On October 11, 2019, Vadim Miesegaes (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Wendell Austin (“Austin”), Ellen Beraud (“Beraud”), and the Department of State Hospitals, Atascadero (“ASH”; collectively, “Defendants”). The action concerns Plaintiff’s request to ASH personnel for a “preference diet” and his request for a copy of the report which was created during an investigation into his allegations of dependent adult abuse and neglect when his dietary requests were denied. On February 13, 2020, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint (“FAC”)1 setting forth “Claim I” against ASH, “Claim II” against Beraud, and “Claim III” against Austin. Defendants responded by filing the demurrer and motion to strike currently on calendar.
The demurrer argues that Claim I and Claim II are barred by the doctrine of res judicata and that Claim III does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. The motion to strike argues the FAC does not set forth allegations to support Plaintiff’s req
Hearing Date
July 14, 2020
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
On October 11, 2019, Vadim Miesegaes (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Wendell Austin (“Austin”), Ellen Beraud (“Beraud”), and the Department of State Hospitals, Atascadero (“ASH”; collectively, “Defendants”). The action concerns Plaintiff’s request to ASH personnel for a “preference diet” and his request for a copy of the report which was created during an investigation into his allegations of dependent adult abuse and neglect when his dietary requests were denied. On February 13, 2020, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint (“FAC”)1 setting forth “Claim I” against ASH, “Claim II” against Beraud, and “Claim III” against Austin. Defendants responded by filing the demurrer and motion to strike currently on calendar.
The demurrer argues that Claim I and Claim II are barred by the doctrine of res judicata and that Claim III does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. The motion to strike argues the FAC does not set forth allegations to support Plaintiff’s req