Preview
Scott B. McFall, Bar N0. 80396
F l L E
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIF
Haig Arabian, Bar No. 289861 COUNTY or SAN BERNAchSg'A
SAN BERNARDINO DISTRICT
AGAJANMN, McFALL, WEISS, TETREAULT & CRIST LLP
bUJN
346 North Larchmont Boulevard
Los Angeles, California 90004
Telephone: (323)993-0198
Facsimile: (323)993-9509
haiggéDagajanianlawcom
Attorneys for Defendants HDMC
HOLDINGS, L.L.C.
By K OCT 0 4
W LWW/fimwoeputy
2522
dba Hi-Desert Medical Center D/P SNF; HDMC
HOLDINGS, L.L.C.
dba Hi-Desert Medical Center, and HI—DESERT CONTINUING CARE CENTER
\DOOQQUI
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO SAN BERNARDINO JUSTICE CENTER
-
10
LOUIS SALAS, by and through his Successor- ) CASE NO: CIVSB2215 198
11 in—Interest, Elena Salas, ELENA SALAS, ) Case Filed: 04/27/2022
Individually, ) Hon. Winston Keh, Dept. S33
12 >
REPLY BY DEFENDANTS HDMC HOLDINGS,
. .
Plalntlffs, )
13 ) L.L.C. dba Hi-Desert Medical Center D/P SNF;
vs. ) HDMC HOLDINGS, L.L.C. dba Hi-Desert
14 ) Medical Center, and HI—DESERT CONTINUING
HDMC HOLDINGS, L.L.C. dba Hi-Desert ) CARE CENTER TO PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION
15 Medical Center D/P SNF; HDMC HOLDINGS, ) TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STRIKE
L.L.C. dba Hi-Desert Medical Center; )
16 HI—DESERT CONTINUING CARE CENTER )
and Does 1 through 200, inclusive, )
17 )
Defendants, )
18 )
LOUIE SALAS, NACHITO SALAS, BRIANNA )
19 CORTEZ, BECCA SALAS, )
) Date: October 12, 2022
20 Nominal Defendants ) Time: 8:30 am.
) Dept. S33
21
22
TO ALL PARTIES HEREIN AND TO THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
23
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Defendants, HDMC HOLDINGS, L.L.C. dba Hi-Desert Medical
24
Center D/P SNF; HDMC HOLDINGS, L.L.C. dba Hi-Desert Medical Center, and HI-DESERT
25
CONTINUING CARE CENTER (“moving Defendants”) hereby submits the following Reply to Plaintiff s
26
Opposition to moving Defendants’ Motion to Strike Portions of Plaintiffs’ Complaint.
27
///
28
1
REPLY BY DEFENDANTS HDMC HOLDINGS, L.L.C. dba Hi-Desert Medical Center D/P SNF; HDMC HOLDINGS. L.L.C. dba Hi-Dcsert Medical
Center, and HI-DESERT CONTINUING CARE CENTER TO PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STRIKE
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
I. PLAINTIFFS ARE NOT ENTITLED TO PUNITIVE DAMAGES AS TO THEIR CAUSE OF
ACTION FOR DEPENDENT ADULT ABUSE BECAUSE PLAINTIFFS HAVE NOT
SUFFICIENTLY PLEAD DEPENDENT ADULT ABUSE AND THE CAUSE OF ACTION
\OOOQONUl-tht—I
IS IMPROPER AND UNCERTAIN
The remedies sought by Plaintiffs based on her claim for Dependent Adult Abuse (Violations of
Health & Safely Code §1276.4 ) are improper and legally unavailable. Moving Defendant incorporates by
reference, as iffully stated herein, the points and authorities stated in the accompanying Demurrer t0
’
Plaintiffs’ Complaint and Defendants Reply t0 Plaintifflv’ Opposition. The Dependent Adult Abuse cause
of action remains woefully deficient in facts or allegations necessary to state a claim for Dependent Adult
Abuse pursuant to the Elder and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act (Welf. & Inst. Code §15600 et seq.,
hereinafter the “EADACPA”), and to support a claim for punitive damages based on Dependent Abuse
pursuant. As such, moving Defendants’ Motion to strike the prayer for punitive damages as to Plaintiffs”
cause of action for dependent adult abuse should be sustained, without leave.
Further, the request for punitive/exemplary damages fails to provide specific factual allegations
sufficient to support this request and violates Code ofCivil Procedure § 425. 1 3(a) which automatically bars
NNNNNNNNNHr—Iy—Ar—Ai—Ir—tt—tr—r—Ao—A
a Plaintiff from seeking punitive damages without first complying with the mandatory provisions of the
statute. The Complaint herein arises out of, at most, professional negligence during the period that
OOHQM-DWNHOCOOQQUI-bbJNHO
Decedent, LOUIS SALAS (“Decadent”) was a patient of moving Defendants. Bafore Plaintiffs can state
a claim for punitive damages, Plaintiffs must satisfy the strict and mandatory requirements of §425.13(a).
Plaintiffs have neither filed a motion pursuant to Section 425.13(a) nor have they made any
evidentiary showing that there is a substantial probability that they Will meet the clear and convincing
standard ofproofrequired to prevail under Civil Code §3294. Plaintiffs’ claim for punitive damages on their
first cause of action for dependent adult abuse must therefore be stricken.
Plaintiffs have failed to allege a Viable claim for dependent adult abuse. Moving Defendants
incorporate by reference, as iffully stated herein, the points and authorities stated in the accompanying
’ ’ ’
Demurrer t0 Plaintiflfv Complaint and Defendants Reply to Plaintiffs Opposition. Plaintiffs only allege
that while in the care ofmoving Defendants, Decadent developed a pressure injury that caused him pain and
2
REPLY BY DEFENDANTS HDMC HOLDINGS, L.L.C. dba Hi-Dcscrt Medical Center D/P SNF; HDMC HOLDINGS, L.L.C. dba Hi-Desert Medical
Center, and HI—DESERT CONTINUING CARE CENTER TO PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION T0 DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STRIKE
Preview
Scott B. McFall, Bar N0. 80396 F l L E SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIF Haig Arabian, Bar No. 289861 COUNTY or SAN BERNAchSg'A SAN BERNARDINO DISTRICT AGAJANMN, McFALL, WEISS, TETREAULT & CRIST LLP bUJN 346 North Larchmont Boulevard Los Angeles, California 90004 Telephone: (323)993-0198 Facsimile: (323)993-9509 haiggéDagajanianlawcom Attorneys for Defendants HDMC HOLDINGS, L.L.C. By K OCT 0 4 W LWW/fimwoeputy 2522 dba Hi-Desert Medical Center D/P SNF; HDMC HOLDINGS, L.L.C. dba Hi-Desert Medical Center, and HI—DESERT CONTINUING CARE CENTER \DOOQQUI SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO SAN BERNARDINO JUSTICE CENTER - 10 LOUIS SALAS, by and through his Successor- ) CASE NO: CIVSB2215 198 11 in—Interest, Elena Salas, ELENA SALAS, ) Case Filed: 04/27/2022 Individually, ) Hon. Winston Keh, Dept. S33 12 > REPLY BY DEFENDANTS HDMC HOLDINGS, . . Plalntlffs, ) 13 ) L.L.C. dba Hi-Desert Medical Center D/P SNF; vs. ) HDMC HOLDINGS, L.L.C. dba Hi-Desert 14 ) Medical Center, and HI—DESERT CONTINUING HDMC HOLDINGS, L.L.C. dba Hi-Desert ) CARE CENTER TO PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION 15 Medical Center D/P SNF; HDMC HOLDINGS, ) TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STRIKE L.L.C. dba Hi-Desert Medical Center; ) 16 HI—DESERT CONTINUING CARE CENTER ) and Does 1 through 200, inclusive, ) 17 ) Defendants, ) 18 ) LOUIE SALAS, NACHITO SALAS, BRIANNA ) 19 CORTEZ, BECCA SALAS, ) ) Date: October 12, 2022 20 Nominal Defendants ) Time: 8:30 am. ) Dept. S33 21 22 TO ALL PARTIES HEREIN AND TO THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: 23 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Defendants, HDMC HOLDINGS, L.L.C. dba Hi-Desert Medical 24 Center D/P SNF; HDMC HOLDINGS, L.L.C. dba Hi-Desert Medical Center, and HI-DESERT 25 CONTINUING CARE CENTER (“moving Defendants”) hereby submits the following Reply to Plaintiff s 26 Opposition to moving Defendants’ Motion to Strike Portions of Plaintiffs’ Complaint. 27 /// 28 1 REPLY BY DEFENDANTS HDMC HOLDINGS, L.L.C. dba Hi-Desert Medical Center D/P SNF; HDMC HOLDINGS. L.L.C. dba Hi-Dcsert Medical Center, and HI-DESERT CONTINUING CARE CENTER TO PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STRIKE MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES I. PLAINTIFFS ARE NOT ENTITLED TO PUNITIVE DAMAGES AS TO THEIR CAUSE OF ACTION FOR DEPENDENT ADULT ABUSE BECAUSE PLAINTIFFS HAVE NOT SUFFICIENTLY PLEAD DEPENDENT ADULT ABUSE AND THE CAUSE OF ACTION \OOOQONUl-tht—I IS IMPROPER AND UNCERTAIN The remedies sought by Plaintiffs based on her claim for Dependent Adult Abuse (Violations of Health & Safely Code §1276.4 ) are improper and legally unavailable. Moving Defendant incorporates by reference, as iffully stated herein, the points and authorities stated in the accompanying Demurrer t0 ’ Plaintiffs’ Complaint and Defendants Reply t0 Plaintifflv’ Opposition. The Dependent Adult Abuse cause of action remains woefully deficient in facts or allegations necessary to state a claim for Dependent Adult Abuse pursuant to the Elder and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act (Welf. & Inst. Code §15600 et seq., hereinafter the “EADACPA”), and to support a claim for punitive damages based on Dependent Abuse pursuant. As such, moving Defendants’ Motion to strike the prayer for punitive damages as to Plaintiffs” cause of action for dependent adult abuse should be sustained, without leave. Further, the request for punitive/exemplary damages fails to provide specific factual allegations sufficient to support this request and violates Code ofCivil Procedure § 425. 1 3(a) which automatically bars NNNNNNNNNHr—Iy—Ar—Ai—Ir—tt—tr—r—Ao—A a Plaintiff from seeking punitive damages without first complying with the mandatory provisions of the statute. The Complaint herein arises out of, at most, professional negligence during the period that OOHQM-DWNHOCOOQQUI-bbJNHO Decedent, LOUIS SALAS (“Decadent”) was a patient of moving Defendants. Bafore Plaintiffs can state a claim for punitive damages, Plaintiffs must satisfy the strict and mandatory requirements of §425.13(a). Plaintiffs have neither filed a motion pursuant to Section 425.13(a) nor have they made any evidentiary showing that there is a substantial probability that they Will meet the clear and convincing standard ofproofrequired to prevail under Civil Code §3294. Plaintiffs’ claim for punitive damages on their first cause of action for dependent adult abuse must therefore be stricken. Plaintiffs have failed to allege a Viable claim for dependent adult abuse. Moving Defendants incorporate by reference, as iffully stated herein, the points and authorities stated in the accompanying ’ ’ ’ Demurrer t0 Plaintiflfv Complaint and Defendants Reply to Plaintiffs Opposition. Plaintiffs only allege that while in the care ofmoving Defendants, Decadent developed a pressure injury that caused him pain and 2 REPLY BY DEFENDANTS HDMC HOLDINGS, L.L.C. dba Hi-Dcscrt Medical Center D/P SNF; HDMC HOLDINGS, L.L.C. dba Hi-Desert Medical Center, and HI—DESERT CONTINUING CARE CENTER TO PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION T0 DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STRIKE