Judge: Walter P. Schwarm, Case: 30-2018-01013587, Date: 2023-07-18 Tentative Ruling
Defendants’ (Rockport Administrative Services, LLC (Rockport) and Santa Ana Healthcare and Wellness, LP (Santa Ana) unopposed Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint (Motion), filed on 1-3-23 under ROA No. 231, is DENIED.
Code of Civil Procedure section 436, states, “The court may, upon a motion made pursuant to Section 435, or at any time in its discretion, and upon terms it deems proper: [¶] (a) Strike out any irrelevant, false, or improper matter inserted in any pleading. [¶] (b) Strike out all or any part of any pleading not drawn or filed in conformity with the laws of this state, a court rule, or an order of the court.” Code of Civil Procedure section 435, subdivision (b)(1), states, “Any party, within the time allowed to respond to a pleading may serve and file, a notice of motion to strike the whole or any part thereof, but this time limitation shall not apply to motions specified in subdivision (e).” Pierson v. Sharp Memorial Hospital, Inc. (1989) 216 Cal.App.3d 340, 342, explains, “Preliminarily, we note a motion to strike is generally used to reach defects in a pleading which are not subject to demurrer. A motion to strike does not lie to attack a complaint for insufficiency of allegations to justify relief; that is a ground for general demurrer. [Citation.]” Code of Civil Procedure section 437, subdivision (a), “The grounds for a motion to strike shall appear on the face of the challenged pleading or from any matter of which the court is required to take judicial notice.”
The Motion seeks to strike portions of Plaintiff’s (Khanh “Bruce” Tran) Third Amended Complaint (TAC) filed on 11-30-22 under ROA No. 206. (Motion; 1:23-2:18.) Specifically, the Motion seeks to strike the punitive damages allegations at paragraphs 128, and paragraph 6 on page 33 at line 25. (Motion; 2:6-18.) The Motion states, “Here, other than the one boilerplate gratuitous (and customary reference by Plaintiff’s counsel) to ‘punitive damages’ and ‘despicable conduct’ (which is not the standard) (See TAC at para. 128 at 33:6-15) (and the Prayer at 33:25), the Complaint contains none of the requisite, specific facts which would support allegations and a prayer for punitive damages. Accordingly, there is no basis for a prayer for or references to exemplary damages. It is likewise unclear as to which defendant(s) to which Plaintiff refers.” (Motion; 5:23-28 (Italics in Motion.).)
Code of Civil Procedure section 3294, subdivision (b), states, “(b) An employer shall not be liable for damages pursuant to subdivision (a), based upon acts of an employee of the employer, unless the employer had advance knowledge of the unfitness of the employee and employed him or her with a conscious disregard of the rights or safety of others or authorized or ratified the wrongful conduct for which the damages are awarded or was personally guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice. With respect to a corporate employer, the advance knowledge and conscious disregard, authorization, ratification or act of oppression, fraud, or malice must be on the part of an officer, director, or managing agent of the corporation.”
Turman v. Turning Point of Central California, Inc. (2010) 191 Cal.App.4th 53, 63, states, “ ‘In passing on the correctness of a ruling on a motion to strike, judges read allegations of a pleading subject to a motion to strike as a whole, all parts in their context, and assume their truth.’ [Citation.] [¶] In order to state a prima facie claim for punitive damages, a complaint must set forth the elements as stated in the general punitive damage statute, Civil Code section 3294. [Citation.] These statutory elements include allegations that the defendant has been guilty of oppression, fraud or malice. (Civ.Code, § 3294, subd. (a).) ‘ “Malice” ’ is defined in the statute as conduct ‘intended by the defendant to cause injury to plaintiff, or despicable conduct that is carried on by the defendant with a willful and conscious disregard for the rights or safety of others.’ [Citations.] ‘ “Oppression” means despicable conduct that subjects a person to cruel and unjust hardship in conscious disregard of that person's rights.’ [Citation.] ‘ “Fraud” ’ is ‘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.’ [Citation.]”
In order to plead punitive damages, a plaintiff must plead allegations of fraud, malice, or oppression with sufficient particularity. (Brousseau v. Jarrett (1977) 73 Cal.App.3d 864, 872; Smith v. Superior Court (1992) 10 Cal.App.4th 1033, 1041-1042.)
The TAC makes the following allegations: (1) “. . . on or about August 15, 2017, such that the WBC count was very close to the normal range. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges that at all times mentioned, healthcare providers at Country Villa Plaza inaccurately charted events and statements in order to attempt to place the blame on plaintiffs for not taking proper care of their mother. . . .” (TAC, ¶ 51.); (2) “On August 28, 2014, then California Attorney General Kamala D. Harris filed an emergency motion on behalf of the California Department of Health Care and CDPH to prevent the Stalking Horse Parties, Rechnitz, Brills LLC and Brius Management from the interim management of debtors facilities, and purchasing debtors ' [sic]; facilities or assets. The motion described Rechnitz as ‘a serial violator of rules within the skilled nursing industry,’ based upon his track record in 24 operating 57 other Brius SNFs.” (TAC, ¶ 53; see also, TAC at ¶¶ 13, 14, and 16.); (3) “. . . over the 20 day residency of Mrs. Nguyen in the FACILITY, the DEFENDANTS just simply ignored the needs of Mrs. Nguyen. In doing so the DEFENDANTS knowingly disregarded this risk and failed to adequately assess, generate and implement an adequate plan of care for Mrs. Nguyen, and to implement adequate preventive measures for infection. That in so doing, DEFENDANTS failed to meet Mrs. Nguyen's needs and failed to comply with the rules, laws, and regulations governing their FACILITY. Moreover, DEFENDANTS knowingly exposed Mrs. Nguyen to extreme health and safety hazards. (TAC; ¶ 65 (Uppercase in TAC.).); (4) DEFENDANTS represented to the general public and to Mrs. Nguyen and/or her family and legal representative, that the CVP facility was sufficiently staffed so as to be able to meet the needs of Mrs. Nguyen, and that CVP operated in compliance with all applicable rules, laws, and regulations governing the operation of skilled nursing facilities in the State of California. These representations were, and are, false.” (TAC, ¶ 66 (Uppercase in TAC.).); The fact that the facility was so woefully understaffed . . . .” (TAC, ¶89; see also, ¶ 88.); and (5) “Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that at all relevant times the control of CVP by Rockport Administrative Services, LLC is achieved via a ‘Professional Services Agreement’ between the facility and Rockport Administrative Services, LLC, which sets forth the services Rockport Administrative Services, LLC is to provide to CVP which in some is the functional equivalent of operational control over the facility and includes, but is not limited to, the following: . . . .” (TAC, ¶ 102.)
At the pleading stage, the above allegations are sufficient to plead malice in connection with the second cause of action for Elder Abuse. These allegations allege deliberate violations of laws, rules, and regulations for skilled nursing facilities. (For example, see TAC at ¶¶ 70-77, and 88.)
Therefore, the court DENIES Defendants’ (Rockport Administrative Services, LLC (Rockport) and Santa Ana Healthcare and Wellness, LP (Santa Ana) Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint filed on 1-3-23 under ROA No. 231. Defendants shall file an answer to the TAC no later than 8-1-23.
Court Clerk is to give notice.