CONGI, et al. vs DIGNITY HEALTH

The Court agrees that the requested amendment is proper as to Mortuary Support Services under the applicable standard. The Court further agrees with the reasons stated in Plaintiffs’ reply that Plaintiffs’ motion complies with rule

24CV015815: CONGI, et al. vs DIGNITY HEALTH 06/24/2026 Hearing on Motion to Strike in Department 8A

3.1324. As to the second and third grounds raised by Mortuary Support Services, the challenges to the sufficiency of Plaintiffs’ punitive damages allegations against Mortuary Support Services are better reserved for a motion to strike. (See Kittredge Sports Co., supra, 213 Cal.App.3d at 1048 [observing the preferred practice of granting leave to amend and allowing the parties to test the amendment’s legal sufficiency by a pleadings challenge or other appropriate proceedings.].) Plaintiffs have timely brought this motion to amend, and Mortuary Support Services does not identify any prejudice that will result. For these reasons, the Court grants Plaintiff leave to file the proposed third amended complaint that alleges a claim for punitive damages against Mortuary Support Services. (Id. at p. 5 [emphasis added].)

On April 13, 2026, Plaintiffs filed the operative 3AC, alleging the following causes of action: (1) negligent handling of a corpse; (2) negligence; (3) negligent infliction of emotional distress; (4) negligent misrepresentation; (5) negligent handling and supervision; (6) violation of California Health and Safety Code section 7100; (7) violation of California Health and Safety Code section 7104; (8) gross negligence; (9) intentional infliction of emotional distress; (10) intentional misrepresentation; and (11) concealment.

This action arises out of the allegations that Defendants mishandled Plaintiff Jessie’s body after her death and failed to complete a death certificate for a year, thereby depriving her family of the ability to discover her death until April of 2024. Specifically, Plaintiffs allege that on April 6, 2023, Jessie suffered a diabetic episode and was admitted to Mercy San Juan Medical Center in Sacramento, California. (3AC, ¶ 2.) While Jessie’s medical records indicated a discharge date of April 8, 2023, and despite the fact that Jessie’s family was told that Jessie had been discharged against medical advice, Plaintiffs allege that Jessie had died while in the care of Dignity Health on April 8, 2023. (3AC, ¶¶ 2-3.)

Unaware that Jessie had died on April 8, 2023, Plaintiffs allege that Jessie’s family tirelessly tried to locate her – they filed a Missing Person’s report with the Sacramento County Sheriff’s Office, posted information about Jessie on the Department of Justice website for missing persons, and conducted a search for Jessie. (3AC, ¶ 3.)

According to the 3AC, it was not until April 2024, that Dr. Mukhtar completed the physician certification portion of the death certificate enabling the Funeral Director at Cremations Only to issue Jessie’s Death Certificate on April 5, 2024. (3AC, ¶ 3 [citing Exh. 4].) Plaintiffs allege that one week later, on April 12, 2024, the Sacramento County Detective’s Office was able to locate Jessie’s remains and notified Jessie’s family that Jessie had been found in “cold storage,” which “is essentially a large storage

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV015815: CONGI, et al. vs DIGNITY HEALTH 06/24/2026 Hearing on Motion to Strike in Department 8A

warehouse where Dignity Health has contracted to store bodies,” and had been there since April 8, 2023. (3AC, ¶ 3.)

Legal Standard

A motion to strike is appropriate to strike out any irrelevant, false or improper matter asserted in any pleading and the Court may strike out all or any part of any pleading not drawn or filed in conformity with the law. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 436 (a)-(c).) A motion to strike challenges portions of a cause of action that are substantively defective on the face of the complaint. (PH II, Inc. v. Superior Court (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1680, 1682- 83; see also, Code Civ. Proc., § 437.) More specifically, a motion to strike should be granted to remove “any irrelevant, false, or improper matter inserted in any pleading,” or where the pleadings are drawn in violation of a law, rule or court order. (Code Civ. Proc., § 436.)

A motion to strike is limited to the face of the challenged pleading or any matter of which the Court may take judicial notice. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437(a).) The use of the motion to strike should be cautious and sparing, nor should it be considered a procedural “line item veto.” (PH II, Inc., supra, 33 Cal.App.4th at p. 1683.)

The policy of the law is to construe the pleadings “liberally with a view to substantial justice” (Code Civ. Proc., § 452.) In ruling on a motion to strike, the allegations in the complaint are considered in context and presumed to be true: “[J]udges read allegations of a pleading subject to a motion to strike as a whole, all parts in their context, and assume their truth.” (Clauson v. Superior Court (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 1253, 1255.)

A motion to strike punitive damages allegations may lie where the claim sued upon would not support an award of punitive damages as a matter of law, e.g., promissory note actions; claims against governmental entities, etc. (See Civ. Code, § 3294(a); Commodore Home Systems, Inc. v. Sup.Ct. (Brown) (1982) 32 Cal.3d 211, 214-215; Los Angeles Unified School Dist. v. Sup.Ct. (Doe) (2023) 14 Cal.5th 758, 764, 790 [treble damages allegations properly stricken as not permitted against public school district].) Additionally, a motion to strike may lie where the facts alleged do not rise to the level of “malice, fraud or oppression” required to support a punitive damages award. (See Turman v. Turning Point of Central Calif., Inc. (2010) 191 Cal.App.4th 53, 63, [allegations of gender discrimination did not show defendant acted with requisite state of mind for punitive damages].)

Discussion

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV015815: CONGI, et al. vs DIGNITY HEALTH 06/24/2026 Hearing on Motion to Strike in Department 8A

Through this motion, MSSNC moves to strike allegations relating to Plaintiffs’ prayer for punitive damages – Paragraphs 146, 155, 164, 194, 205, 224, and “Prayer for Relief (4).” (Ntc. Mot.) MSSNC argues that the 3AC fails to allege facts to show that Defendant acted with “oppression, fraud or malice”; Plaintiffs improperly seek to add allegations for punitive damages in connection with the negligence-based causes of action, for Negligent Handling of a Corpse, Negligence, Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress, Negligent Hiring and Supervision and Gross Negligence, which is improper; and Plaintiffs fail to set forth a sufficient basis for punitive damages against MSSNC – “Plaintiffs have offered no facts to show that any of the actions of MSSNC constitutes conduct which would warrant the imposition of punitive damages.” Plaintiffs oppose the motion.

Civil Code section 3294 authorizes a plaintiff to obtain an award of punitive damages when there is clear and convincing evidence that the defendant engaged in malice, oppression, or fraud. Section 3294(c) defines the terms as follows:

(1) “Malice” means conduct which is intended by the defendant to cause injury to the plaintiff or despicable conduct which is carried on by the defendant with a willful and conscious disregard of the rights or safety of others.

(2) “Oppression” means despicable conduct that subjects a person to cruel and unjust hardship in conscious disregard of that person’s rights.

(3) “Fraud” means an intentional misrepresentation, deceit, or concealment of a material fact known to the defendant with the intention on the part of the defendant of thereby depriving a person of property or legal rights or otherwise causing injury.

Malice “based on a conscious disregard of the plaintiff’s rights, requires proof that the defendant’s conduct is ‘despicable’ and ‘willful.’” (Lackner v. North (2006) 135 Cal.App.4th 1188, 1211.) “‘[D]espicable’ connotes conduct that is ‘ so vile, base, contemptible, miserable, wretched or loathsome that it would be looked down upon and despised by ordinary decent people.’” (Id. [citations omitted].) Despicable conduct includes “that which is in blatant violation of law or policy.” (American Airlines, Inc. v. Sheppard, Mullin, Richter, & Hampton (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 1017, 1050.)

Plaintiffs allege that “Defendant Mortuary Support Services of Northern California, LLC, doing business as Sacramento Mortuary Transport (“SMT”), and All Seasons, and Cremations Only (collectively ‘Cremations Only’),” stored Jessie “for more than a year on a shelf in their cold storage warehouse, along with other former ‘patients’ of Dignity

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV015815: CONGI, et al. vs DIGNITY HEALTH 06/24/2026 Hearing on Motion to Strike in Department 8A

Health”; MSSNC is alleged as the true name of DOE 1. (3AC, ¶ 14.)

Further, the 3AC alleges, inter alia:

5. Dignity Health advertises on its website that it changed its name to “Dignity Health to better describe what we stand for. Dignity is something everyone is born with. ‘Dignity’ means showing respect for all people.” In this case, no “dignity” or respect was afforded to Jessie Peterson or her family. Dignity Health, Dr. Mukhtar, and Cremations Only (collectively the “Defendants”) failed in its most fundamental statutory, ethical, and required standard of care for Jessie and her family. Defendants callously stored Jessie in an off-site warehouse where she was left to decompose for nearly a year while her family relentlessly inquired about her whereabouts. [Footnote omitted.]

...

56. On information and belief, Dignity Health’s contract with Cremations Only did not require bodies to be kept below the legally required temperature of 45 degrees Fahrenheit. Nor did Dignity Health make any efforts to oversee and ensure that the bodies it was storing at Cremations Only were maintained below this legally required temperature.

...

58. On information and belief, Cremations Only does not consistently maintain bodies from Dignity Health at air temperatures below 45 degrees Fahrenheit.

...

94. On information and belief, the management of Dignity Health, including Ms. Lukin, were well aware of the large number of patients that they were storing at Cremations Only. At least as early as May 2023, Cremations Only sent monthly reports to Dignity Health listing the names of the people in storage and the date they were first placed in storage. Page one of the July 14, 2023 Report by Cremations Only to Dignity Health documents the continued storage of two patients from 2021, twenty-four patients from 2022, and twelve patients stored prior to Jessie Peterson on April 9, 2023. (Exhibit 12 at SNC001018-1020.)

...

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV015815: CONGI, et al. vs DIGNITY HEALTH 06/24/2026 Hearing on Motion to Strike in Department 8A

120. In violation of Health & Safety Code sections 102775, 102780, 102790, and 102800, Jessie’s death certificate was not completed and provided to the local registrar until April 5, 2024, three hundred and sixty-three days (363) after Jessie’s death. (Exhibit 4 at Box 47.) The gross misconduct is evident on the face of the Death Certificate, which shows that Jessie’s death was not reported to the Coroner until April 5, 2024 (No. 24-01669). (Exhibit 4 at Box 108.) The Defendants’ failure to comply with their statutory, ethical, moral and common law obligations is inexcusable. Had Cremations Only registered Jessie’s death record within eight days, Jessie’s family would not have searched for her for nearly a full year.

...

128. Cremations Only violated H&S Code Section 103780 by submitting a false Permit, stating that they had the right to control the body of Jessie Peterson when in fact, under Section 7100, they did not. (Exhibit 12 at SNC001156.)

...

138. On information and belief, not until the one-year anniversary of Jessie’s death approached, was any effort made to complete Jessie’s death record, and this was only made to avoid having to obtain court approval for disposing of Jessie’s remains. Cremations Only didn’t care about identifying Jessie’s family during the first 60 days of holding her body because Dignity Health pays a daily rate for storing Jessie’s remains. Dignity Health doesn’t care about identifying Jessie’s family after these 60 days because it costs them nothing to keep Jessie’s remains at Cremations Only after the initial 60 days. (3AC, ¶¶5, 56, 58, 94, 120, 128, 138.)

Considering these allegations, and the other allegations in the 3AC, Plaintiffs assert: “[t]he actions and non-actions of Defendants merit awarding punitive damages because they were continuous over several years, malicious, oppressive, and/or fraudulent and constitute despicable conduct that should have been known to, or were known to, subject Plaintiffs, and other families, to cruel and unjust hardship in conscious disregard for Plaintiffs’ rights.” (3AC, ¶¶146, 155, 164, 194, 205, 224.)

The Court finds, that for purposes of pleadings, construing the allegations liberally and presuming them to be true, as the Court must in the context of this motion to strike, Plaintiffs, have sufficiently pled facts to support their prayer for punitive damages against MSSNC. Accordingly, the motion to strike is DENIED.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV015815: CONGI, et al. vs DIGNITY HEALTH 06/24/2026 Hearing on Motion to Strike in Department 8A

Disposition

MSSNC’s motion to strike portions of the 3AC, regarding Plaintiffs’ prayer for punitive damages, and the related allegations, is DENIED.

The Court declines to rule on MSSNC’s evidentiary objections to Plaintiffs’ proffered evidence as they regarded evidence immaterial to the Court’s decision herein. The Court notes, that a motion to strike is limited to the face of the challenged pleading or any matter of which the Court may take judicial notice. (Code Civ. Proc., §437(a).)

To request oral argument on this matter, you must call Department 8a at 916-874-5754 by 4:00 p.m., the court day before this hearing and notification of oral argument must be made to the opposing party/counsel. If no call is made, the tentative ruling becomes the order of the court. (Local Rule 1.06.)

Please check your tentative ruling prior to the next Court date at www.saccourt.ca.gov prior to the above referenced hearing date.

If oral argument is requested, the parties may appear by Zoom with the links below:

To join by Zoom Link - https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/j/16108301121 To join by phone dial (833) 568-8864, ID 16108301121

Parties requesting services of a court reporter will need to arrange for private court reporter services at their own expense, pursuant to Government code section 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://saccourt.ca.gov/general-information/court-reporterservices-transcripts. Parties may contact Court-Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore by utilizing the list of Court Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore available at https://saccourt.ca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/227/639084034465370000.

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

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV015815: CONGI, et al. vs DIGNITY HEALTH 06/24/2026 Hearing on Motion to Strike in Department 8A

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

This minute order is effective immediately. Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312(a), no further written order or further notice is necessary.