Judge: Mark E. Windham, Case: 23STLC02461, Date: 2024-07-09 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STLC02461    Hearing Date: July 9, 2024    Dept: 26

Blythe/Windsor Country Park Healthcare Center, LLC v. California Department of Health, et al.

MOTION TO DISMISS

(Health & Safety Code § 1428(b))

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendant California Department of Public Health’s Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED.

ANALYSIS:

This action relates to Plaintiff Blythe/Windsor Country Park Healthcare Center, LLC’s (“Plaintiff”) challenge to a citation issued by Defendant California Department of Public Health (“Defendant”). Plaintiff is an elder care center, and the Class “A” citation and the $25,000.00 penalty was issued for violation of 42 Code of Federal Regulations parts 483.25(d)(1), 483.25(d)(2) and Title 22, C.C.R. Section 72523(a). Plaintiff filed this action on April 14, 2023. Defendant filed an answer on July 25, 2023, and then filed the instant motion to dismiss on April 22, 2024. Plaintiff filed a case management statement on the same date. Plaintiff filed its opposition to the Motion to Dismiss on June 24, 2024, and Defendant replied on July 1, 2024.

Discussion

Defendant requests the Court take judicial notice of (1) Plaintiff’s Complaint filed in this action on April 14, 2023; (2) Defendant’s general denial and proof of service filed and served on July 25, 2023; and (3) the Court’s register of actions as of February 23, 2024, is granted pursuant to Cal. Evidence Code section 452, subdivisions (c) and (d). The Court takes judicial notice of the fact of the filings, not of the truth of their contents. (See Adams v. Bank of America, N.A. (2020) 51 Cal.App.5th 666, 673 [citing Sosinsky v. Grant (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 1548, 1569–1570].)

Defendant moves to dismiss the instant action pursuant to Cal. Health and Safety Code section 1428, subdivision (b), which states in relevant part: “[n]otwithstanding any other provision of law, a licensee prosecuting a judicial appeal shall file and serve a case management statement pursuant to Rule 212 of the California Rules of Court within six months after the department files its answer in the appeal.” (Cal. Health & Safe. Code, § 1428, subd. (b).) California Rules of Court Rule 212, now renumbered Rules 3.720-3.730, dictates case management procedures. Defendant contends that because Plaintiff failed to file a case management statement within six months of the filing of Defendant’s answer on July 25, 2023, this action must be dismissed. Plaintiff filed a case management statement on April 22, 2024, which was nine months after the filing of Defendant’s answer.

California Health & Safety Code, section 1428, subdivision (b) states:

If a licensee intends to contest a class “AA” or a class “A” citation, the licensee shall inform the director in writing, within 15 business days of the service of the citation of the licensee's intent to adjudicate the validity of the citation in the superior court in the county in which the long-term health care facility is located. In order to perfect a judicial appeal of a contested citation, a licensee shall file a civil action in the superior court in the county in which the long-term health care facility is located. The action shall be filed no later than 90 calendar days after a licensee notifies the director that he or she intends to contest the citation, and served not later than 90 days after filing. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a licensee prosecuting a judicial appeal shall file and serve a case management statement pursuant to Rule 212 of the California Rules of Court within six months after the department files its answer in the appeal. Notwithstanding subdivision (d), the court shall dismiss the appeal upon motion of the department if the case management statement is not filed by the licensee within the period specified. The court may affirm, modify, or dismiss the citation, the level of the citation, or the amount of the proposed assessment of the civil penalty.

(Cal. Health & Safe. Code, § 1428, subd. (b) [emphasis added].) In support of its Motion, Defendant points to York Healthcare & Wellness Centre LP v. State Dept. of Public Health (2019) 33 Cal.App.5th Supp. 20, a published decision of the Appellate Division of the Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County. In York, the trial court’s dismissal of an action challenging a citation under the Health & Safety Code due to failure to file a case management statement within six months of the defendant’s answer was affirmed. (York Healthcare & Wellness Centre LP v. State Dept. of Public Health (2019) 33 Cal.App.5th Supp. 20, 24.) The Appellate Division held that dismissal of the action is mandatory upon noticed motion following the plaintiff’s failure to timely file a case management statement, “even if a superior court’s local rule provides that a case management conference is optional.” (Id. at 25.)

Plaintiff opposes application of York to the facts of this case on the grounds that this Court issued an order setting the trial date and stating that no case management conference would be held. Plaintiff contends these facts sufficiently distinguish this action from the York case because the Court expressly ordered that no case management conference would be held. The Court disagrees. The basis of the York ruling was that statutes control over rules of procedure adopted by the courts or the Judicial Council. (Id. at 32-32.) The Appellate Division explained: “[E]ven if it wanted to, the Judicial Council did not have the power to give courts the option to ignore the timely filing requirement and duty to dismiss by repealing and replacing rule 212. (See Cal. Const., art. VI, § 6, subd. (d) [“The rules adopted shall not be inconsistent with statute”].) Likewise, local courts lack the authority to alter requirements in statutes. (Gov. Code, § 68070, subd. (a).)” (Id. at 33.)

The option to hold a case management conference or not, therefore, is not what makes dismissal mandatory if the plaintiff did not file a timely case management statement. This Court’s order that no case management conference would be held could not alter the statutory requirement in Health & Safety Code section 1428 because “local courts lack the authority to alter requirements in statutes.” The Appellate Division in The Appellate Division in York also explained that incorporation of the California Rules of Court into the language of Health & Safety Code section 1428 does not change the filing requirement. “The reference to the [California Rule of Court] was not intended to specify who must file a CMS, and even if it did, there is no indication that the Legislature intended to allow courts to opt out of the CMS filing requirement.” (Id. at 32.)

Nor does Plaintiff’s contention that the law does not require idle acts absolve it of the need to file a case management statement here. This, too, was addressed by the York court:

York’s assertion on appeal that the filing of a CMS “would serve no purpose” is unfounded. The CMS provides a court with valuable information to ensure the case is smoothly progressing towards trial, including informing the court of the parties’ progress in conducting discovery and the motions parties expect to file. (See Judicial Council Forms, form CM-110, required to be used as a CMS pursuant to rule 3.725(c).) Even if a case management conference is not conducted, the filing of a CMS helps keep a case on the judge’s radar, assisting in the “object of securing a decision ... at the earliest possible time.” (Health & Saf. Code, § 1428, subd. (i).)

(Id. at 28.) Plaintiff, therefore, was required to file and serve a case management statement within six months of the filing of Defendant’s answer and its failure to do so mandates dismissal of the action.

Plaintiff alternatively moves for relief from its failure to file a case management statement pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure, section 473, subdivision (b), on grounds of attorney or party fault. The Court does not find that to be a means of avoiding dismissal.  In County of San Diego v. Department of Health Services (1991) 1 Cal.App.4th 656, the Court of Appeals upheld the trial court’s determination that relief was not available under Code of Civil Procedure, section 473, subdivision (b) where the health care facility failed to timely file an at-issue memorandum. (County of San Diego v. Dept. of Health Services (1991) 1 Cal.App.4th 656, 660-661.) The reasoning in that case is applicable here. The Court of Appeals found “the legislative history of the 1987 amendment to section 1428, subdivision (c), indicates an intent to expedite judicial review of licensees’ challenges to the validity of citations issued by the Department. Construing the statute to permit judicial relief from the six-month time limitation for filing an at-issue memorandum would contravene such legislative intent.” (Id. at 663.) The same holds true for the six-month time limitation on filing a case management statement.

Accordingly, Plaintiff cannot be relieved from its non-compliance with Health & Safety Code section 1428, subdivision (b) by reliance of Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (b). 

Conclusion

Defendant California Department of Public Health’s Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED.

Moving party to give notice.