Judge: Virginia Keeny, Case: 24STCV12323, Date: 2025-03-28 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 24STCV12323 Hearing Date: March 28, 2025 Dept: 45
SEUNG PARK BY
AND THROUGH HIS SUCCESSOR-IN-INTEREST, CHANG YOON LEE, et al. vs 533 SOUTH
FAIRFAX AVENUE, INC.
demurrer to the complaint
Date of Hearing: March
28, 2025 Trial
Date: None
set.
Department: 45 Case
No.: 24STCV12323
Moving Party: Defendant
533 South Fairfax Avenue Inc. dba Guardian Rehabilitation Hospital
Responding Party: No
opposition
Meet and Confer: Yes.
(Hunter Decl. ¶2.)
BACKGROUND
On May
15, 2024, Plaintiffs Seung Park, by and through his Successor-In-Interest,
Chang Yoon Lee, and Chang Yoon Lee filed a complaint against Defendant 533
South Fairfax Avenue, Inc. dba Guardian Rehabilitation Hospital for elder
abuse/neglect, negligence, wrongful death and violation of patient’s rights.
Plaintiffs allege Seung Park was admitted to Defendants’ facility on May 15,
2023 and during their time there, Defendants failed to assess, monitor and
provide proper wound interventions for Park and consequently, Mr. Park suffered
from infection and ulcers. Mr. Park passed away on June 2, 2023.
[Tentative] Ruling
Defendant 533 South Fairfax Avenue Inc. dba Guardian Rehabilitation
Hospital’s Demurrer to the Complaint is SUSTAINED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND.
Defendant 533 South Fairfax Avenue Inc. dba Guardian Rehabilitation Hospital’s
Motion to Strike is MOOT.
DISCUSSION
Defendants 533 South Fairfax Avenue
Inc. dba Guardian Rehabilitation Hospital (“GRH”) demur to the first (elder
abuse/neglect), third (wrongful death) and fourth (violation of patient’s
rights) causes of action on the grounds the complaint fails to state a cause of
action against Defendant GRH and is uncertain. GRH also moves to strike
Plaintiffs’ prayer for punitive/exemplary damages as well as Plaintiffs’ prayer
for attorney fees.
Standing
Defendant GRH first demurs to the
complaint on the grounds Plaintiffs have not established standing.
California Code of Civil Procedure
section 377.30 provides that the decedent’s personal representative or, if
none, the decedent’s successor in interest may commence a decedent’s cause of
action that survives decedent’s death. (CCP § 377.30; see Adams v. Superior
Court (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 71, 78-79.) Section 377.32 provides that a
person who seeks to commence such an action as the decedent’s successor in
interest must file an affidavit or declaration providing certain information,
including the decedent’s name, date and place of decedent’s death, and
statements regarding whether the estate has been administered and that the
affiant or declarant is the successor in interest on decedent’s claim. (CCP §
377.32(a).) A certified copy of the decedent’s death certificate must also be
attached to the affidavit or declaration. (CCP Id., § 377.32(c).)
Defendant GRH argues the Complaint in
this matter does not comply with the requirements of Code of Civil Procedure section
377.32 as no declaration and death certificate were attached. The court agrees.
Plaintiff’s complaint fails to comply with Section 377.32. For these reasons,
the court SUSTAINS the demurrer to the complaint with leave to amend.
First Cause of Action
Defendant GRH demur to the first cause
of action for elder abuse on the grounds Plaintiffs fail to adequately plead
recklessness, malice, oppression or fraud and Plaintiffs fail to properly plead
ratification on the part of Defendant GRH.
The necessary elements for an elder
abuse cause of action are: (1) that the defendant had responsibility for
meeting the basic needs of the elder or dependent adult, such as nutrition, hydration,
hygiene or medical care; (2) that the defendant knew of conditions that made
the elder or dependent adult unable to provide for his or her own basic needs;
(3) that the defendant denied or withheld goods or services necessary to meet
the elder or dependent adult's basic needs, either (a) with knowledge that
injury was substantially certain to befall the elder or dependent adult (if the
plaintiff alleges oppression, fraud or malice) or (b) with conscious disregard
of the high probability of such injury (if the plaintiff alleges recklessness);
and (4) that the defendant’s neglect caused the elder or dependent adult to
suffer physical harm, pain or mental suffering. (Carter v. Prime Healthcare
Paradise Valley LLC (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 396, 407.)
Defendant GRH argues the second cause
of action for Elder Abuse is pled in general terms which are insufficient to
support such a statutory cause of action. Specifically, Plaintiffs have failed
to allege any specific facts supporting a finding of recklessness or willful
misconduct as against GRH and merely alleges the failure of the
"quality" of the care and treatment provided. Moreover, the complaint
fails to allege evidence that the staff of GRH abused Mr. Park in any way or
that the staff ignored him or displayed an intent to harm him by withholding
care or services.
The court agrees the allegations in
Plaintiffs’ complaint are insufficient to state an elder abuse cause of action.
Plaintiffs have not pleaded the alleged failure to adequately train staff or
investigate the circumstances surrounding the alleged neglect resulted in the
harm caused to Mr. Park. Nor have Plaintiffs alleged the conduct that amounts
to recklessness. Moreover, the allegations for ratification are conclusory and
insufficient to support a claim against Defendant GRH. As noted by GRH, all the
allegations are conclusory and could literally be alleged against anyone.
Accordingly, the demurrer to the first
cause of action is SUSTAINED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND.
Third Cause of Action
Defendant demurs to the third cause of
action for wrongful death on the grounds Plaintiffs have not established a
causal connection between the alleged wrongful acts or omissions of Defendant
and Mr. Park’s death.
The elements of a cause of action for
wrongful death are the tort (negligence or other wrongful act), the resulting
death, and the damages, consisting of the pecuniary loss suffered by the heirs.
(Quiroz v. Seventh Ave. Center (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 1256,
1263.)
Defendant GRH argues the Complaint is
devoid of any facts which would provide the
required causal connection between the
actions/omissions complained of here and the death of Mr. Park. The court
agrees. The complaint is devoid of any contention that Defendant GRH’s
negligent actions caused Mr. Park’s death. Specifically, the complaint alleges
the staff at the facility repeatedly failed to provide, monitor or assess the
wound Mr. Park suffered from on his heel and in June 2023, Mr. Park passed
away. This does not establish a connection.
Accordingly, the demurrer to the third
cause of action is SUSTAINED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND.
Fourth Cause of Action
Defendant demurs to the fourth cause of
action for violation of patient’s rights on the grounds the cause of action is
not pleaded with the required specificity.
Section 1430(b) explicitly creates a
private right of action upon current or former residents of a skilled nursing
facility against the licensee of a facility who violates any rights of the
resident or patient as set forth in the Patients Bill of Rights in Section
72527 of Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations, or any other right
provided for by federal or state law or regulation.¿
Defendant GRH argues Plaintiffs do not
provide specific facts as to GRH 's conduct that resulted in any alleged
violations and that Plaintiffs simply allege Defendants breached duties and
therefore violated Mr. Park’s right, including the Patients’ Bill of Rights.
The court agrees these allegations are wholly insufficient. A statutory cause
of action must be pleaded with specificity.
Accordingly, the demurrer to the fourth
cause of action is SUSTAINED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND.
Motion to Strike
Defendant moves to strike Plaintiffs’
prayer for punitive damages and attorney fees on the grounds Plaintiffs have not met their burden to specifically
plead the requisite level of conduct by Defendant for either punitive damages
and attorney fees.
As the court has sustained the demurrer
to the first and fourth causes of action, the court finds the motion to strike
MOOT. The court notes the allegations as is are currently conclusory.