Judge: Maurice A. Leiter, Case: 24STCV03625, Date: 2025-03-26 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV03625    Hearing Date: March 26, 2025    Dept: 54

Hearing Date: March 26, 2025

Department 54, Judge Maurice A. Leiter

Demurrer to First Amended Complaint and Motion to Strike

Moving Party: Defendant Deanco Healthcare, LLC dba Mission Community Hospital

Responding Party: Plaintiffs Riyad Hawatmeh, by and through his Successor-in-Interest Margo Hawatmeh, Margo Hawatmeh, William Hawatmeh, Emad Hawatmeh and Shereen Sayegh

T/R:     DEFENDANT’S DEMURRER IS SUSTAINED. THE MOTION TO STRIKE IS MOOT.

PLAINTIFFS TO FILE AND SERVE A SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT WITHIN 30 DAYS OF NOTICE OF RULING. DEFENDANT TO FILE AND SERVE A RESPONSE WITHIN 30 DAYS THEREAFTER.

DEFENDANT 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, opposition, and reply.

BACKGROUND

On July 15, 2024, Plaintiffs Riyad Hawatmeh, by and through his Successor-in-Interest Margo Hawatmeh, Margo Hawatmeh, William Hawatmeh, Emad Hawatmeh and Shereen Sayegh filed the operative first amended complaint against Defendants Magnolia Gardens Convalescent Hospital LLC and AVNS, LLC, asserting causes of action for (1) elder abuse; (2) negligence; (3) violation of Resident’s Rights; and (4) wrongful death. Plaintiffs allege Defendants were negligent in their care of decedent Riyad Hawatmeh.

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.)

Defendant demurs to the first cause of action for elder abuse on the grounds that it is uncertain and fails to allege sufficient facts. Welfare and Institutions Code section 15600 et seq. (“Elder Abuse Act”) govern elder abuse claims.  (Worsham v. O’Connor Hospital (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 331, 336.)  “‘The Elder Abuse Act makes certain enhanced remedies available to a plaintiff who proves abuse of an elder, i.e., a ‘person residing in this state, 65 years of age or older.’”  (Id. (quoting Welf. & Inst. Code, § 15610.27.)  Abuse is defined, in part, as “[p]hysical abuse, neglect, abandonment, isolation, abduction, or other treatment with resulting physical harm or pain or mental suffering.”  (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 15610.07(a)(1); see also Worsham, supra, 226 Cal.App.4th at 336.)

Defendant Mission Hospital, which was added as a Doe Defendant on November 12, 2024, asserts that the FAC fails to allege any facts showing Mission’s role in decedent’s care. The Court agrees. There are no specific allegations relating to Mission or Mission’s wrongdoing. This cannot support a claim for elder abuse.

Defendant’s demurrer is SUSTAINED with leave to amend. The motion to strike is MOOT.