Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act (EADACPA) in California

Sustain, with leave to amend, the Kaiser Defendants' general demurer to the sixth cause of action for violation of the Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act, on the grounds that (a) statutory claims are required to be alleged with particularity; and (b) Plaintiffs' broad references to Defendants, conclusory allegations in the body of the claim, and vague references to general allegations do not indicate the statutory basis for Plaintiffs' claim against each targeted Defendant.

. §425.13 do not apply to this action, which primarily alleges violation of the Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act. The authorities cited by Plaintiffs are directly on point. Where the gravamen of an action is violation of the Act, §425.13 does not apply. (Covenant Care v. Superior Court (2004) 32 Cal.4th. 771, 790; Country Villa Claremont Healthcare Center v. Superior Court (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 426, 433-434.)

Plaintiffs’ pleading is insufficient to state a cause of action for elder abuse, professional negligence, wrongful death, or any other claim. Further, Plaintiffs have not established that the Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act applies to the transportation services presumably provided by Defendant. (2) As noted above, Plaintiffs’ pleading asserts no facts regarding conduct by Defendant.

John alleges that Michael has committed financial elder abuse against Vera by converting funds for Michael's personal use and wasting Vera's assets. (Comp. 15.) John further alleges that Michael breached a fiduciary duty to Vera and to John. (Comp. 24.) Based on the allegations, any duty would be owed to plaintiff and defendant's mother. Standing to sue pursuant to the Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act is set forth in Welfare & Institutions Code Section 15657.3(d).

Civil Protection Act, which includes punitive damages.

Other issues may include (but not limited to): Should the cross-petition to seek remedies for elder abuse under the Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act (EADACPA) be transferred to the Civil Department, as there is no conservatorship proceeding involving the deceased settlor required by Welf. Inst. Code section 15657.3(a) for the Probate Department's concurrent jurisdiction over the EADACPA claims?

First, where it is proven by clear and convincing evidence that a defendant is liable for neglect under the Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act, and that the defendant has been reckless, oppressive, fraudulent or malicious in the commission of the abuse, in addition to all other remedies provided by law, the court shall award to the plaintiff reasonable attorney’s fees and costs. (Cal Wel & Inst Code § 15657(a)).

Defendant's actions do not rise to the level of elder neglect defined in Welfare & Institutions Code section 15610.57, or activity protected against as envisioned in the Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act. Heightened remedies of Welfare & Institutions Code section 15657 not available. Plaintiffs fail to raise a triable issue of material fact. No clear and convincing evidence of reckless, oppressive, fraudulent, or malicious conduct. (See Delaney vs.

As such, the allegations are sufficient under Welfare and Institutions Code section 15610.57 to show neglect and meet the requirements for elder abuse under Covenant Care, Inc. V. Superior Court (2004) 32 Cal.4th 771, 783 and Delaney v. Baker (1999) 20 Cal.4th 23, 34.) Defendants’ reliance on authority finding insufficient allegations of neglect under the Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act is unavailing.

Pioneer Medical Group, Inc. (2016) 63 Cal.4th 148 involved outpatient services and held that the Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act does not apply unless the defendant health care provider had a substantial caretaking or custodial relationship, involving ongoing responsibility for one or more basic needs, with the elder patient. Here, it is alleged that moving party had continuing responsibility for plaintiff’s basic needs as the primary treating physician through the facility.

The Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act makes actionable the abuse of an elder or dependent adult. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 15610.07.) For conduct to qualify as “elder abuse”, it must cause an elder to suffer “physical harm or pain or mental suffering.” ( Id. , subd.

The Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act at Welfare & Institutions Code §15610 et seq. makes actionable not only the “physical abuse, neglect, financial abuse, abandonment, isolation, abduction, or other treatment with resulting physical harm or pain or mental suffering” but also “[t]he deprivation by a care custodian of goods or services that are necessary to avoid physical harm or mental suffering.” (Carter v. Prime Healthcare Paradise Valley, LLC (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 396, 404.)

Accordingly, the court sustains with leave to amend. 4th Cause of Action for Financial Elder Abuse: The purpose of the Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act (the “Elder Abuse Act”) is “to protect a particularly vulnerable portion of the population from gross mistreatment in the form of abuse and custodial neglect.” (Delaney v. Baker (1999) 20 Cal.4th 23, 33.)

Defendant Manor Care of Palm Desert once again demurrers to the third cause of action for elder abuse by Plaintiff Susan Freed-Held. The purpose of the Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act is “to protect a particularly vulnerable portion of the population from gross mistreatment in the form of abuse and custodial neglect.” (Delaney v. Baker (1999) 20 Cal.4th 23, 33.)

If sufficient funds are not appropriated to provide an interpreter to every party that meets the standard of eligibility, court interpreter services in civil cases must be prioritized by case type in the following order: (1) actions and proceedings under specified sections of the Family Code, under Code of Civil Procedure section 527.6(w), and for physical abuse or neglect under the Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act (Welf. & Inst.

Abuse and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act, the Unfair Competition Law, the False Advertising Law, the Consumer Legal Remedies Act, or which seek an award of treble damages, punitive damages or attorneys’ fees.

Specifically, this civil action seeks monetary damages under the Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 15600, et seq.), and the trust proceeding seeks to set aside specified estate planning documents under Probate Code section 21380 (fraud/undue influence). Corral does not address these arguments in her reply, but instead sets forth her version of the events. She does agree that both this matter and the trust proceeding arise from the same set of facts.

Explanation: The procedural prerequisites to seeking punitive damages in an action for damages arising out of professional negligence of a health care provider do not apply to a punitive damages claim alleging elder abuse under the Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act. (Covenant Care, Inc. v. Superior Court (2004) 31 Cal.4th 771, 783.)

As such, the remedies under the Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act are limited to those in the statute. Given that the physical abuse provisions of the Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act do not provide for recovery of punitive damages, no such recovery is permitted. The motion to strike is GRANTED.

The Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act at Welfare & Institutions Code §15610 et seq. makes actionable not only the “physical abuse, neglect, financial abuse, abandonment, isolation, abduction, or other treatment with resulting physical harm or pain or mental suffering” but also “[t]he deprivation by a care custodian of goods or services that are necessary to avoid physical harm or mental suffering.” (Carter v. Prime Healthcare Paradise Valley, LLC (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 396, 404.)

The elements of a cause of action for elder abuse and neglect are determined by the Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act (EADACPA). (Welf. & Inst. Code § 15600 et seq.) At the outset, the EADACPA excludes liability for acts of professional negligence; it does not apply to simple or gross negligence by health care providers. ( Delaney v. Baker (1999) 20 Cal.4th 23, 32; Covenant Care, Inc. v. Superior Court (2004) 32 Cal.4th 771, 785.)

The complaint adequately pleads a cause of action for violation of the Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act, Welf. & Inst. Code sec. 15600 et seq. (The Court's complete tentative ruling has been emailed to all counsel) As a result of the COVID-19 emergency, all attorneys and parties are required to appear remotely. Hearings will be conducted by videoconference using Zoom.

DEMURRER TO COMPLAINT Set for hearing on Tuesday, April 5, 2016, Line 12, DEFENDANT COMMUNITY HOUSING PARTNERSHIP's DEMURRER TO COMPLAINT Defendant Community Housing Partnership's demurrer to the second cause of action for violation of the Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act is sustained with twenty days leave to amend.

Rather, Plaintiffs’ wrongful death claim is predicated on willful misconduct as defined in the Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act. Since Plaintiffs did not sign the Arbitration Agreements, they are third parties to the Agreements and cannot be compelled to arbitrate their wrongful death claim against Defendant. (See Daniels v. Sunrise Senior Living, Inc. (2013) 212 Cal.App.4th 647, 680-686.)

The Complaint alleges that decedent was an elder as defined by the Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act (EADACP) pursuant to WIC § 15600, but this section does not define the term “elder.” Instead, the definition of “elder” is found in WIC § 15610.57, which provides an “elder” is “any person residing in this state, 65 years of age or older.” In addition, the FAC contains numerous conclusory allegations.

Plaintiff has filed a complaint against defendants alleging two causes of action, one for Elder Abuse (pursuant to the Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act (Welf.&Inst. Code §§15600, et seq.) and for wrongful death. Defendants have moved to compel arbitration pursuant to an arbitration agreement (“Form M(a)”) signed by Plaintiff’s representative. The parties do not apparently dispute the signature on the agreement is valid or that the representative had authority to bind the decedent.

The Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act ("EADACPA") (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 15610, et seq.) protects elderly persons and dependent adults from, among other things, neglect and abandonment, and the deprivation by a care custodian of services that are necessary to avoid physical harm or mental suffering. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 15610.07.)

Superior Court (2004) 32 Cal.4th 771 [holding that section 425.13 did not apply to punitive damages claim in action against skilled nursing facility for elder abuse seeking heightened civil remedies provided under the Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act].)

The Second Cause of Action has adequately alleged facts to support the cause of action for violation of the in violation of the Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act. For fifteen pages, Plaintiffs alleged specific facts supporting the cause of action. The TAC alleged that decedent was placed in Defendants’ care to be administered medication to prevent blood clots. Because of Defendants’ alleged neglect in failing to provide the medication, the decedent died of a blood clot.

By incorporating those same paragraphs, the fourth cause of action for violation of the Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act sufficiently alleges neglect as defined by that statute, and the egregious conduct, intent and causation required for violation of that statute. (Carter v. Prime Healthcare Paradise Valley LLC (2011) 198 Cal. App. 4th 396; Delaney v. Baker (1999) 20 Cal. 4th 23).

The first cause of action for “Elder Abuse and Neglect” fails to state sufficient facts to support the cause of action. The purpose of the Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act (the “Elder Abuse Act”) is “to protect a particularly vulnerable portion of the population from gross mistreatment in the form of abuse and custodial neglect.” (Delaney v. Baker (1999) 20 Cal.4th 23, 33.) This includes a significant number of elders who have mental limitations that leave them vulnerable to abuse.

Moreover, while Plaintiff argues the agreement does not comply with CCP § 1295, the basis of the allegations in the complaint are made under the Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act. (Avila v. Southern California Specialty Care, Inc. (2018) 20 Cal.App.5th 835, 842.) “If the primary basis for the wrongful death claim sounds in professional negligence as defined by MICRA, then section 1295 applies.

Like the FAC, the SAC alleged that during entire shifts, no pain assessments were performed and the facility withheld pain medications. 1st Cause of Action for Elder Abuse/Neglect: The purpose of the Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act is “to protect a particularly vulnerable portion of the population from gross mistreatment in the form of abuse and custodial neglect.” Delaney v. Baker (1999) 20 Cal.4th 23, 33.

Discussion Defendant demurs to the First Cause of Action for Elder Abuse (pursuant to the Elder Adult and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act) because it fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against Defendant Keck. The court agrees with Defendant Keck that Plaintiffs complaint is conclusory and pled with no specific factual allegations.

Discussion Defendant demurs to the First Cause of Action for Elder Abuse (pursuant to the Elder Adult and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act) because it fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against Defendant Keck. The court agrees with Defendant Keck that Plaintiffs complaint is conclusory and pled with no specific factual allegations.

Abuse and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act (Welfare & Institutions Code § 15600, et seq.), or the Unfair Business Practices Act (Business & Professions Code § 17000, et seq., and § 17200, et seq.)), will be determined by submission to arbitration as provided by California law, and not by lawsuit or resort to court process except as California law provides for judicial review of arbitration proceedings.

The Complaint improperly seeks to recover damages permitted under Welfare and Institutions Code section 15657, for a claim which does not arise under the Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act. Additionally, the Complaint improperly seeks damages pursuant to Civil Code section 3345, which applies to “unfair or deceptive practices,” without alleging the same. Notably, Plaintiff concedes this item of damages was incorrectly included. (See Opposition: 3:24-27.)

Plaintiff has failed to raise a triable issue of material fact as to whether Defendant's conduct amounts to physical abuse under Welfare & Institutions Code 15610.07(a)(1), or whether Defendant Stoddard is Plaintiff's care custodian under the Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act, or whether Defendant acted with willfulness, recklessness, malice, oppression or fraud to warrant heightened remedies.

"Recklessness," within meaning of Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act, involves more than inadvertence, incompetence, unskillfulness, or a failure to take precautions, but rather rises to the level of a conscious choice of a course of action with knowledge of the serious danger to others involved in it. ( Delaney v. Baker (1999) 20 Cal.4th 23, 31-32.)

"Recklessness," within meaning of Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act, involves more than inadvertence, incompetence, unskillfulness, or a failure to take precautions, but rather rises to the level of a conscious choice of a course of action with knowledge of the serious danger to others involved in it. ( Delaney v. Baker (1999) 20 Cal.4th 23, 31-32.)

"Recklessness," within meaning of Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act, involves more than inadvertence, incompetence, unskillfulness, or a failure to take precautions, but rather rises to the level of a conscious choice of a course of action with knowledge of the serious danger to others involved in it. ( Delaney v. Baker (1999) 20 Cal.4th 23, 31-32.)

"Recklessness," within meaning of Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act, involves more than inadvertence, incompetence, unskillfulness, or a failure to take precautions, but rather rises to the level of a conscious choice of a course of action with knowledge of the serious danger to others involved in it. ( Delaney v. Baker (1999) 20 Cal.4th 23, 31-32.)

Plaintiffs have alleged adequate facts to support the first cause of action for elder abuse. The Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act provides for heightened remedies where it is proven by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant was guilty of recklessness, oppression, fraud, or malice in the commission of physical abuse, neglect, or financial abuse against an elderly or dependent adult. Welf.&Inst. Code § 15657.

Elder Abuse/Neglect: To constitute “neglect” within the meaning of the Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act (the “Act”), a plaintiff must allege facts establishing that defendant: “(1) had responsibility for meeting the basic needs of the elder or dependent adult, such as nutrition, hydration, hygiene or medical care; (2) knew of conditions that made the elder or dependent adult unable to provide for his or her own basic needs; and (3) denied or withheld goods or services necessary to meet the

Specifically, Plaintiffs argue that, since the arbitration agreement is silent as to the payment of arbitration costs, the arbitration agreement is contrary to public policy as set forth in the Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act, citing to Bickel v. Sunrise Assisted Living (2012) 206 Cal.App.4th 1.

On August 1 and 24, 2023, Plaintiff filed a complaint and first amended complaint for Fraudulent Concealment; Negligence; Violations of The Elder Abuse And Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act (Welfare & Institutions Code §15610.07, Et Seq.); Violations Of The Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (Civil Code §1788, Et Seq.); Violations Of The Home Solicitation Sales Act (Civil Code §1689.5, Et Seq.); Violations Of Business And Professions Code §7150, et seq.; Violations Of The Truth In Lending Act (15

If, as plaintiffs claim here, the primary basis is under the Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act & then section 1295 does not apply and neither does Ruizs exception to the general rule that one who has not consented cannot be compelled to arbitrate. ( Avila, supra, at p. 842.) The facts in Avila are analogous. There, the surviving plaintiff alleged the decedent died as a result of [a hospitals] neglect. ( Avila, supra, at p. 838.)

The complaint (the Complaint) alleges violations of the Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act (the Elder Abuse Act). On January 28, 2022, the Court deemed this matter related to the wrongful death action alleged the case styled as Edgar Roberto Calderon v. University of Southern California, LASC Case No. 22STCV02031 (the Wrongful Death Action). In the Wrongful Death Action, Decedents heirs seek damages arising out of Decedents death.

Defendants demurrer to the First Cause of Action for Elder Abuse (Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act – Welfare and Institutions Code §§ 15600, et seq.). As pled, this cause of action is premised on allegations of both "neglect" and "physical and emotional abuse" [FAC ¶¶ 87, 88]. However, in opposition Plaintiff states that she is relying only on W&I Code § 15610.07 [Abuse of elder or dependent adult] and § 15610.63 [Physical abuse].

“The purpose of the [Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act (“EADACPA”)] is essentially to protect a particularly vulnerable portion of the population from gross mistreatment in the form of abuse and custodial neglect.” Delaney v. Baker (1999) 20 Cal.4th 23, 33. Neglect refers to “the failure of those responsible for attending to the basic needs and comforts of elderly or dependent adults, regardless of their professional standing, to carry out their custodial obligations.” Id. at 34.

The Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act ("EADACPA") (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 15610, et seq.) protects elderly persons and dependent adults from, among other things, neglect and abandonment, and the deprivation by a care custodian of services that are necessary to avoid physical harm or mental suffering. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 15610.07.)

To establish neglect as a form of abuse under the Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act, Welf/ & Inst. §15600 et. seq., a plaintiff must plead facts showing that the defendant denied or withheld services necessary to meet the elder adult's basic needs.

Agency, Inc. (2017) 14 Cal.App.5th 841, the issue was whether the plaintiffs stated a legally cognizable harm to themselves in a suit for financial abuse in violation of Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act. However, unlike in Mahan, id. at 868, Plaintiff has not alleged any facts at all in the Complaint regarding deprivation of the property of an elder for purposes of the Elder Abuse Act.

BACKGROUND On February 6, 2023, Plaintiff Wesley Su filed a complaint against Defendant AvantGarde Senior Living dba AvantGarde Senior Living of Tarzana for (1) Negligence; (2) Violations of The Elder and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act [Welf. & Instit. Code §15600 Et Seq.]; (3) Violations of Resident Rights [Health & Safety Code §1430(B)]; and (4) Wrongful Death. Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on July 14, 2023, removing the third cause of action for Violations of Resident Rights.

The Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act ("EADACPA") (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 15610, et seq.) protects elderly persons and dependent adults from, among other things, neglect and abandonment, and the deprivation by a care custodian of services that are necessary to avoid physical harm or mental suffering. Welf. & Inst. Code, § 15610.07.

The Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act provides for heightened remedies where it is proven by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant was guilty of recklessness, oppression, fraud, or malice in the commission of physical abuse, neglect, or financial abuse against an elderly or dependent adult. Welf&Inst. Code § 15657.

Pinto has adequately alleged a claim for elder abuse and neglect per the Elder and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act. The Pintos have alleged facts sufficient to show a caretaking or custodial relationship existed between the Fresenius Defendants and Mr. Pinto. Unlike Winn v.

The FAC asserts nine causes of action for (1) Fraudulent Misrepresentation, (2) Fraudulent Concealment, (3) Negligence, (4) Violations of the Consumers Legal Remedies Act, (5) Violations of the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, (6) Violations of the Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act, (7) Violations of the Home Solicitation Sales Act, (8) Violation of Business and Professions Code § 7150, et seq ., and (9) Violations of the Unfair Competition Law.

Demurrer Defendant first demurs to the second cause of action on the ground that the Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act (“Act”) does not create a cause of action, but is simply a remedy that provides for attorney fees, costs and punitive damages under certain conditions. Defendant also made this argument in its demurrer to the FAC.

Violation of Elder Abuse & Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act 2. Violation of Patient Bill of Rights 3. Wrongful Death The Final Status Conference is set for 7/25/17. A jury trial is set for 8/1/17. Plaintiffs Concepcion Punsalan, individually and as heir to decedent Manuel Cano Punsalan, Joel Punsalan and Mariel Punsalan (“plaintiffs”) move pursuant to CCP § 2025.450, for an order compelling third party witness, Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc.

In opposition, Plaintiffs assert that the FAC shows Wall suffered numerous forms of neglect including being abandoned alone despite being a fall risk, being denied water leading to dehydration and being denied pain assessments/medication and being kicked out of the facility due to a lapse in his Medicare coverage despite the nursing home knowing he needed continued medical care. 1st Cause of Action for Elder Abuse/Neglect: The purpose of the Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act is “to protect

This is not the intended result of The Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act, as “nothing in the legislative history suggests that the Legislature intended the Act to apply whenever a doctor treats any elderly [or dependent] patient.” (Winn, supra, 63 Cal.4th at p. 163.)

This is not the intended result of The Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act, as “nothing in the legislative history suggests that the Legislature intended the Act to apply whenever a doctor treats any elderly [or dependent] patient.” (Winn, supra, 63 Cal.4th at p. 163.)

These sections merely provide definitions under the Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act (the “Elder Abuse Act”) and do not provide statutory grounds for holding Defendants liable for such abuse. (See Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 15610.07 [elder and dependent adult abuse], 15610.63 [physical abuse], and 15610.53 [mental suffering].)

Dependent Adult Abuse (First and Second Causes of Action) These causes of action are brought under the Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act, which is codified in Welfare and Institutions Code section 15600, et seq . (the “Act”). The elements for the various causes of action under the Act are statutory and reflect the legislature’s intent to provide enhanced remedies to encourage private, civil enforcement of laws against dependent adult or elder abuse/neglect. ( Intrieri v.

The sixth cause of action is for financial elder abuse, and it too is insufficiently pleaded. The Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act (the Act) (Welf. & Inst.) was enacted to protect elders, defined as “any person residing in this state, 65 years of age or older” (Welf. & Inst. Code, §15610.27), and dependent adults from abuse and neglect. (Mahan v. Charles W. Chan Ins. Agency, Inc. (2017) 14 Cal.App.5th 841, 858.) The Act protects against both “[p]hysical abuse” and “[f]inancial abuse.”

The proposed SAC includes cause of action for which the Court has sustained demurrers without leave to amend, i.e., elder abuse, IIED and loss of consortium. (There is no substantial difference between the elder abuse claim and dependent abuse claim; both are based on Welfare and Institutions Code section 15600 et seq., the Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act). Plaintiffs argue that the demurrers to these causes of action were sustained with leave to amend.

The agreement provides at sections 1.1, 1.2, and 1.3 that any dispute between the parties to the contract, including disputes as to medical malpractice, provision of medical services, or provision of services or health care, including alleged violations of the Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act, will be determined by submission to arbitration. The agreement appears to have been executed by the parties on 6/17/20. Plaintiff filed this lawsuit on 7/17/20.

Under the Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act (Welf. & Inst. Code §15600 et seq.), an individual or institution may be held liable for “neglect” of an elder or dependent adult. Welf. & Inst. Code §15610.07, subd. (a)(1). Neglect means “[t]he negligent failure of any person having the care or custody of an elder or a dependent adult to exercise that degree of care that a reasonable person in a like position would exercise.” Welf. & Inst. Code §15610.57, subd. (a)(1).

Conclusion: Plaintiff’s first cause of action adequately states a cause of action for elder abuse under Welfare & Institutions Code section 15600, et seq., the Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act (“EADACPA”). Therefore, the court OVERRULES St. Joe’s demurrer and DENIES its motions to strike. Defendant is given twenty (20) days to Answer plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint.

As explained in this Court’s ruling on EMC’s demurrer, Plaintiff has not pleaded a claim under the Elder Abuse Act as against EMC. For that reason, Plaintiff also cannot plead a claim against Massiello as a “care custodian.” Under the Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act (Welf. & Inst.

Elder abuse/neglect is distinct from professional negligence: “We granted review to determine whether the definition of neglect under the Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 15600 et seq.; the Elder Abuse Act or Act) applies when a health care provider—delivering care on an outpatient basis—fails to refer an elder patient to a specialist.

City of Berkeley (2006) 38 Cal.4th 1, 6.) 4th Cause of Action for Elder Abuse and Neglect: The purpose of the Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act is “to protect a particularly vulnerable portion of the population from gross mistreatment in the form of abuse and custodial neglect.” (Delaney v. Baker (1999) 20 Cal.4th 23, 33.)

Dependent Adult Abuse/Neglect: The Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act establishes a cause of action for abuse of a dependent adult. The term “abuse” includes neglect or the deprivation by a care custodian of goods or services that are necessary to avoid physical harm or mental suffering. W&I § 15610.07(a)(1) & (2). “Neglect” is defined as a failure of a person having care or custody of a dependent adult to exercise the degree of care that a reasonable person would exercise.

Dependent Adult Abuse/Neglect: The Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act establishes a cause of action for abuse of a dependent adult. The term “abuse” includes neglect or the deprivation by a care custodian of goods or services that are necessary to avoid physical harm or mental suffering. W&I § 15610.07(a)(1) & (2). “Neglect” is defined as a failure of a person having care or custody of a dependent adult to exercise the degree of care that a reasonable person would exercise.

Dependent Adult Abuse/Neglect: The Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act establishes a cause of action for abuse of a dependent adult. The term “abuse” includes neglect or the deprivation by a care custodian of goods or services that are necessary to avoid physical harm or mental suffering. W&I § 15610.07(a)(1) & (2). “Neglect” is defined as a failure of a person having care or custody of a dependent adult to exercise the degree of care that a reasonable person would exercise.

Dependent Adult Abuse/Neglect: The Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act establishes a cause of action for abuse of a dependent adult. The term “abuse” includes neglect or the deprivation by a care custodian of goods or services that are necessary to avoid physical harm or mental suffering. W&I § 15610.07(a)(1) & (2). “Neglect” is defined as a failure of a person having care or custody of a dependent adult to exercise the degree of care that a reasonable person would exercise.

Dependent Adult Abuse/Neglect: The Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act establishes a cause of action for abuse of a dependent adult. The term “abuse” includes neglect or the deprivation by a care custodian of goods or services that are necessary to avoid physical harm or mental suffering. W&I § 15610.07(a)(1) & (2). “Neglect” is defined as a failure of a person having care or custody of a dependent adult to exercise the degree of care that a reasonable person would exercise.

Dependent Adult Abuse/Neglect: The Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act establishes a cause of action for abuse of a dependent adult. The term “abuse” includes neglect or the deprivation by a care custodian of goods or services that are necessary to avoid physical harm or mental suffering. W&I § 15610.07(a)(1) & (2). “Neglect” is defined as a failure of a person having care or custody of a dependent adult to exercise the degree of care that a reasonable person would exercise.

Importantly, the 2-year statute of limitations applies to an action under the Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act (Welf. & Inst.C. § 15600 et seq.) pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 335.1 where the Act does not contain a statute of limitations, and section 335.1 is the most analogous statute. (Benun v. Sup.Ct. (Country Villa East, L.P.) (2004) 123 Cal.App.4th 113, 125-126.) There may be certain doctrines that toll the statute of limitations.

Indeed, judicial authority on the Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act does not “give any indication that the policies favoring the enforcement of arbitration agreements [citation] conflict with the policies aimed at ‘protect[ing] a particularly vulnerable portion of the population from gross mistreatment in the form of [elder] abuse and custodial neglect.’” (Hogan, at p. 269.) We do not agree... that Fitzhugh v.

[1] The Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act of 1994 is often referred to by the courts as the Elder Abuse Act, which is codified at Welfare and Institutions Code § 15600, et seq.

The purpose of the Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act (the “Elder Abuse Act”) is “to protect a particularly vulnerable portion of the population from gross mistreatment in the form of abuse and custodial neglect.” (Delaney v. Baker (1999) 20 Cal.4th 23, 33.) Financial abuse occurs when a person or entity takes, secretes, appropriates, obtains, or retains real or personal property of an elder or dependent adult for a wrongful use or with intent to defraud, or both. (emphasis added.)

(Stats. 1991, ch. 774, § 3, p. 3477; see also Directions for Use for CACI No. 3100 (2008) p. 284 [“The instructions in this series are not intended to cover every circumstance in which a plaintiff can bring a cause of action under the Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act”].) We reject plaintiffs' argument that a violation of the Act does not constitute an independent cause of action.

First Cause of Action Statutory Violation of Californias Elder and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act (Welf. & Inst. Code § 15600 et seq.) The elements of a cause of action for elder abuse and neglect are determined by the Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act ( the Act ). (Welf. & Inst. Code § 15600 et seq.)

Similarly, Defendant alleges insufficient facts to support a claim for financial elder abuse. The Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act defines an elder as any person residing in this state, 65 years of age or older. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 15610.27.)

Regents demurrers to the sole cause of action for Dependent Adult Abuse (Pursuant to the Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act – Welfare and Institutions Code §§ 15600, et seq.). The requisite elements to establish this cause of action are set forth in Carter v. Prime Healthcare Paradise Valley LLC (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 396.

Dependent Adult Abuse (Pursuant to the Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act Welfare and Institutions Code §§ 15600, et seq.) 2. Negligence A Case Management Conference is set for April 4, 2024. 1. Demurrer Legal Standard A demurrer may be made on the grounds that the pleading, inter alia, does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action and/or is uncertain. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subds. (e) and (f).)

PETITION FOR CANCELLATION OF REVOCABLE TRANSFER ON DEATH DEED (PROBATE CODE § 5690); FOR DETERMINATION OF OWNERSHIP OF REAL PROPERTY (PROBATE CODE § 850); AND FOR FINANCIAL ELDER ABUSE (PROBATE CODE § 859; WELF. & INST.CODE §§ 15610, ET SEQ.) APPEARANCE REQUIRED

PETITION FOR CANCELLATION OF REVOCABLE TRANSFER ON DEATH DEED (PROBATE CODE § 5690); FOR DETERMINATION OF OWNERSHIP OF REAL PROPERTY (PROBATE CODE § 850); AND FOR FINANCIAL ELDER ABUSE (PROBATE CODE § 859; WELF. & INST.CODE §§ 15610, ET SEQ.) APPEARANCE REQUIRED

Demurrer is SUSTAINED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND to the second cause of action for violation of the Elder and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act. Plaintiff has failed to sufficiently establish standing to pursue the cause of action as decedent’s successor in interest.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION – VIOLATION OF THE ELDER AND DEPENDENT ADULT CIVIL PROTECTION ACT (WELF. & INST. CODE § 15600 ET SEQ.) In their second cause of action, Plaintiffs allege that Defendants violated the Elder and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act (the “Elder Abuse Act”), Welf. & Inst. Code § 15600 et seq. in their treatment of Decedent. The Elder Abuse Act provides for penalties against those who abuse an elder or a dependent adult. Elder abuse includes physical abuse and neglect. (Welf. & Inst.

Plaintiff’s Complaint, filed on April 15, 2015, asserts the following causes of action: (1) Negligent Retention, Entrustment, and Supervision; (2) Negligence; and (3) Violation of Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act (Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code §15600 et seq.) Defendant LAKEWOOD REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER (“Lakewood”) moves for summary adjudication of Plaintiff’s first and third causes of action.

On September 29, 2021, Plaintiffs filed a complaint against Defendants SSC Tarzana Operating Company, LP dba Health and Rehabilitation Center, SavaSeniorCare Administrative and Consulting, LLC; SSC Equity Holdings, LLC; and SavaSeniorCare , LLC asserting causes of action for: (1) Elder Abuse and Neglect (Pursuant to the Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act-Welf. & Inst.

* * * In an action under the Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act, the plaintiff is entitled to an award of attorney fees and costs for financial abuse. The plain language of Welfare and Institutions Code §15657.5 indicates that an award of attorney fees is a mandatory form of relief (Welfare and Institutions Code §15657.5.)

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION (i.e., VIOLATIONS OF THE ELDER ABUSE & DEPENDENT ADULT CIVIL PROTECTION ACT: PHYSICAL ABUSE, NEGLECT & ABANDONMENT [W.I.C. § 15600 et seq.]): “The Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act affords certain protections to elders and dependent adults.

On the grounds Plaintiffs have not adequately alleged malice/oppression under the Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act, the demurrers are sustained with leave to amend the first cause of action. Plaintiffs assert Defendants' conduct was reckless and therefore within the scope of the Act. Plaintiffs may base their claims on allegations of recklessness. (W&I Code § 15657.) However, their pleading does not sufficiently allege specific facts of recklessness on the part of either AMR or Myers.

Here, Plaintiff cites various authorities for the proposition that the Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act (the "Act") embodies an important policy intended to protect the public. The purpose of the Act is "to protect a particularly vulnerable portion of the population from gross mistreatment in the form of abuse and custodial neglect." (Deleney v. Baker (1999) 20 Cal.4th 23, 33.) Defendant did not file a reply.