Judge Lynne M. Hobbs, Case Number: 23STCV25362, Date: 2024-07-08 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lynne M. Hobbs, Case: 23STCV25362, Date: 2024-07-08 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV25362 Hearing Date: July 8, 2024 Dept: 61

HERIVERTO PADILLA, AN INDIVIDUAL, et al. vs ALVARADO TERRACE CARE CENTER, LLC., A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, et al.

TENTATIVE

Defendant Martin Luther King Jr. – Los Angeles (MLK-LA) Healthcare Corporation’s Demurrer and Motion to Strike Portions of the First Amended Complaint are OVERRULED and DENIED.

Plaintiff to give notice.

DISCUSSION

I. DEMURRER

A demurrer should be sustained only where the defects appear on the face of the pleading or are judicially noticed. (Code Civ. Pro., §§ 430.30, et seq.) In particular, as is relevant here, a court should sustain a demurrer if a complaint does not allege facts that are legally sufficient to constitute a cause of action. (See id. § 430.10, subd. (e).) As the Supreme Court held in Blank v. Kirwan (1985) Cal.3d 311: “We treat the demurrer as admitting all material facts properly pleaded, but not contentions, deductions or conclusions of fact or law. . . . Further, we give the complaint a reasonable interpretation, reading it as a whole and its parts in their context.” (Id. at p. 318; see also Hahn. v. Mirda (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 740, 747 [“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. [Citation.]”)

“In determining whether the complaint is sufficient as against the demurrer … if on consideration of all the facts stated it appears the plaintiff is entitled to any relief at the hands of the court against the defendants the complaint will be held good although the facts may not be clearly stated.” (Gressley v. Williams (1961) 193 Cal.App.2d 636, 639.)

“A demurrer for uncertainty is strictly construed, even where a complaint is in some respects uncertain, because ambiguities can be clarified under modern discovery procedures.” (Khoury v. Maly’s of Cal., Inc. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 612, 616.) Such demurrers “are disfavored, and are granted only if the pleading is so incomprehensible that a defendant cannot reasonably respond.” (Mahan v. Charles W. Chan Insurance Agency, Inc. (2017) 14 Cal.App.5th 841, 848.)

A demurrer should not be sustained without leave to amend if the complaint, liberally construed, can state a cause of action under any theory or if there is a reasonable possibility the defect can be cured by amendment. (Schifando v. City of Los Angeles, supra, 31 Cal.4th at p. 1081.) The demurrer also may be sustained without leave to amend where the nature of the defects and previous unsuccessful attempts to plead render it probable plaintiff cannot state a cause of action. (Krawitz v. Rusch (1989) 209 Cal.App.3d 957, 967.)

Defendant Martin Luther King, Jr. – Los Angeles (MLK-LA) Healthcare Corporation demurrers to the third cause of action for elder abuse contained in the First Amended Complaint (FAC) of Plaintiffs Heriverto Padilla, Jose Ramon Padilla, Juana Padilla, Alfonso Castro, Gabriel Padilla, and Willy Hernandez (Plaintiffs) on the grounds that the FAC does not allege corporate direction or ratification of the misconduct alleged. (Demurrer at pp. 5–7.)

This court previously sustained MLK-LA’s demurrer to the third cause of action for elder abuse, reasoning as follows:

[T]he availability of enhanced remedies under the elder abuse statute requires a showing of corporate responsibility in keeping with Civil Code § 3294, subd. (b), i.e. the direction or ratification of the unlawful conduct by an officer managing agent. (Welf. & Inst. Code § 15657, subd. (c).) Here, although Plaintiffs in opposition argue that the discharge of Decedent “was done by an officer, director or managing agent of MLK,” no such allegation appears in the Complaint.

(3/6/2024 Ruling.)

The FAC has been amended to include such allegations. (FAC ¶ 26.) But MLK-LA argues that the allegation of corporate authorization or ratification is too conclusory, given the particularity with which statutory elder abuse causes of action must be pleaded. (Demurrer at pp. 5–7.)

MLK-LA is correct that an elder abuse claim must be pleaded with particularity. “[T]he facts constituting the neglect and establishing the causal link between the neglect and the injury must be pleaded with particularity, in accordance with the pleading rules governing statutory claims.” (Carter v. Prime Healthcare Paradise Valley LLC (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 396, 407.) However, MLK-LA corporate structure and decision-making are matters internal to itself, and “[t]he rule of particular pleadings, even where applicable to certain claims, does not pertain with the same force “when the facts lie more in the knowledge of the opposite party.” (Tenet Healthsystem Desert, Inc. v. Blue Cross of California (2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 821, 838.) MLK-LA presents no facts to support the contention that an allegation of corporate ratification or direction must be pleaded with the same particularity as the underlying facts of neglect and causation, and cites only authority for the proposition that an allegation of such ratification must be made. (See Grieves v. Superior Court (1984) 157 Cal.App.3d 159, 168 [“[A]bsent from the complaint is any assertion an officer, director or managing agent of Hospital was personally responsible for any of the acts allegedly performed by Hospital.”].) However, Plaintiffs have made this allegation.

The demurrer is therefore OVERRULED.

II. MOTION TO STRIKE

Any party, within the time allowed to respond to a pleading, may serve and file a notice of motion to strike the whole or any part thereof. (Code Civ. Proc., § 435(b)(1)). The notice of motion to strike a portion of a pleading shall quote in full the portions sought to be stricken except where the motion is to strike an entire paragraph, cause of action, count or defense. (California Rules of Court Rule 3.1322.)

The grounds for a motion to strike shall appear on the face of the challenged pleading or form any matter of which the court is required to take judicial notice. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437(a)). The court then 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. (Code Civ. Proc., § 436.) When the defect which justifies striking a complaint is capable of cure, the court should allow leave to amend. (Perlman v. Municipal Court (1979) 99 Cal.App.3d 568, 575.)

Defendant MLK-LA once more moves to strike the prayer for attorney fees sought under Welfare & Institutions Code § 15657. (Motion at pp. 3–4.) This court granted MLK-LA’s previous motion to the same relief, reasoning that such an award was contingent upon a properly pleaded claim for elder abuse. (Welf. & Inst. Code § 15657, subd. (a).) However, as Plaintiffs have rectified the defect that previously made their claim subject to demurrer, their request for attorney fees is properly made.

The motion is therefore DENIED.