Judge: Marcella O. Mclaughlin, Case: 37-2023-00004303-CU-NP-CTL, Date: 2024-03-01 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - February 29, 2024

03/01/2024  01:30:00 PM  C-72 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Marcella O McLaughlin

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  Non-PI/PD/WD tort - Other Discovery Hearing 37-2023-00004303-CU-NP-CTL CATHY DALEY BY AND THROUGH HER SUCCESSOR-IN-INTEREST MEGAN FLOWER VS HABILITATIVE HOMES RESIDENTIAL CARE FACILITY LLC [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Motion - Other, 02/06/2024

The motion to compel financial discovery is DENIED.

Pretrial discovery of a defendant's financial condition in connection with a claim for punitive damages is prohibited absent a court order permitting such discovery. Civ. Code § 3295(c). Interpreting section 3295, case law establishes that 'before a court may enter an order permitting discovery of a defendant's financial condition, it must (1) weigh the evidence submitted in favor of and in opposition to motion for discovery, and (2) make a finding that it is very likely the plaintiff will prevail on his claim for punitive damages.' Jabro v. Superior Court (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 754, 758. To prevail on a claim for punitive damages, the plaintiff must establish by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant has been guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice. Civ. Code § 3294(a).

Here, after weighing the parties' submissions, the court finds that plaintiffs have failed to establish a substantial probability that they will prevail on their claim for punitive damages. There is a significant conflict in the evidence regarding whether defendants had reason to suspect that decedent was suffering from a urinary tract infection in the days before she was transported to the hospital. (Compare Sniffen Depo. and Ex. H, with Larson Depo., Ex. 1, and Ex. 2.) Moreover, while it is undisputed that decedent was on the floor of defendants' facility for over 18 hours, it appears that defendants' staff routinely checked on her, offered her water, and tried to convince her to go to bed. Decedent refused these overtures. (Ex. 2 at p. 1.) In sum, the evidence before the court does not show that defendants engaged in despicable conduct or acted with a conscious disregard for plaintiff's safety. See Civ. Code 3294(c)(1), (2); see also CACI 3940 (''Despicable conduct' is conduct that is so vile, base, or contemptible that it would be looked down on despised by reasonable people.').

Plaintiffs argue that even if there is not a strong likelihood that they will prove malice or oppression, it is very likely that they can show recklessness. However, unlike Welfare and Institutions Code section 15657, Civil Code section 3294(a) does not authorize punitive damages for reckless behavior. See Taylor v. Superior Court (1979) 24 Cal.3d 890, 895; Flyer's Body Shop Profit Sharing Plan v. Ticor Title Ins. Co. (1986) 185 Cal.App.3d 1149, 1155; see also Covenant Care, Inc. v. Superior Court (2004) 32 Cal.4th 771, 789 ('[P]laintiffs in an Elder Abuse Action may, on appropriate proof (Civ. Code, § 3294, subd. (a)), recover punitive damages[.]').

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3064693  35