Judge Robert B. Broadbelt, Case 21STCV23316 2023-02-28 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Robert B. Broadbelt, Case: 21STCV23316, Date: 2023-02-28 Tentative Ruling

MOVING PARTIES: Defendants Olympia Health Care LLC dba Olympia Medical Center and Alecto Healthcare Services, LLC

The court considered the moving, opposition, and reply papers filed in connection with this motion.

The court rules on Defendants’ February 22, 2023[1] evidentiary objections as follows:

The court sustains Objection No. 1 as to the statement “I am informed and believe that these medications have side effects dealing with memory loss and confusion” because it lacks foundation. The court overrules Objection No. 1 as to the remainder of paragraph 5 in the declaration of plaintiff John Watts, Jr.

The court sustains Objection No. 2 as to the statement “I am informed and believe that at the time I signed the agreement I was not mentally stable enough to sign and understand the document other than I was getting $8,500.00” because it lacks foundation. The court overrules Objection No. 2 as to the remainder of paragraph 6 in the declaration of plaintiff John Watts, Jr.

The purpose of a motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication “is to provide courts with a mechanism to cut through the parties’ pleadings in order to determine whether, despite their allegations, trial is in fact necessary to resolve their dispute.” (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 843.) “Code of Civil Procedure section 437c, subdivision (c), requires the trial judge to grant summary judgment if all the evidence submitted, and ‘all inferences reasonably deducible from the evidence’ and uncontradicted by other inferences or evidence, show that there is no triable issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” (Adler v. Manor Healthcare Corp. (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1110, 1119.)

“On a motion for summary judgment, the initial burden is always on the moving party to make a prima facie showing that there are no triable issues of material fact.” (Scalf v. D.B. Log Homes, Inc. (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 1510, 1519.) A defendant or cross-defendant moving for summary judgment or summary adjudication “has met his or her burden of showing that a cause of action has no merit if the party has shown that one or more elements of the cause of action . . . cannot be established, or that there is a complete defense to the cause of action.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (p)(2).) “Once the defendant or cross-defendant has met that burden, the burden shifts to the plaintiff or cross-complainant to show that a triable issue of one or more material facts exists as to the cause of action or a defense thereto.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (p)(2).) “If the plaintiff cannot do so, summary judgment should be granted.” (Avivi v. Centro Medico Urgente Medical Center (2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 463, 467.) “When deciding whether to grant summary judgment, the court must consider all of the evidence set forth in the papers (except evidence to which the court has sustained an objection), as well as all reasonable inferences that may be drawn from that evidence, in the light most favorable to the party opposing summary judgment.” (Id. at p. 467; Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (c).)

Defendants Olympia Health Care LLC dba Olympia Medical Center and Alecto Healthcare Services, LLC (“Defendants”) move for summary judgment as to the Complaint filed by John Watts, Jr. (“Plaintiff”) on the ground that the parties entered into a settlement agreement and release that bars Plaintiff’s causes of action for (1) medical malpractice, alleged against Defendants, and (2) medical malpractice—negligent hiring, supervision, retention, alleged against defendant Olympia Health Care, LLC.

“A release is an instrument by which the signing party (releasor) relinquishes claims or potential claims against one or more persons (releasees) who might otherwise be subject to liability for him. The existence of a valid release is a complete defense to a tort action against the releasee.” (Rodriguez v. Oto (2013) 212 Cal.App.4th 1030, 1026.)

The court finds that Defendants have met their burden of showing that the first and second causes of action for medical malpractice have no merit because Defendants have shown that there is a complete defense to these causes of action based on the parties’ settlement agreement and release.

Defendants submit a copy of the “Settlement Agreement and Release of All Claims” (the “Settlement and Release”) entered into by and between Plaintiff, on the one hand, and Defendants, on the other hand, on January 12, 2021. (Def. Ex. G, Settlement and Release, pp. 1, 5.) The Settlement and Release is signed by Plaintiff, and provides that (1) Plaintiff submitted a claim to Defendants’ insurer regarding an incident that occurred on April 1, 2020; (2) Plaintiff desired to fully and finally resolve all claims arising out of that action; (3) Plaintiff understood, acknowledged, and agreed that the execution of the Settlement and Release constituted a compromise of all disputed claims; (4) Plaintiff would receive a check in the amount of $8,500 “in full payment and satisfaction of all claims of any nature and kind….against [Defendants] and arising out of the subject incident[;]” and (5) in consideration of the settlement described above, Plaintiff fully released and forever discharged Defendants “from any and all claims, actions, causes of action, demands, rights, [and] damages….relating to an incident that occurred on April 1, 2020….” (Def. Ex. G, Settlement and Release, pp. 1, ¶¶ 1-3; Tropp Decl., ¶ 2 [Plaintiff’s claim arose from his April 1, 2020 admission at Olympia Medical Center].) Plaintiff admitted that he accepted the $8,500 settlement draft issued to him pursuant to the Settlement and Release. (Def. Ex. K, p. 3:20-25 [Olympia Health Care, LLC’s Request for Admission Nos. 9-10]; Def. Ex. L [Plaintiff’s responses admitting Request for Admission Nos. 9-10].)

In his Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants committed medical malpractice based on the misdiagnosis and mistreatment of his condition following his admission to Olympia Medical Center on April 1, 2020. (Compl., ¶¶ 8-11 [defendant Joseph N. Thomas, M.D. examined Plaintiff on April 1, 2020 and failed to properly diagnose and treat Plaintiff], 13, 16, 21 [alleging that defendant Olympia Health Care, LLC’s negligence in hiring, retaining, and supervising defendant Joseph N. Thomas, M.D. caused Plaintiff’s injury].) As set forth above, the Settlement and Release applied to Plaintiff’s claims arising from his April 1, 2020 admission at Olympia Medical Center. (Tropp Decl., ¶ 3; Def. Ex. G, Settlement and Release.) Thus, the court finds that the causes of action alleged by Plaintiff in his Complaint are encompassed by the terms of the Settlement and Release.

The court therefore finds that Defendants have met their burden of producing evidence to show that the first and second causes of action are barred, since Plaintiff and Defendants entered into an agreement (1) to settle the claims alleged by Plaintiff in his Complaint, and (2) to release Defendants from any future claims arising out of the April 1, 2020 incident, including the claims now alleged by Plaintiff in this action.

The court finds that Plaintiff has not met his burden to show that a triable issue of material fact exists as to Defendants’ affirmative defense of release. Plaintiff contends that there are triable issues of material facts as to (1) Plaintiff’s incapacity to enter into the Settlement and Release, and (2) whether Plaintiff’s execution of the Settlement and Release was the result of undue influence.

First, the court notes that Plaintiff does not dispute that the causes of action alleged in his Complaint are based on the same claims that are the subject of the Settlement and Release.

Second, the court finds that Plaintiff has not met his burden of showing a triable issue of material fact exists as to his incapacity to enter into the Settlement and Release.

“In California, as in many states, a party is entitled to rescission of a contract if, when he entered into the contract, he was not mentally competent to deal with the subject before him with a full understanding of his rights, the test being, in each instance, whether he understood the nature, purpose and effect of what he did.” (Smalley v. Baker (1968) 262 Cal.App.2d 824, 832, disapproved of on another ground in Weiner v. Fleischman (1991) 54 Cal.3d 476.)

Plaintiff relies on his own declaration, in which he states that, within 24 hours of his conversation with Tropp, he had taken various types of prescribed medications. (Watts Decl., ¶ 5.) However, Plaintiff has not submitted any competent evidence showing that (1) these medications could render a person incapacitated, or (2) Plaintiff was rendered incapacitated by taking these medications. The court therefore finds that Plaintiff has not met his burden to show a triable issue of material fact as to whether “he was not mentally competent to deal with” or fully understand the terms set forth in the Settlement and Release. (Smalley, supra, 262 Cal.App.2d at p. 832.)

Third, the court finds that Plaintiff has not met his burden of showing a triable issue of material fact exists as to whether his agreement to the Settlement and Release was the result of undue influence.

“[A]pparent consent is not real or free when obtained through” undue influence. (Civ. Code, § 1567, subd. (4).) “In essence undue influence involves the use of excessive pressure to persuade one vulnerable to such pressure, pressure applied by a dominant subject to a servient object.” (Odorizzi v. Bloomfield Sch. Dist. (1966) 246 Cal.App.2d 123, 131.) Certain elements are characteristic of undue influence, including (1) discussion of a transaction at an unusual or inappropriate time; (2) consummation of the transaction in an unusual place; (3) insistent demand that the business be finished at once; (4) extreme emphasis on untoward consequences of delay; (5) use of multiple persuaders against a single party; (6) absence of third-party advisers to the servient party; and (7) statements that there is no time to consult attorneys or other parties. (Keithley v. Civil Service Bd. (1970) 11 Cal.App.3d 443, 452.)

Plaintiff contends that Defendants unduly influenced him to enter into the Settlement and Release because (1) he felt forced to sign the agreement; (2) Tropp did not suggest that Plaintiff consult with a lawyer before singing the Settlement and Release; (3) Tropp told Plaintiff that he “had no case against” Defendants and that they were not liable; and (4) Tropp told Plaintiff that, if he signed the Settlement and Release, he “would get the money immediately.” (Watts Decl., ¶¶ 2-7.)

The court finds that this evidence is insufficient to establish a triable issue of material fact as to undue influence. First, Plaintiff has not presented evidence establishing that discussions of the Settlement and Release occurred at an unusual or inappropriate time, or that the consummation thereof occurred in an unusual place. Second, Plaintiff’s declaration does not establish that Tropp or Defendants insistently demanded that Plaintiff sign the Settlement and Release immediately, or stated that Plaintiff would face untoward consequences if he did not immediately sign the Settlement and Release. Third, Plaintiff has not presented evidence establishing that multiple persuaders approached him in an effort to influence his agreement to the Settlement and Release. Instead, Plaintiff’s evidence establishes that he spoke only to Tropp about his claims. (Watts Decl., ¶ 2.) Fourth, although Plaintiff states that Tropp did not suggest that Plaintiff consult another attorney, Plaintiff does not state that she told him that there was no time to consult an attorney or otherwise bar Plaintiff from seeking outside advice. (Watts Decl., ¶ 4 [“Ms. Tropp never suggested that I consult with a lawyer before signing the agreement”].) Finally, the court notes that Plaintiff has submitted an email from Tropp dated January 11, 2021, wherein she stated as follows: “Thank you for taking the time to speak with me this morning. [¶] Attached please find the release agreement we discussed this morning. [¶] Please review and let me know if you have any questions. If the document[] is acceptable, please sign and return to me.” (Watts Decl., Ex. 1.) The court finds that this communication further confirms that Defendants did not impose unreasonable time limits on Plaintiff’s agreement or otherwise indicate that Plaintiff would suffer problems if he did not agree.

“[I]n order to avert summary judgment the plaintiff must produce substantial responsive evidence sufficient to establish a triable issue of material fact on the merits of the defendant’s showing.” (Sangster v. Paetkau (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 151, 162-163.) The court finds that Plaintiff has not met his burden of producing substantial responsive evidence to establish a triable issue of material fact as to either (1) his capacity to enter into the Settlement and Release, or (2) whether Plaintiff entered into the Settlement and Release as a result of undue influence.

The court therefore finds that the terms of the parties’ Settlement and Release bars Plaintiff’s (1) first cause of action for medical malpractice against Defendants, and (2) second cause of action for medical malpractice—negligent hiring, supervision, retention against defendant Olympia Health Care, LLC.

The court therefore grants Defendants’ motion for summary judgment as to Plaintiff’s Complaint.

The court grants defendants Olympia Health Care LLC dba Olympia Medical Center and Alecto Healthcare Services, LLC’s motion for summary judgment as to plaintiff John Watts, Jr.’s Complaint.

In order to preserve the record on this motion, the court orders defendants Olympia Health Care LLC dba Olympia Medical Center and Alecto Healthcare Services, LLC to electronically file a complete copy of the “Notice of Lodgment of Separately Bound Documentary Evidence in Support of Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment,” with exhibits A through N attached, unless any party intends to file a motion to seal any exhibits, in which case the parties shall comply with the requirements of California Rules of Court, rules 2.550 and 2.551, no later than March 14, 2023.

The court orders defendant Alecto Healthcare Services, LLC to prepare, serve, and lodge a proposed judgment no later than 10 days from the date of this order.

The court sets an Order to Show Cause re entry of judgment as to defendant Alecto Healthcare Services, LLC for hearing on ____________________, 2023, at 11:00 a.m., in Department 53.

Because defendant Olympia Health Care LLC dba Olympia Medical Center has filed a cross-complaint against cross-defendant John Watts, Jr., and the cross-complaint is still pending, the court may not enter judgment in favor of defendant Olympia Health Care LLC dba Olympia Medical Center at this time. However, if defendant Olympia Health Care LLC dba Olympia Medical Center dismisses its cross-complaint in this action, then defendant Olympia Health Care LLC dba Olympia Medical Center may prepare, serve, and lodge a proposed judgment.

The court orders defendants Olympia Health Care LLC dba Olympia Medical Center and Alecto Healthcare Services, LLC to give notice of this ruling.

[1] In the court’s January 30, 2023 order, the court overruled Defendants’ January 25, 2023 evidentiary objection to the declaration filed by Plaintiff on January 13, 2023.

john watts jr. ; Plaintiff, vs. joseph n. thomas, m.d. , et al.; Defendants.	Case No.:	21STCV23316

	Hearing Date:	February 28, 2023

	Time:	10:00 a.m.

	[Tentative] Order RE: motion for summary judgment