Judge: Maurice A. Leiter, Case: 23STCV03842, Date: 2024-01-18 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV03842    Hearing Date: January 18, 2024    Dept: 54

Hearing Date: January 18, 2024

Department 54, Judge Maurice A. Leiter

Demurrer to Complaint and Motion to Strike

Moving Party: Defendants County of Los Angeles, LAC+USC Medical Center, Rancho Los Amigos National Rehabilitation Center

Responding Party: Plaintiff Del Deandre Young

T/R:     DEFENDANTS’ DEMURRER IS OVERRULED.

THE MOTION TO STRIKE IS GRANTED.

DEFENDANTS TO FILE AND SERVE ANSWERS TO THE COMPLAINT WITHIN 30 DAYS OF NOTICE OF RULING.

DEFENDANTS TO NOTICE.

If the parties wish to submit on the tentative, please email the courtroom at SMCdept54@lacourt.org with notice to opposing counsel (or self-represented party) before 8:00 am on the day of the hearing.

The Court considers the moving papers and opposition.

BACKGROUND

On February 21, 2023, Plaintiff Del Deandre Young sued Defendants County of Los Angeles, LAC+USC Medical Center, and Rancho Los Amigos National Rehabilitation Center, asserting causes of action for dependent adult abuse, negligence, and violation of the Residents’ Bill of Rights. Plaintiff alleges he developed a pressure sore in Defendants’ care.

ANALYSIS

A demurrer to a complaint may be taken to the whole complaint or to any of the causes of action in it.  (CCP § 430.50(a).)  A demurrer challenges only the legal sufficiency of the complaint, not the truth of its factual allegations or the plaintiff's ability to prove those allegations.  (Picton v. Anderson Union High Sch. Dist. (1996) 50 Cal. App. 4th 726, 732.)  The court must treat as true the complaint's material factual allegations, but not contentions, deductions or conclusions of fact or law.  (Id. at 732-33.)  The complaint is to be construed liberally to determine whether a cause of action has been stated.  (Id. at 733.)

A. Statute of Limitations

Defendants demur to the complaint on the ground that it is barred by the applicable statutes of limitations. Defendants assert Plaintiff failed to file this suit within six months of notice of rejection of Plaintiff’s government claim per Gov. Code § 945.6. Plaintiff alleges his claims accrued between February 25, 2021 and March 8, 2021 when he learned his pressure sore was caused by Defendants’ alleged negligence. Plaintiff alleges he presented a government claim on November 4, 2021, which was denied on December 3, 2021. Plaintiff filed this action on February 21, 2023.

In opposition, Plaintiff asserts the six-month period was tolled while Plaintiff challenged Defendants’ denial in a court petition. (RJN, Exh. 1.) Plaintiff filed the petition on April 27, 2022, less than six months after December 3, 2021 and 37 days before sixth-month deadline of June 3, 2022. The court denied the petition on January 9, 2023. (RJN, Exh. 2.) Plaintiff argues that he had 37 days (the number of days the statute of limitations was paused once Plaintiff filed the petition) to file suit. 37 days from January 9, 2023 was February 18, 2023, a Saturday. Monday February 20, 2023 was President’s Day, making February 21, 2023 the deadline to file suit. This is sufficient at the pleading stage to establish timeliness. The demurrer cannot be sustained on this basis.

B. Dependent Adult Abuse

A Dependent Adult Abuse/Neglect cause of action must contain allegations that Defendants: “(1) had responsibility for meeting the basic needs of [an] elder . . . such as nutrition, hydration, hygiene, or medical care; (2) knew of conditions that made the elder unable to provide for his or her own basic needs; . . . (3) denied or withheld goods or services necessary to meet [those] basic needs”; (4) knew that “that injury was substantially certain” or consciously disregarded the “high probability of such injury”; and (5) this “neglect caused the elder . . . to suffer physical harm, pain, or mental suffering.” (Carter v. Prime Healthcare Paradise Valley LLC (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 396, 406-07 [citations omitted].)

Defendants assert Plaintiff’s claims for dependent adult abuse fail to allege sufficient facts. Plaintiff alleges Defendants were responsible for his basic needs as he was a quadriplegic following a motorcycle accident. Plaintiff alleges Defendants knew the risk of pressure sores was high but consciously disregarded this risk, resulting in severe injury to Plaintiff. This is sufficient to allege dependent adult abuse.

Defendants’ demurrer is OVERRULED.

C. Motion to Strike

Any party, within the time allowed to response to a pleading, may serve and file a notice of motion to strike the whole or any part" of that pleading. (CCP § 435(b)(1).) “The Court may, upon a motion made pursuant to Section 435, or at any time in its discretion, and upon terms it deems proper: (a) Strike out any irrelevant, false or improper matter asserted in any pleading; (b) 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." (CCP § 436.)

Defendants move to strike Plaintiff’s prayer for punitive damages on the ground that punitive damages are not recoverable against a government entity pursuant to Gov. Code § 818. In opposition, Plaintiff asserts the exemplary damages allowed for dependent adult abuse are different than standard punitive damages and may therefore be stated against Defendants. Plaintiff fails to provide authority in support of this assertion.

Defendants’ motion to strike is GRANTED.