Judge: Virginia Keeny, Case: 19STCV35617, Date: 2025-05-05 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 19STCV35617 Hearing Date: May 5, 2025 Dept: 45
MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS
Date of Hearing: May 5, 2025 Trial Date: July 14, 2025
Department: 45 Case
No.: 19STCV35617
Moving Party: Defendants THC Orange County LLC dba Kindred Hospital Los
Angeles and Kindred Healthcare Operating, LLC
Responding Party: Plaintiffs Lillian Lloyd and David Lloyd,
individually, and as surviving heirs, personal representatives, and/or
successor in interest of Decedent Mary Lloyd
Meet and Confer: Yes. (Dangerfield Decl. ¶5.)
BACKGROUND
This is a medical negligence and elder
abuse action. Plaintiffs Mary Lloyd, by and through her Guardian ad Litem,
Lillian Lloyd, David Lloyd, and Lillian Lloyd filed this action on October 4,
2019. Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint on May 1, 2020 and a Third Amended
Complaint on May 5, 2021. Plaintiff Mary Lloyd died on November 23, 2021.
On April 20, 2022, plaintiffs Lillian
Lloyd and David Lloyd, individually; as surviving heirs, personal
representatives, and successors in interest of decedent Mary Lloyd; and as administrators
and executors of the Estate of Mary Lloyd, filed a Fourth Amended Complaint
(“4AC”) against Providence Health System Southern California dba Providence Holy
Cross Medical Center; Kindred Hospital – Los Angeles; THC – Orange County, LLC;
Kindred Healthcare Operating, LLC; Douglas Prisco, M.D.; Sarthi Shah, M.D.;
Robin Gooding, R.N.; Jameel Hourani, M.D.; Ellie Goldstein, M.D.; Harvey
Deutsch, M.D.; Behnoush Zarrini, M.D.; Neil Katchman, D.O.; Mike Mirahmadi,
M.D.; and Gilat Englanoff, M.D. Plaintiffs allege causes of action for (1)
Professional Medical Negligence; (2) Elder Abuse/Defendant Abuse; (3) Wrongful
Death; and (4) Survival.
[TENTATIVE]
RULING:
Defendants’ Motion for Judgment on the
Pleadings is GRANTED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND.
DISCUSSION
Defendants THC Orange County LLC dba
Kindred Hospital Los Angeles and Kindred Healthcare Operating, LLC move for
judgment on the pleadings as to Plaintiffs’ Lillian Lloyd and David Lloyd,
individually, and as surviving heirs, personal representatives, and/or
successor in interest of Decedent Mary Lloyd’s Fourth Amended Complaint on the
grounds Plaintiffs fail to state facts sufficient to state a cause of action
for Elder/Dependent Adult Abuse and Plaintiffs improperly seek punitive and
exemplary damages against a healthcare provider.
It is well established in California that either prior to trial or at
the trial the plaintiff or the defendant may move for judgment on the pleadings
and that the appropriate ground for such a motion is the same as that arguable
by general demurrer, namely, the failure to state a cause of action or defense.
(Dobbins v. Hardister (1966) 242 Cal.App.2d 787, 791; See also Sofias
v. Bank of America (1985) 172 Cal.App.3d 583, 586 [The non-statutory motion
for judgment on the pleadings can be made at any time, even during trial, since
the grounds for a general demurrer are never waived.].)
The standard for ruling on a motion for judgment on the pleadings is
essentially the same as that applicable to a general demurrer, that is, under
the state of the pleadings, together with matters that may be judicially
noticed, it appears that a party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. (Bezirdjian
v. O'Reilly (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 316, 321-322 (citing Schabarum v.
California Legislature (1998) 60 Cal.App.4th 1205, 1216).) Matters which
are subject to mandatory judicial notice may be treated as part of the
complaint and may be considered without notice to the parties. Matters which
are subject to permissive judicial notice must be specified in the notice of
motion, the supporting points and authorities, or as the court otherwise
permits. (Id.)
Defendants first move for judgment on the pleadings on
the grounds Plaintiffs’ fourth amended complaint fails to allege facts
sufficient to state a cause of action for elder/dependent adult abuse against
the Kindred Defendants. Specifically, Defendants argue Plaintiffs’ second cause
of action is all conclusory assertions and at best, may support a claim for
professional negligence. Defendants also argue the Kindred Defendants were
never the care custodian of the decedent. Defendants also argue since this is
an action for damages arising out of the alleged professional negligence of a
healthcare provider, Plaintiffs must comply with Code of Civil Procedure
§425.13(a). Moreover, Plaintiffs improperly seek attorney’s fees pursuant to
Welfare & Institutions Code §15657 as heirs have no claim in their own
right under the Elder Abuse Act.
Plaintiffs oppose the motion on the grounds the motion
is untimely and Plaintiff has pled sufficient facts to show a custodial
relationship and support a finding that the Kindred Defendants’ care of Mary
Lloyd constituted neglect. Moreover, Plaintiffs argue Defendants’ improperly
attempt to strike the punitive damages and attorney fees.
First, the court finds the motion timely. A motion for
judgment on the pleadings may be made after the time to demur has expired, and
an answer has been filed. (CCP § 438(f).) However, “[n]o motion may be made
pursuant to this [statutory] section if a pretrial conference order has been
entered pursuant to Section 575, or within 30 days of the date the action is
initially set for trial, whichever is later, unless the court otherwise
permits.” (CCP § 438(e).) Courts have discretion to consider late statutory
motions for judgment on the pleadings, without any requirement of good cause. (Burnett
v. Chimney Sweep (2004) 123 Cal. App. 4th 1057, 1063.) A non-statutory
motion for judgment on the pleadings may be made any time before or during
trial. (Stoops v. Abbassi (2002) 100 Cal. App. 4th 644, 650; see also Sofias
v. Bank of America (1985) 172 Cal.App.3d 583, 586 [the non-statutory motion
for judgment on the pleadings can be made at any time, even during trial, since
the grounds for a general demurrer are never waived].) Here, no pretrial
conference order has been entered in this matter pursuant to Code of Civil
Procedure section 575. The court also finds the motion timely as to the trial
date. Otherwise, Plaintiffs would have it so that the deadline to file the
motion based on the January 31, 2022 trial occurred before Plaintiffs filed
their 4AC – the basis of this motion for judgment on the pleadings.
Next, the court finds the 4AC does not sufficiently
allege facts sufficient to support a claim for elder abuse. While the court
disagrees with Defendant’s claim that Plaintiffs’ allegations are too
conclusory or that no custodial relationship has been alleged, the court finds
Plaintiffs have not alleged adequately alleged authorization or ratification on
part of a managing agent. Plaintiffs sufficiently allege Kindred Defendants had
a responsibility for meeting the basic needs of the Decedent, they knew of the
conditions that made the Decedent dependent and acted in disregard of a high degree of probability that injury would
occur due to the Decedent’s condition. However, no where does the complaint
sufficiently allege that an officer, director or managing agent authorized or
ratified the abuse or neglect.
As for Defendants’ attempt to strike the prayer for
punitive damages and attorney fees, Code of Civil Procedure section 438 does
not allow a defendant to use a motion for judgment on the pleadings to attack a
prayer for relief. (Cloud v. Northrop Grumman Corp. (1998) 67
Cal.App.4th 995, 999; see also Templo v. State of Calif. (2018) 24
Cal.App.5th 730, 735.) Because a motion for judgment on the pleadings is the
equivalent to a general demurrer, the court will not rule on Defendants’
attempt to strike the punitive damages or request for attorney fees.
Accordingly, the motion for judgment on the pleadings
is GRANTED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND.