Judge Stephen P. Pfahler, Case Number: 23CHCV00683, Date: 2023-09-14 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Stephen P. Pfahler, Case: 23CHCV00683, Date: 2023-09-14 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23CHCV00683 Hearing Date: September 14, 2023 Dept: F49

Dept. F-49

Date: 9-14-23

Case #23CHCV00683

STRIKE

MOVING PARTY: Defendants, Vanity Wellness Center Incorporated

RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff, Cecilia Thompson, et al.

RELIEF REQUESTED

Motion to Strike Allegations in Support of, and Claim for, Punitive Damages

SUMMARY OF ACTION

On an unspecified date in January 2022, Colin Thompson commenced court ordered treatment and rehabilitation with third party Action Drug Rehabs, when a transfer to defendant Vanity Wellness Center Incorporated, was arranged on March 24, 2022. Colin presented to the facility on March 25, 2022, for an intake assessment, and was subsequent transferred to defendants White House Recovery and Detox, LLC and White House Recovery LLC. Plaintiffs Cecilia and Brett Thompson were not informed of the change of facilities, but apparently learned of the new location as clothes and other items were delivered to the White House facility, including a mobile phone.

On March 26, 2022, Colin sent a message via the mobile phone regarding being “high” and “just chill’n” at the facility. Plaintiffs allege Colin was left unsupervised at the facility the next two days, where Colin died from an overdose on March 28, 2022.

On March 9, 2023, plaintiffs filed their complaint for Elder Abuse, Negligence, Wrongful Death, and Survival Action. On June 13, 2023, Plaintiff substituted Doe 51 for Kyle Perez.

RULING: Granted.

Defendant Vanity Wellness Center Incorporated moves to strike allegations in support of, and the claim for punitive damages. Vanity Wellness moves on grounds of insufficient economic loss and lack of facts demonstrating malice, oppression or fraud. Plaintiffs in opposition cite to the standard for elder/dependent abuse as the basis for recovery of punitive damages, and contend the referral to White House constituted a sufficient act of wrongful conduct. Vanity wellness in reply reiterates the lack of facts supporting punitive damages.

Vanity Wellness addresses the survival and wrongful death causes of action, and Plaintiffs defend the claim for recovery in said causes of action, but the notice of motion actually only identifies allegations in support of in paragraph 34 within the first cause of action for Elder/Dependent Abuse. The only apparent factual support of the claim for punitive damages appears in the first cause of action notwithstanding the general statement in Prayer 6.

The survival cause of action can support the claim for punitive damages. “In an action or proceeding by a decedent's personal representative or successor in interest on the decedent's cause of action, the damages recoverable are limited to the loss or damage that the decedent sustained or incurred before death, including any penalties or punitive or exemplary damages that the decedent would have been entitled to recover had the decedent lived, and do not include damages for pain, suffering, or disfigurement.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 377.34, subd. (a).) The court finds the argument requiring a showing of economic loss as part of the punitive damages claim lacks support given the plain language of the statute allowing punitive damages. (County of Los Angeles v. Superior Court (1999) 21 Cal.4th 292, 304.)

The argument challenging the wrongful death claim under Code of Civil Procedure 377.34 lacks any actual factually articulated argument beyond the general citation to the code section, including even establishment of the code section to a wrongful death claim and distinctions with a survival action. The court declines to make the arguments for Vanity Wellness. (Quiroz v. Seventh Ave. Center (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 1256, 1263-1264.) The motion to strike is therefore denied on these particular arguments.

As for the actual punitive damages standard, Civil Code Section 3294, subdivision (c) authorizes punitive damages upon a showing of malice, oppression, or fraud, which are defined as follows:

(1) “Malice” means conduct which is intended by the defendant to cause injury to the plaintiff or despicable conduct which is carried on by the defendant with a willful and conscious disregard of the rights or safety of others.

(2) “Oppression” means despicable conduct that subjects a person to cruel and unjust hardship in conscious disregard of that person’s rights.

(3) “Fraud” means an intentional misrepresentation, deceit, or concealment of a material fact known to the defendant with the intention on the part of the defendant of thereby depriving a person of property or legal rights or otherwise causing injury.

Punitive damages require more than the mere commission of a tort. (See Taylor v. Superior Court (1979) 24 Cal.3d 890, 894-95.) Specific facts must be pled in support of punitive damages. (Hillard v. A.H. Robins Co. (1983) 148 Cal.App.3d 374, 391-392.) “The mere allegation an intentional tort was committed is not sufficient to warrant an award of punitive damages. [Citation.] Not only must there be circumstances of oppression, fraud or malice, but facts must be alleged in the pleading to support such a claim. [Citation.]” (Grieves v. Superior Court (1984) 157 Cal.App.3d 159, 166, fn. Omitted [emphasis added].)

Any negligence based causes of action in and of themselves will not support the claim for punitive damages. Plain unintentional carelessness, characterized as negligence or recklessness, is not sufficient to support punitive damages. (Nolin v. National Convenience Stores, Inc. (1979) 95 Cal.App.3d 279, 285-286 [“Conduct classified only as unintentional carelessness, while it may constitute negligence or even gross negligence, will not support an award of punitive damages”]; G. D. Searle & Co. v. Superior Court (1975) 49 Cal.App.3d 22, 32 (“When nondeliberate injury is charged, allegations that the defendant's conduct was wrongful, willful, wanton, reckless or unlawful do not support a claim for exemplary damages; such allegations do not charge malice”]; Dawes v. Superior Court (1980) 111 Cal.App.3d 82, 87 [“Inasmuch as Civil Code section 3294 requires as a prerequisite to the recovery of punitive damages that the defendant “has been guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice,” the cases have uniformly recognized that proof of negligence, even gross negligence, or recklessness is insufficient to warrant an award of punitive damages’]; Ebaugh v. Rabkin (1972) 22 Cal.App.3d 891; McDonell v. American Trust Co. (1955) 130 CA2d 296, 300 [Awareness of a potential condition under a negligence claim not sufficient to support a claim for punitive damages].)

As presented in the language of the operative complaint, the claims for punitive damages arise from an alleged special duty of care imposed on Vanity Wellness in agreeing to take in Colin as part of the court ordered treatment program, and effectively abandoned Colin upon transferring to a knowingly deficient facility in White House. [Comp., ¶¶ 18-20, 27-34.] Plaintiffs seeks to elevate the abandonment and improper neglect at the new facility allegations to a level of malicious and reckless conduct via the elder abuse/dependent adult statute itself. Again, neither party actually addresses the standard for elder/dependent abuse and custodial neglect standards, and instead depend on general citations of punitive damages law.

The actual alleged improper activity involving the insufficient supervision exclusively occurred at White House facility itself. As presented in the standard, a punitive damages claim requires factual, specific allegations especially for a claim based on improper referral and imposed “special duty basis of liability. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 15610.57, et seq.; Covenant Care, Inc. v. Superior Court (2004) 32 Cal.4th 771, 783-785; Delaney v. Baker (1999) 20 Cal.4th 23, 34-35.) The subject allegations ostensibly plead a negligence based cause of action. Merely labeling the claim as one for dependent abuse will not meet the factual standard for dependent abuse, and therefore support the claim for punitive damages.

The motion to strike is granted as to the claim for punitive damages to the extent Plaintiffs seek to bootstrap any and all claims arising from the referral to a level of punitive damages in any and all claims, whether identifiable or not.

Plaintiffs are granted 30 days leave to amend the complaint. Plaintiffs may add new allegations and clarifications regarding punitive damages as to which allegations, and factual support under the elder abuse standard, if applicable. If Plaintiffs fail to timely amend, Defendant is ordered to answer the remaining operative pleadings within 10 days of the lapse of the amendment deadline.

Case Management Conference set for February 14, 2024.

Defendants to give notice.