Judge Thomas Falls, Case 21STCV36366 2023-02-01 Tentative Ruling

The Court may change tentative rulings at any time. Therefore, attorneys are advised to check this website to determine if any changes or updates have been made to the tentative ruling.

Counsel may submit on the tentative rulings by calling the clerk in Dept. O at 909-802-1126 before 8:30 the morning of the hearing. Submission on the tentative does not bind the court to adopt the tentative ruling at the hearing should the opposing party appear and convince the court of further modification during oral argument.

The Tentative Ruling is not an invitation, nor an opportunity, to file any further documents relative to the hearing in question. No such filing will be considered by the Court in the absence of permission first obtained following ex-parte application therefore.

RE: DELILAH VALLE, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST TO JUAN VALLE, DECEASED, et al. vs CASA COLINA HOSPITAL AND CENTERS FOR HEALTHCARE, et al (21STCV36366)

(1) DEFENDANT, CASA COLINA, INC., DBA CASA COLINA HOSPITAL AND CENTERS FOR HEALTH CARE'S NOTICE OF DEMURRER AND DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT

(2) DEFENDANT, CASA COLINA, INC., DBA CASA COLINA HOSPITAL AND CENTERS FOR HEALTH CARE'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT

(1) DEFENDANT, CASA COLINA, INC., DBA CASA COLINA HOSPITAL AND CENTERS FOR HEALTH CARE'S NOTICE OF DEMURRER AND DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT is SUSTAINED with leave to amend because (1) the complaint fails to state any ultimate facts and (2) standing issues.

(2) DEFENDANT, CASA COLINA, INC., DBA CASA COLINA HOSPITAL AND CENTERS FOR HEALTH CARE'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT is MOOT.

This is an elder abuse case. Plaintiffs DELILAH VALLE, individually and as successor in interest to JUAN VALLE, deceased; JESSICA VALLE; and DAVID VALLE[1] allege the following against Defendants CASA COLINA HOSPITAL AND CENTERS FOR HEALTH CARE; THC - ORANGE COUNTY, LLC; and KINDRED HEALTHCARE OPERATING, LLC: On April 16, 2020, the Decedent was diagnosed with a subacute cerebellar infarct, so he was transferred to Casa Colina. “At Casa Colina, Juan Valle had deterioration of mental status due to cerebellar swelling. He required endotracheal intubation for airway protection and he underwent a decompressive craniotomy with ventricular drain. Eventually, he required tracheostomy placement. He also developed a pressure ulcer to the sacral coccygeal area.” (Complaint ¶12.) On May 5, 2020, decedent was transferred to Kindred Ontario, where they found a full thickness stage 3 pressure ulcer in the sacral coccygeal area, but his mental status began to improve. (Complaint ¶13.) On June 13, 2020, he was transferred to Kindred Brea, where he developed infections, a large abscess, and pneumonia. He was later transferred to another facility. (Complaint ¶14.) On October 1, 2020, Decedent died.

On November 1, 2022, Defendants filed the instant demurrer with a motion to strike.

On December 2, 2022, DEFENDANTS THC – ORANGE COUNTY, LLC dba KINDRED HOSPITAL BREA; THC – ORANGE COUNTY, LLC dba KINDRED HOSPITAL ONTARIO AND KINDRED HEALTHCARE OPERATING, LLC filed their Answer.

A demurrer may be asserted on any one or more of the following grounds: (a) The court has no jurisdiction of the subject of the cause of action alleged in the pleading; (b) The person who filed the pleading does not have legal capacity to sue; (c) There is another action pending between the same parties on the same cause of action; (d) There is a defect or misjoinder of parties; (e) The pleading does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action; (f) The pleading is uncertain (“uncertain” includes ambiguous and unintelligible); (g) In an action founded upon a contract, it cannot be ascertained from the pleading whether the contract is written, is oral, or is implied by conduct; (h) No certificate was filed as required by CCP §411.35 or (i) by §411.36. CCP §430.10. Accordingly, a demurrer tests the sufficiency of a pleading, and the grounds for a demurrer must appear on the face of the pleading or from judicially noticeable matters. CCP §430.30(a); Blank v. Kirwan, (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318.

The face of the pleading includes attachments and incorporations by reference (Frantz v. Blackwell, (1987) 189 Cal.App.3d 91, 94); it does not include inadmissible hearsay. Day v. Sharp, (1975) 50 Cal.App.3d 904, 914.

Defendant Casa Colina demurs to the 3^rd cause of action for reckless and willful neglect –dependent adult and elder abuse on the grounds that it (1) fails to state facts to constitute a cause of action (Code Civ. Proc. §430.l0(e)) and (2) fails to state facts to constitute a cause of action as plaintiffs lack the capacity to sue (Code Civ. Proc. §430.1 0(b ).)

Here, the court can not engage in a meaningful analysis because there is merely one sentence about what occurred at Casa Colina (See ‘Background’ section) and the cause of action itself does not delineate anything more specific. Accordingly, not only does Plaintiff fail to plead a cause of action but fails to meet the strict pleading standards required for a EADACPA cause of action.

Therefore, absent facts, the court SUSTAINS the demurrer as to the 3^rd cause of action with leave to amend.

Next, Defendant avers that the Plaintiffs (wife and children) lack standing to sue.[2]

A cause of action may be maintained by the decedent's personal representative or a person designated as the successor in interest pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 377.32.

Here, plaintiff DELILAH VALLE is named both as an individual and as the successor in interest to the Decedent. Defendant maintains that Delilah Valle has not been deemed a successor in interest because no declaration pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 377.32 has been filed.[3]

To the extent that a declaration has been attached to Plaintiffs’ Opposition, there are two problems: (1) Defendant states the declaration was not provided with the service copy of the complaint and (2) a review of the Court docket notes that Plaintiff’s petition for an ‘Order Appointing Plaintiff Delilah Valle As Successor-In-Interest Of Juan Valle, Deceased, And Transferring Right To Maintain Action’ filed on April 4, 2022 was denied on April 7, 2022.

Therefore, DELILAH VALLE has not been properly designated as a successor in interest such that she does not have standing to bring this cause of action in that capacity.

Based on the foregoing—notably that the complaint fails to allege ultimate facts and that DELILAH VALLE has not filed the required declaration to be deemed a successor in interest, the demurrer is SUSTAINED with leave to amend. The motion to strike is moot.

[1] Plaintiff DELILAH VAILE was the wife of JUAN VALLE (“Decedent”), who died on October 1, 12 2020. Plaintiffs JESSICA VALLE and DAVID VALLE are the children of Delilah and Juan Valle. (Complaint ¶9.)

[2] Plaintiffs concede that “Plaintiffs Jessica Valle and David Valle do not have standing with respect to the third cause of action.” (Opp. p. 2.) Therefore, the court’s analysis will only focus on Decedent’s wife, Delilah.

[3] “(a) The person who seeks to commence an action or proceeding or to continue a pending action or proceeding as the decedent’s successor in interest under this article, shall execute and file an affidavit or a declaration under penalty of perjury under the laws of this state stating all of the following: (1) The decedent’s name. (2) The date and place of the decedent’s death. (3) ‘No proceeding is now pending in California for administration of the decedent’s estate.’ (4) If the decedent’s estate was administered, a copy of the final order showing the distribution of the decedent’s cause of action to the successor in interest. (5) Either of the following, as appropriate, with facts in support thereof: (A) ‘The affiant or declarant is the decedent’s successor in interest (as defined in Section 377.11 of the California Code of Civil Procedure) and succeeds to the decedent’s interest in the action or proceeding.’ (B) ‘The affiant or declarant is authorized to act on behalf of the decedent’s successor in interest (as defined in Section 377.11 of the California Code of Civil Procedure) with respect to the decedent’s interest in the action or proceeding.’ (6) ‘No other person has a superior right to commence the action or proceeding or to be substituted for the decedent in the pending action or proceeding.’ (7) ‘The affiant or declarant affirms or declares under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.’ (b) Where more than one person executes the affidavit or declaration under this section, the statements required by subdivision (a) shall be modified as appropriate to reflect that fact. (c) A certified copy of the decedent’s death certificate shall be attached to the affidavit or declaration.”