Judge William A. Crowfoot, Case Number: 24NNCV00137, Date: 2024-11-08 Tentative Ruling

Judge: William A. Crowfoot, Case: 24NNCV00137, Date: 2024-11-08 Tentative Ruling

On March 8, 2024, plaintiffs Beatriz Moreno and Jose Luis Zermeno (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed this action as individuals and as successors in interest of their son, Julian Benito Zermeno (“Julian”). The named defendants include Alta Los Angles Hospitals, Inc. dba Los Angeles Community Hospital at Bellflower (“Bellflower”) (erroneously sued as “Atla Los Angeles Hospitals Inc. dba Los Angeles Community Hospital”), Valey Manor Guest Home, Valley Vista Residential Manor, LLC, Care Matters Healthcare Inc. dba Concise Care Group Concise Home Health Services, and various other individuals. The action arises from Julian’s death and asserts causes of action for negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, dependent adult abuse/neglect pursuant to Welfare & Institutions Code sections 15610.57 and 15657(a) ad (c), and wrongful death.

Plaintiffs allege Julian was initially admitted to Bellflower’s hospital, a secured psychiatric facility, with diagnoses including aggressive behaviors, schizophrenia, bipolar disorder and psychosis, and severe functional impairment with suicidal intentions. (Compl., ¶ 29.) Julian remained at Bellflower’s hospital for 26 days through December 14, 2023, during which he was treated with various psychotropic medications to stabilize his mood. (Id.) He was assessed as being combative and suicidal with intent to overdose on medications (amongst other diagnoses). (Compl., ¶ 33.) Bellflower was advised by Plaintiffs that Julian had previously wandered away from facilities where he was cared for, which put himself and others in danger of physical harm. (Compl., ¶ 34.) Bellflower was also advised of Julian’s prior conduct in seeking, acquiring, and using illicit drugs when he was allowed to leave the facilities in which he was being cared for. (Compl., ¶ 34.) Plaintiffs expressed that Julian had to be admitted to a secure “locked down” facility for his safety and health as well as for the safety of others. (Compl., ¶ 34.)

Plaintiffs allege Bellflower, along with the other Defendants, failed to properly assess Julian to develop a comprehensive care plan prior to being discharged and transferred to Valley Manor and failed to take adequate and proper measures regarding Julian’s health and safety despite being a known flight risk. (Compl., ¶ 52.) Julian was eventually transferred from Bellflower to Valley Manor without confirming that his needs could be met there. (Compl., ¶ 43.) Plaintiffs allege that Bellflower discharged Julian without obtaining Plaintiffs’ written authorization (even though Jose Luis Zermeno was his conservator) and without informing them which facility he would be transferred to. (Compl., ¶ 46.) When Julian arrived at Valley Manor, he allegedly underwent a Preplacement Appraisal which inaccurately reported that he “did not need special observation due to wandering.” (Compl., ¶ 47.) Julian was also given a 33-page admission agreement to sign, even though he lacked capacity. Ultimately, on March 10, 2023, Julian was able to walk out of Valley Manor without supervision, and, within minutes of leaving, was struck by an automobile. (Compl., ¶ 54.) Julian sustained injuries being struck by the automobile and eventually died. (Compl., ¶ 54.) Plaintiffs were not informed of Julian’s accident and were not able to be at his side as he died. (Compl., ¶ 54.)

On June 24, 2024, Bellflower filed this demurrer and motion to strike. Bellflower demurs to Plaintiffs’ cause of action for dependent adult abuse and moves to strike Plaintiffs’ prayer for punitive damages and attorneys’ fees.

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. (Code Civ. Proc., § 435, subd. (b)(1).) The court may, upon a motion, or at any time in its discretion, and upon terms it deems proper, strike any irrelevant, false, or improper matter inserted in any pleading. (Code Civ. Proc., § 436, subd. (a); Stafford v. Shultz (1954) 42 Cal.2d 767, 782 [“Matter in a pleading which is not essential to the claim is surplusage; probative facts are surplusage and may be stricken out or disregarded”].) The court may also strike all or any part of any pleading not drawn or filed in conformity with California law, a court rule, or an order of the court. (Code Civ. Proc., § 436, subd. (b).) An immaterial or irrelevant allegation is one that is not essential to the statement of a claim or defense; is neither pertinent to nor supported by an otherwise sufficient claim or defense; or a demand for judgment requesting relief not supported by the allegations of the complaint. (Code Civ. Proc., § 431.10, subd. (b).) The grounds for moving to strike must appear on the face of the pleading or by way of judicial notice. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437.)

A demurrer may be brought if insufficient facts are stated to support the cause of action asserted. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subd. (e).) A demurrer tests the legal sufficiency of the pleadings and will be sustained only where the pleading is defective on its face. (City of Atascadero v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 445, 459.) Allegations are to be liberally construed. (Code Civ. Proc., § 452.) In construing the allegations, the court is to give effect to specific factual allegations that may modify or limit inconsistent general or conclusory allegations. (Financial Corporation of America v. Wilburn (1987) 189 Cal.App.3rd 764, 769.)

Bellflower demurs to Plaintiffs’ cause of action for dependent adult abuse on the grounds that they did not have a custodial relationship with Julian. Bellflower also moves to strike Plaintiff’s prayer for punitive damages and attorneys’ fees. The Court does not need to address Bellflower’s arguments on demurrer because Plaintiffs have agreed to strike their request for punitive damages while reserving the right to later seek leave from the Court to file an amended complaint seeking said damages. In conceding that their complaint fails to allege sufficient facts for a punitive damages claim under Civil Code section 3294, Plaintiffs implicitly concede that they have failed to plead liability for elder/dependent adult abuse with the requisite specificity showing recklessness, oppression, fraud, or malice. (W&I Code, § 15657.) Specifically, section 15657 states:

Where it is proven by clear and convincing evidence that a defendant is liable for . . . neglect as defined in Section 15610.57 . . . and that the defendant has been guilty of recklessness, oppression, fraud, or malice in the commission of this abuse, the following shall apply, in addition to all other remedies otherwise provided by law:

(a) The court shall award to the plaintiff reasonable attorney's fees and costs. The term “costs” includes, but is not limited to, reasonable fees for the services of a conservator, if any, devoted to the litigation of a claim brought under this article.

(c) The standards set forth in subdivision (b) of Section 3294 of the Civil Code regarding the imposition of punitive damages on an employer based upon the acts of an employee shall be satisfied before any damages or attorney's fees permitted under this section may be imposed against an employer.

(Welf. & Inst. Code, § 15657.) Additionally, without a claim for dependent adult abuse, Plaintiffs’ request for attorney’s fees is also inappropriate.

Bellflower’s demurrer to the Third Cause of Action is SUSTAINED without prejudice.

William A. Crowfoot

Judge of the Superior Court

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at ALHDEPT3@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org. Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the matter. Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue. If the Court does not receive emails from the parties indicating submission on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may, at its discretion, adopt the tentative as the final order or place the motion off calendar.