Judge: Kevin C. Brazile, Case: 23STCV14848, Date: 2023-11-30 Tentative Ruling

Hearing Date: March 20, 2024

Case Name: Nathan Bears v. Roseville Point Health & Wellness Center, LLC, et al.

Case No.: 23STCV00039

Matter: Demurrer; Motion to Strike

Moving Party: Defendants Roseville Point Health & Wellness Center, LLC, Sol

Healthcare, LLC, Rockport Administrative Services, LLC, Shlomo 

Rechnitz, and Rechnitz Core GP

Responding Party: Plaintiff Nathan Bears

Notice: OK

Ruling: The Demurrer is overruled.

The Motion to Strike is granted, without leave to amend.

Moving parties to give notice.

If counsel do not submit on the tentative, they are strongly 

encouraged to appear by LACourtConnect rather than in person due to the COVID-19 pandemic. 

The initial Complaint in this matter was filed on January 3, 2023, without a wrongful death claim.

On August 22, 2023, Plaintiffs moved to file the First Amended Complaint.  The Court granted that Motion on October 31, 2023.

On November 2, 2023, Plaintiffs Nathan Bears, through his successor Karen Bears, and Karen Bears filed the operative First Amended Complaint for (1) elder abuse, (2) negligent hiring and supervision, (3) violation of patient’s bill of rights, and (4) wrongful death. 

1. Demurrer

Defendants Roseville Point Health & Wellness Center, LLC, Sol Healthcare, LLC, Rockport Administrative Services, LLC, Shlomo Rechnitz, and Rechnitz Core GP demur to Plaintiff’s wrongful death claim because they contend that this claim is barred by the statute of limitations and the relation-back doctrine does not apply. 

When considering demurrers, courts read the allegations liberally and in context, and “treat the demurrer as admitting all material facts properly pleaded, but not contentions, deductions or conclusions of fact or law.” (Serrano v. Priest (1971) 5 Cal.3d 584, 591.)  “A demurrer tests the pleadings alone and not the evidence or other extrinsic matters. Therefore, it lies only where the defects appear on the face of the pleading or are judicially noticed. 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¿(2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 740, 747.)  It is error “to sustain a demurrer without leave to amend if the plaintiff shows there is a reasonable possibility any defect identified by the defendant can be cured by amendment.”  (Aubry v. Tri-City Hospital Dist.¿(1992) 2 Cal.4th 962, 967.)

Defendants specifically argue that a one-year statute of limitations applies (CCP § 340.5), and that “the injury was death, which occurred on September 9, 2022, thus the statute of limitations ran on September 9, 2023. Accordingly, the filing of Karen’s wrongful death cause of action on November 2, 2023 was past the statute of limitations.”  They also argue that “[t]he cause of action for wrongful death belongs not to the decedent, but to the persons specified by statute. (Quiroz v. Seventh Ave. Center (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 1256.) Thus, plaintiff Karen’s independent cause of action does not relate back to the original complaint.”

The Court finds that the wrongful death claim is timely because Plaintiffs moved to add this claim before the statute of limitations expired.  (Weiner v. Superior Court (1976) 58 Cal.App.3d 525, 531.)  To hold otherwise would be to punish Plaintiffs for not filing a separate lawsuit, which would have ultimately been related to this one anyway.  

The Demurrer is overruled.  

2. Motion to Strike

Defendants also seek to strike the FAC’s references to punitive damages and injunctive relief for the patient bill of rights claim.

Motions to strike are used to challenge defects in the pleadings not subject to demurrer.  Any party may move to strike the whole or any part of a pleading within the time allotted to respond to the pleading.  (Code Civ. Proc. § 435(b)(1).)  The grounds for a motion to strike shall appear on the face of the challenged pleading or from any matter of which the Court is required to take judicial notice.  (Id. § 437(a).)  The Court may strike out any irrelevant, false, or improper matter inserted in any pleading, and strike out all or any part of any pleading not drawn or filed in conformity with the laws of this state, a court rule, or an order of the court.  (Id. § 436.)  An “irrelevant” matter includes any “demand for judgment requesting relief not supported by the allegations of the complaint or cross-complaint.”  (Id. § 431.10(b)(3), (c); see also Smith v. Superior Court (1992) 10 Cal.App.4th 1033, 1036-1042.)

Plaintiffs do not disagree that punitive damages cannot be obtained for their third cause of action; therefore, the prayer seeking punitive damages for the third cause of action is stricken, without leave to amend.

With respect to injunctive relief, Defendants argue that “plaintiffs may not seek injunctive relief in this action because there is no possibility defendants will violate decedent’s rights going forward. Second, plaintiffs’ request for injunctive relief is impermissibly vague and does not relate to the alleged violations in this case. Third, the court should strike plaintiffs’ prayer for injunctive relief based upon the judicial abstention doctrine.”

Under Health & Safety Code § 1430(b), Defendants “may be enjoined from permitting the violation or violations to continue.”

While the statute allows for former residents to sue, the intent seems to be to allow them to obtain statutory damages for past wrongs and that injunctive relief is for current residents because a former resident cannot experience continuing violations.  Because injunctive relief is not applicable here, the Motion to Strike is granted, without leave to amend.

An answer is to be filed within 20 days.

Moving parties to give notice.

If counsel do not submit on the tentative, they are strongly encouraged to appear by LACourtConnect rather than in person due to the COVID-19 pandemic.