FADDIS, et al. vs GRANDCARE INC, et al.

23CV006808: FADDIS, et al. vs GRANDCARE INC, et al. 05/09/2024 Hearing on Motion to Strike in Department 53

Tentative Ruling

NOTICE:

Consistent with Local Rule 1.06(B), any party requesting oral argument on any matter on this calendar must comply with the following procedure:

To request limited oral argument, on any matter on this calendar, you must call the Law and Motion Oral Argument Request Line at (916) 874-2615 by 4:00 p.m. the Court day before the hearing and advise opposing counsel. At the time of requesting oral argument, the requesting party shall leave a voice mail message: a) identifying themselves as the party requesting oral argument; b) indicating the specific matter/motion for which they are requesting oral argument; and c) confirming that it has notified the opposing party of its intention to appear and that opposing party may appear via Zoom using the Zoom link and Meeting ID indicated below. If no request for oral argument is made, the tentative ruling becomes the final order of the Court.

Unless ordered to appear in person by the Court, parties may appear remotely either telephonically or by video conference via the Zoom video/audio conference platform with notice to the Court and all other parties in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure §367.75. Although remote participation is not required, the Court will presume all parties are appearing remotely for non-evidentiary civil hearings. The Department 53/54 Zoom Link is https://saccourt-cagov.zoomgov.com/my/sscdept53.54 and the Zoom Meeting ID is 161 4650 6749. To appear on Zoom telephonically, call (833) 568-8864 and enter the Zoom Meeting ID referenced above. NO COURTCALL APPEARANCES WILL BE ACCEPTED.

Parties requesting services of a court reporter will need to arrange for private court reporter services at their own expense, pursuant to Government code §68086 and California Rules of Court, Rule 2.956. Requirements for requesting a court reporter are listed in the Policy for Official Reporter Pro Tempore available on the Sacramento Superior Court website at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp-6a.pdf. Parties may contact Court- Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore by utilizing the list of Court Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore available at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp- 13.pdf.

A Stipulation and Appointment of Official Reporter Pro Tempore (CV/E-206) is required to be signed by each party, the private court reporter, and the Judge prior to the hearing, if not using a reporter from the Court’s Approved Official Reporter Pro Tempore list.

Once the form is signed it must be filed with the clerk. If a litigant has been granted a fee waiver and requests a court reporter, the party must submit a Request for Court Reporter by a Party with a Fee Waiver (CV/E-211) and it must be filed with the clerk at least 10 days prior to the hearing or at the time the proceeding is scheduled if less than 10 days away. Once approved, the clerk

23CV006808: FADDIS, et al. vs GRANDCARE INC, et al. 05/09/2024 Hearing on Motion to Strike in Department 53

will forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided.

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendants Grandcare, Inc. dba Mountain Manor Senior Residence and Grandcare Management Co., LLC’s (“Defendants”) motion to strike portions of Plaintiffs Patrick Faddis (“Faddis”), through his guardian ad litem, and Maria Faddis’ (jointly, “Plaintiffs”) complaint is DENIED.

In their reply, Defendants object to the declaration of Plaintiffs’ counsel provided in support of the opposition. However, Defendants’ objections failed to comply with California Rules of Court, rule 3.1354(b), which requires all written objections to evidence to be served and filed separately from other papers. Therefore, the Court declines to consider Defendants’ objections.

The Court has overruled Defendants concurrently filed demurrer to the fourth cause of action for Unfair Business Practices under Business and Professions Code section 17200 and the fifth cause of action for Fraud / Misrepresentation. Plaintiffs have sufficiently pled fraud as a basis for punitive damages and for remedies pursuant to Business and Professions Code section 17200. Accordingly, Defendants’ motion to strike is DENIED as moot as to paragraphs 54, 63, 78, 95 and paragraphs 3, 6, 7, and 8 of the prayer.

The court may, upon a motion made pursuant to [Code of Civil Procedure] 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 Civ. Proc. § 436.) The grounds for a motion to strike must appear on the face of the challenged pleading or from any matter of which the court is required to take judicial notice. (Code Civ.

Proc. § 437, subd. (a).) The use of the motion to strike should be cautious and sparing. It should not be a procedural “line item veto.” (PH II, Inc. v. Superior Court (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1680, 1683.) A court tests the adequacy of a claim for punitive damages by way of a motion to strike. (Grieves v. Superior Court (1984) 157 Cal.App.3d 159, 164.)

Defendants argue the Court should strike Plaintiff’s allegation in paragraph 82 that reference statements Defendants allegedly made to the California Department of Public Health on the basis that the allegations are inadmissible hearsay. This is not a basis for a motion to strike. Allegations are not evidence in the first instance and thus, a hearsay

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV006808: FADDIS, et al. vs GRANDCARE INC, et al. 05/09/2024 Hearing on Motion to Strike in Department 53

objection is inapposite to a motion to strike. Indeed, Defendants offer no legal authority showing that this is a proper ground for a motion to strike. Therefore, Defendants’ motion to strike paragraph 82 is denied.

Defendants also contend the Court should strike Plaintiffs’ requests for enhanced remedies available under Welfare and Institutions Code section 15657 because Plaintiffs’ allegations are insufficient to support this cause of action. While paragraphs are identified in the Notice of Motion, Defendants’ memorandum does not specifically refer to any portions of the complaint in connection with this argument. Nonetheless, Plaintiffs’ opposition identifies paragraphs 53, 54, 62, 63, and 79 of the complaint and paragraphs 3 and 4 of the prayer as those which refer to enhanced remedies under Welfare and Institutions Code section 15657.

As Plaintiffs correctly note, Defendants’ primary argument is that Plaintiffs’ allegations are insufficient to support a cause of action for elder abuse. However, the sufficiency of Plaintiffs’ allegations to support an elder abuse cause of action is the subject of a demurrer, not a motion to strike. Additionally, as noted above, Defendants’ demurrer to Plaintiffs’ cause of action for fraud has been overruled. Fraudulent conduct in connection with elder abuse may give rise to enhanced remedies pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 15657, including attorneys’ fees, subject to clear and convincing proof at trial.

Accordingly, Defendants’ motion to strike paragraphs 53, 54, 62, 63, 79 of the complaint and paragraphs 3 and 4 of the prayer is denied.

Defendants did not provide any specific argument or authority that paragraph 72, which relates to Plaintiffs’ request for injunctive relief pursuant to California Health and Safety Code section 1430, should be stricken. Instead, Defendants argue that Plaintiffs’ fourth cause of action pursuant to Business and Professions Code section 17200 fails, and therefore, all of Plaintiffs’ requests for injunctive relief should be stricken. Plaintiffs argue Defendants fail to legally support their request, and therefore it should be denied. Defendants do not respond to Plaintiffs’ argument in reply. The Court denies Defendants’ request to strike paragraph 72.

Finally, the Court notes that although paragraph 5 of the prayer is listed in the notice of motion, Defendants do not provide any argument or authority that Plaintiffs’ prayer for pre- and post-judgment interest pursuant to Civil Code sections 3287 and 3288 should be stricken. Therefore, the request to strike paragraph 5 of the prayer is also denied.

Accordingly, Defendants’ motion to strike is DENIED in its entirety.

This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order or other notice is required. (Code Civ. Proc. §1019.5; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1312.)

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV006808: FADDIS, et al. vs GRANDCARE INC, et al. 05/09/2024 Hearing on Motion to Strike in Department 53