 740, 747.) In a demurrer proceeding, the
defects must be apparent on the face of the pleading or by proper judicial
notice. (Code Civ. Proc. section
430.30(a).) A demurrer tests the pleadings alone and not the evidence or
other extrinsic matters. (SKF Farms v. Superior Court (1984) 153
Cal. App. 3d 902, 905.) The only issue involved in a demurrer hearing is
whether the complaint, as it stands, unconnected with extraneous matters,
states a cause of action. (Hahn v.
Mirda, supra, 147 Cal.App.4th 740, 747.)
Any party, within the time allowed to respond to a pleading
may serve and file a notice of motion to strike a pleading or any part
thereof. (Code Civ. Proc., § 435, subd. (b)(1).) The
court may, upon a motion, or at any time in its discretion, and upon terms
it deems proper, strike any irrelevant, false, or improper matter inserted in
any pleading. (Code Civ. Proc., § 436, subd. (a).) The court may
also strike all or any part of any pleading not drawn or filed in conformity with
California law, a court rule, or an order of the court. (Code Civ. Proc.,
§ 436, subd. (b).) An immaterial or irrelevant allegation is one that is
not essential to the statement of a claim or defense; is neither pertinent to
nor supported by an otherwise sufficient claim or defense; or a demand for
judgment requesting relief not supported by the allegations of the
complaint. (Code Civ. Proc., 431.10, subd. (b).) The grounds for
moving to strike must appear on the face of the pleading or by way of judicial
notice. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437.)
DISCUSSION
Demurrer
Defendants demur to Plaintiffs’ first
cause of action for elder and dependent adult abuse. Defendants argue that
Plaintiffs fail to allege sufficient facts to allege a claim for elder abuse.
Defendants further argue that Plaintiffs did not sufficiently allege corporate
employer ratification.
“The Elder Abuse Act's heightened remedies
are available only in limited circumstances. A plaintiff must prove, by clear
and convincing evidence, that a defendant is liable for either physical abuse
under section 15610.63 or neglect under¿section 15610.57, and that the
defendant committed the abuse with ‘recklessness, oppression, fraud, or
malice.’ ” (Winn v. Pioneer Medical Group, Inc. (2016) 63 Cal.4th 148,
156.) “To recover the enhanced remedies available under the Elder Abuse Act
from a health care provider, a plaintiff must prove more than simple or even
gross negligence in the provider's care or custody of the elder.” (Carter v.
Prime Healthcare Paradise Valley LLC (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 396, 405 (“Carter”.)
“In order to obtain the Act's heightened remedies, a plaintiff must allege
conduct essentially equivalent to conduct that would support recovery of
punitive damages.” (Covenant Care, Inc. v. Superior Court (2004) 32
Cal.4th 771, 789.)
“Neglect” is defined as “[t]he
negligent failure of any person having the care or custody of an elder or a
dependent adult to exercise that degree of care that a reasonable person in a
like position would exercise.” (Welf. & Inst. Code section
15610.57, subd. (a)(1).) “Neglect includes, but is not limited to, all of the
following: [¶] (1) Failure to assist in personal hygiene, or in the provision
of food, clothing, or shelter. [¶] (2) Failure to provide medical care for
physical and mental health needs.... [¶] (3) Failure to protect from health and
safety hazards. [¶] (4) Failure to prevent malnutrition or dehydration.” (Welf.
& Inst. Code section 15610.57, subd. (b).)
“The plaintiff must allege (and
ultimately prove by clear and convincing evidence) facts establishing that the
defendant: (1) had responsibility for meeting the basic needs of the elder or
dependent adult, such as nutrition, hydration, hygiene or medical care
[citations]; (2) knew of conditions that made the elder or dependent adult
unable to provide for his or her own basic needs [citations]; and (3) denied or
withheld goods or services necessary to meet the elder or dependent adult’s
basic needs, either with knowledge that injury was substantially certain to
befall the elder or dependent adult (if the plaintiff alleges oppression, fraud
or malice) or with conscious disregard of the high probability of such
injury (if the plaintiff alleges recklessness) [citations]. The plaintiff
must also allege (and ultimately prove by clear and convincing evidence) that
the neglect caused the elder or dependent adult to suffer physical harm, pain
or mental suffering.” (Carter, supra, 198 Cal.App.4th at pp. 406-07.)
Sufficiency of factual allegations
Like in their demurrer to the
original complaint, Defendants primarily argue that Plaintiffs’ claim fails because the allegations involving
the circumstances of Decedent’s death are insufficient to support more than a
claim of negligence. Specifically, “there are not sufficient facts to support
the allegation that any employee of Defendants consciously and deliberately did
anything of such a serious nature” as to constitute neglect. (Dem., 10:14-16.)
The FAC sufficiently alleges the
elements of an elder abuse claim set out in Carter, which Defendants
cite and rely on. The FAC alleges that (1) Decedent was “wholly dependent” upon
Defendant’s staff for custodial care and “assistance with all activities of
daily life” (FAC ¶ 8); (2) Plaintiff was only admitted to Royal Vista after a
determination that Defendants could meet the needs of Decedent, who was “deemed
nonambulatory, required a specialty diet and was unable to manage his own
medications” (FAC ¶¶ 7, 12); and (3) Defendants nonetheless failed to provide
Decedent with his specialty diet and monitor is food intake, causing Decedent
to lose 50 lbs. during his 7-month residency at Royal Vista (FAC ¶ 15), in
addition to allowing Decedent to leave the facility unsupervised, with no
guaranty that he can gain reentry. (FAC ¶ 16.) On the night of Decedent’s
death, when the outside temperature was approximately 39 degrees, Decedent was
unable to reenter the facility. (Id.) Defendants failed to periodically
monitor Decedent and confirm his presence in the facility at nightfall. (Id.)
As a result, Decedent was found dead on the ground outside the front door of
Royal Vista. (Id.)
The FAC contains new allegations
relating to Defendants’ knowledge that Royal Vista administered substandard
care to its residents. Plaintiffs allege that in the two years prior to,
during, and after Decedent’s admission to Royal Vista, the facility received
numerous deficiencies and citations from the California Department of Social
Services. (FAC ¶ 34.) The areas of deficient practice for which Royal Vista was
cited relate to the specific areas of deficient care that proximately caused
Decedent’s death. (FAC ¶ 35.) Those areas include violations of residents’ personal
rights, failure to meet food service requirements, and severe understaffing.
(FAC ¶ 34.) These citations support an inference that Defendants were put on
notice of not only Decedent’s health condition, but also of their facility’s
deficient practices.
In light of the foregoing, the Court
concludes that Plaintiffs sufficiently alleged Decedent’s reliance on
Defendants’ care, Defendants’ awareness of the same, Defendant’s conscious
disregard of Decedent’s deteriorating condition, and Defendants’ neglect, which
ultimately caused Decedent’s death. Defendants’ contention that the facts set
out in the FAC support no more than a claim for negligence is incorrect.
Employer ratification
Defendants also demur to
Plaintiffs’ elder abuse cause of action on the ground that Plaintiffs did not
sufficiently allege corporate employer ratification. Specifically, Defendants
contend that “there is a dearth of factual allegations which would allow even a
reasonable inference of recklessness on the part of Defendants’ nursing staff,
or . . . of ratification by any malicious, fraudulent or oppressive conduct by
a managing agent, officer or director of Defendants”. (Motion, 13:7-10.)
Pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code § 15657, Plaintiffs may recover
punitive damages from an employer based on the acts of an employee if the
standards set forth in Civil Code § 3294(b) are met. (Welfare and Institutions
Code § 15657(c).) Under Civil Code § 3294(b), the employer must have had “advance
knowledge of the unfitness of the employee and employed him or her with a
conscious disregard of the rights or safety of others or authorized or ratified
the wrongful conduct for which the damages are awarded or was personally guilty
of oppression, fraud, or malice. (Civ. Code § 3294(b).) With respect to a
corporate employer, the advance knowledge and conscious disregard,
authorization, ratification or act of oppression, fraud, or malice must be on
the part of an officer, director, or managing agent of the corporation.” (Id.)
However, “[a] corporate defendant cannot shield itself from liability through
layers of management committees and the sheer size of the management structure.
It is enough if the evidence permits a clear and convincing inference that
within the corporate hierarchy authorized persons acted despicably in ‘willful
and conscious disregard of the rights or safety of others.” (Morgan v. J-M
Manufacturing Company, Inc. (2021) 60 Cal.App.5th 1078, 1090,
internal quotations and citations omitted.)
Here, Plaintiffs’ allegations
of the multitude of citations and formal warnings that Royal Vista received
from state authorities over the years regarding the same deficient practices
that caused Decedent’s death are sufficient to support an inference that
Defendants authorized employees to act in conscious disregard of the rights and
safety of those under their care. Plaintiffs’ allegations are sufficient at the
pleading stage, where allegations must be accepted as true.
Accordingly, Defendants’ demurrer to the first cause of
action must be OVERRULED.
Motion to Strike
Defendants seek to strike portions of the FAC that provide for statutory
and punitive damages, specifically:
·
Paragraph 62, at 19:4-7 and as incorporated into
Plaintiffs’ Second Cause of Action (“ROYAL VISTA, AHMC and DOES 1-30 acts and
omissions were despicable conducted carried out with willful and conscious
disregard of Mr. Zatarain’s rights, health, and safety, and ROYAL VISTA’s acts
and omissions subjected Mr. Zatarain to conditions which no person should have
to endure.”);
·
Paragraph 3 of Plaintiff's prayer to the First Cause
of Action, at 22:3 (“For punitive damages”); and
·
Paragraph 4 of Plaintiff's prayer to the First Cause
of Action, at 22:4 (“For attorney's fees pursuant to Welfare & Institutions
Code section 15657(a)”).
Defendants make this motion based on
substantially the same arguments as their demurrer. In light of the Court’s
ruling on the demurrers, Defendants’ motion to strike statutory and punitive
damages from the FAC is DENIED.
CONCLUSION
Defendants’ demurrers to Plaintiffs’ first cause of action
for elder abuse/dependent adult abuse is OVERRULED and Defendant is ordered to
file an ANSWER within 10 days.
Defendants’ motion to strike Plaintiffs’ prayer for statutory
and punitive damages is DENIED.
Moving Party to give notice.
Dated: May 16, 2024 ___________________________________
Joel
L. Lofton
Judge
of the Superior Court
Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an
email to the court indicating their
intention to submit. alhdeptx@lacourt.org