Judge: Teresa A. Beaudet, Case: 21STCV20905, Date: 2024-03-26 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV20905    Hearing Date: March 26, 2024    Dept: 50

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 50

Background

Plaintiffs Norma Olaso, deceased, by and through her personal legal representative and successor in interest, Nelson Olaso, and Nelson Olaso (jointly, “Plaintiffs”) filed this action on June 4, 2021 against Defendants Alexandria Care Center, LLC dba Genesis Healthcare aka Alexandria Care Center, Summit Care, LLC, and Lucy Teroganesyan. The Complaint alleges causes of action for (1) elder abuse and neglect, (2) violation of patient rights, (3) negligence, and (4) wrongful death.

Defendants Alexandria Care Center, LLC, Genesis HealthCare LLC, and Lusine Ter Oganesyan (collectively, “Defendants”) now demur to the first and second causes of action of the Complaint. Defendants also move to strike portions of the Complaint. Summit Care, LLC joins in Defendants’ demurrer and motion to strike. Plaintiffs oppose the demurrer and motion to strike.

Discussion

As an initial matter, the Court notes that Defendants’ counsel’s declarations filed in support of the demurrer and motion to strike indicate, inter alia, that “[o]n May 12, 2023…I sent a meet and confer letter to plaintiffs’ counsel Christopher Oliver indicating that defendants intended to prepare, file, and serve a demurrer to the elder abuse and violation of resident rights causes of action contained in plaintiffs’ complaint. The letter set forth the law regarding elder abuse and corporate ratification and violation of resident rights. The letter also set forth the grounds to move to strike punitive damage and attorney fee allegations.” (Laughlin Decls., ¶ 2.) Defendants’ counsel further states that “[o]n May 15, 2023, Mr. Oliver wrote back to me advising that plaintiffs respectfully disagree with the defense position and that plaintiffs will not be filing an amended complaint.” (Laughlin Decls., ¶ 3.)

The Court notes that Defendants’ counsel’s declarations do not demonstrate that the parties met and conferred in person, by telephone, or by video conference, or that Defendants’ counsel attempted to do so. Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 430.41, subdivision (a), “[b]efore filing a demurrer pursuant to this chapter, the demurring party shall meet and confer in person, by telephone, or by video conference with the party who filed the pleading that is subject to demurrer for the purpose of determining whether an agreement can be reached that would resolve the objections to be raised in the demurrer.” (Emphasis added.) In addition, “[b]efore filing a motion to strike pursuant to this chapter, the moving party shall meet and confer in person, by telephone, or by video conference with the party who filed the pleading that is subject to the motion to strike for the purpose of determining if an agreement can be reached that resolves the objections to be raised in the motion to strike.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 435.5, subd. (a), emphasis added.) Such meeting and conferring must be done in good faith with an effort to try to resolve the issues subject to the demurrer and motion to strike.

In light of the foregoing, the hearing on Defendants’ demurrer and motion to strike is continued to _______________, 2024 at 2 p.m. in Dept. 50. 

Defendants are¿ordered to meet¿and confer¿with Plaintiffs within 10 days of the date of this order.¿If the parties are unable to resolve the pleading issues¿or if the parties are otherwise unable to meet and confer in good faith, Defendants are to¿thereafter¿file and serve¿a declaration setting forth the efforts to meet and confer in compliance with¿Code of Civil Procedure section 430.41, subdivision (a)(3) and Code of Civil Procedure section 435.5, subdivision (a)(3) within 15 days of this order.¿

Defendants are ordered to give notice of this order. 

DATED:  March 26, 2024                              ________________________________

Hon. Teresa A. Beaudet

Judge, Los Angeles Superior Court