Catherine Moseley Jackson, in her individual capacity and as successor-in-interest to the Estate of Blair Moseley vs. BHC Sierra Vista Hospital, Inc.

34-2022-00331719-CU-PO-GDS: Catherine Moseley Jackson, in her individual capacity and as successor-in-interest to the Estate of Blair Moseley vs. BHC Sierra Vista Hospital, Inc. 08/06/2024 Hearing on Demurrer 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

34-2022-00331719-CU-PO-GDS: Catherine Moseley Jackson, in her individual capacity and as successor-in-interest to the Estate of Blair Moseley vs. BHC Sierra Vista Hospital, Inc. 08/06/2024 Hearing on Demurrer in Department 53

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

TENTATIVE RULING: Defendant BHC Sierra Vista Hospital, Inc.’s (“Sierra Vista”) demurrer to Plaintiffs Catherine Moseley Jackson (“Jackson”), Lester Burnette (“Burnette”), and Brandon Moseley Williams (“Williams”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) in their individual capacity and as successor-in-interest to the estate of Blair Moseley’s third amended complaint (“TAC”) is ruled upon as follows.

This action arises out of the circumstances of Blair Moseley’s (“Decedent”) death. Decedent was a young woman with a history of psychiatric issues. (TAC ¶ 10.) In late March 2022, Decedent was placed on an involuntary psychiatric hold following a mental health. (TAC ¶ 23.) She was transferred to a hospital operated by Sierra Vista to continue her mental health and physical treatment. (TAC ¶ 24.) The TAC avers that during that time Decedent’s mother, Plaintiff Jackson contacted Sierra Vista to speak to Decedent and/or her assigned case manager but was provided with no response. (TAC ¶ 25.)

Despite multiple attempts from family members to speak to Decedent while she was hospitalized at Sierra Vista, Jackson was unable to speak to her daughter. (TAC ¶¶ 25-27.) On April 19, 2022, Jackson was informed that Decedent was no longer at Sierra Vista and that Jackson should file a missing person’s report. (TAC ¶ 28.) That same day, Decedent’s brother, Plaintiff Williams attempted to reach Decedent at Sierra Vista and was informed that she was no longer there and that Sierra Vista did not know to where she had been released. (TAC ¶ 29.)

Thereafter, a case manager at Sierra Vista informed Williams that Decedent was transferred from Sierra Vista to Defendant Turning Point Community Programs (“Turning Point”), which operates a Crisis Residential Program. (TAC ¶¶ 32-33.)

On April 24, 2022, Jackson was informed by the Sacramento County Coroner that Decedent had died after being struck by a car on Interstate 5. (TAC ¶ 31.)

Plaintiffs bring the following causes of action against Defendants Turning Point, Sierra Vista, and Dr. Le, the psychiatrist who discharged Decedent from Sierra Vista: (1) wrongful death/professional negligence, (2) general negligence, (3) fraud/intentional misrepresentation, (4) negligent misrepresentation, (5) and violations of the Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult Civil Protective Act.

Sierra Vista demurs to the first, third, fourth and fifth causes of action. The Court will

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2022-00331719-CU-PO-GDS: Catherine Moseley Jackson, in her individual capacity and as successor-in-interest to the Estate of Blair Moseley vs. BHC Sierra Vista Hospital, Inc. 08/06/2024 Hearing on Demurrer in Department 53

address the arguments in the order presented in the moving papers.

A demurrer “tests the pleadings alone and not the evidence or other extrinsic matters.” (SKF Farms v. Superior Court (1984) 153 Cal.App.3d 902, 905.) The purpose of a demurrer is to test the legal sufficiency of a claim. (Donabedian v. Mercury Ins. Co. (2004) 116 Cal. App. 4th 968, 994.) For the purpose of determining the effect of a complaint, its allegations are liberally construed, with a view toward substantial justice. (CCP § 452; Amarel v. Connell (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 137, 140-141; Quelimane Co. v.

Stewart Title Guaranty Co. (1998) 19 Cal.4th 26, 43, fn. 7.) The Court treats the demurrer as admitting all material facts properly pleaded, but not contentions, deductions or conclusions of fact or law, and considers matters which may be judicially noticed. (Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d at 318; Poseidon Development, Inc. v. Woodland Lane Estates, LLC (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 1106, 1111-1112.) A general demurrer does not admit contentions, deductions, or conclusions of fact or law alleged in the complaint; facts impossible in law; or allegations contrary to facts of which a court may take judicial notice. (Blank, supra, 39 Cal. 3d at 318, William S.

Hart Union High School Dist. v. Regional Planning Com. (1991) 226 Cal. App. 3d 1612, 1616 fn.2.) Extrinsic evidence may not properly be considered on demurrer or on a motion to strike. (Ion Equipment Corp. v. Nelson (1980) 110 Cal. App. 3d 868, 881; Hibernia Savings & Loan Soc. v. Thornton (1897) 117 Cal. 481, 482.)

A demurrer may be sustained only if the complaint lacks any sufficient allegations to entitle the plaintiff to relief. (Financial Corp. of America v. Wilburn (1987) 189 Cal. App. 3d 764, 778.) “Plaintiff need only plead facts showing that he may be entitled to some relief . . ., we are not concerned with plaintiff's possible inability or difficulty in proving the allegations of the complaint.” (Highlanders, Inc. v. Olsan (1978) 77 Cal. App. 3d 690, 696-697.) “[Courts] are required to construe the complaint liberally to determine whether a cause of action has been stated, given the assumed truth of the facts pleaded.” (Picton v.

Anderson Union High School Dist. (1996) 50 Cal. App. 4th 726.) A demurrer admits the truth of all material facts properly pled and the sole issue raised by a general demurrer is whether the facts pled state a valid cause of action - not whether they are true. (Serrano v. Priest (1971) 5 Cal. 3d 584, 591.)

Third and Fourth Causes of Action (Fraudulent/Intentional Misrepresentation and Negligent Misrepresentation)

Sierra Vista’s demurrer is overruled.

The elements of fraud “are (a) misrepresentation (false representation, concealment, or nondisclosure); (b) knowledge of falsity (or ‘scienter’); (c) intent to defraud, i.e., to

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2022-00331719-CU-PO-GDS: Catherine Moseley Jackson, in her individual capacity and as successor-in-interest to the Estate of Blair Moseley vs. BHC Sierra Vista Hospital, Inc. 08/06/2024 Hearing on Demurrer in Department 53

induce reliance; (d) justifiable reliance; and (e) resulting damage.” (Lazar v. Superior Court (1996) 12 Cal.4th 631, 638.) A failure to disclose a material fact can constitute actionable fraud. (Collins v eMachines, Inc. (2011) 202 Cal.App.4th 249, 255.) When pleading a claim for fraud/negligent misrepresentation, each and every element must be alleged, “and the facts constituting the fraud must be alleged with sufficient specificity to allow defendant to understand fully the nature of the charge made.” (Stansfield v. Starkey (1990) 220 Cal.App.3d 59, 73; Cadlo v Owens-Illinois, lnc. (2004) 125 Cal.App.4th 513, 519 [stating that “[e]ach element in a cause of action for fraud or negligent misrepresentation must be factually and specifically alleged”].)

While fraud must be plead with specificity, this particularity requirement is less stringent in cases of nondisclosure. (Alfaro v. Community Housing Improvement System & Planning Assn., Inc. (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 1356, 1384.) “Less specificity should be required of fraud claims when it appears from the nature of the allegations that the defendant must necessarily possess full information concerning the facts of the controversy [citation]; even under the strict rules of common law pleading, one of the cannons was that less particularly is required when the facts lie more in the knowledge of the opposite party.” (Ibid.)

A Plaintiff asserting a concealment theory will “not be able to specify the time, place, and specific content of an omission as precisely as would Plaintiffs in a false representation claim.” (Falk v. General Motors Corporation (N.D.Cal. 2007) 496 F.Supp.2d 1088, 1098-99.) Such a claim “can succeed without the same level of specificity required by a normal fraud claim.” (Id.)

Plaintiffs allege that Sierra Vista’s actions constituted a misrepresentation of material fact, concealment of material fact, and/or a false promise. (TAC ¶110.)

More specifically, Plaintiffs allege that Sierra Vista made false and misleading statements to Plaintiff Williams who attempted to obtain information about the Decedent and also that Sierra Vista concealed facts. (TAC ¶ 109.) As noted above, Plaintiffs allege that Plaintiff Jackson contacted Sierra Vista to speak to Decedent and/or her assigned case manager but was provided with no response. (Id. ¶¶ 25, 112.) Despite multiple attempts from family members to speak to Decedent while she was hospitalized at Sierra Vista, Plaintiff Jackson was unable to speak to her daughter. (Id. ¶¶ 25-27, 113.)

Plaintiffs allege that on April 18, 2022, “Audrey” at Sierra Vista confirmed to Plaintiff Jackson that the Decedent was still at Sierra Vista and that she would pass a message along to the Decedent. Plaintiffs allege that not only did Jackson not receive a call back but that the Decedent was no longer at Sierra Vista during this time. (Id. ¶ 113.) On April 19, 2022, Plaintiff Jackson was informed that Decedent was no longer at Sierra Vista and that Plaintiff Jackson should file a missing person’s report. (Id. ¶¶ 28, 114.)

That same day, Decedent’s brother, Plaintiff Williams attempted to reach

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2022-00331719-CU-PO-GDS: Catherine Moseley Jackson, in her individual capacity and as successor-in-interest to the Estate of Blair Moseley vs. BHC Sierra Vista Hospital, Inc. 08/06/2024 Hearing on Demurrer in Department 53

Decedent at Sierra Vista and was informed that she was no longer there and that Sierra Vista did not know to where she had been released. (Id. ¶¶ 29, 114.)

Plaintiffs also allege that Sierra Vista’s Discharge Safety Plan for the Decedent incorrectly stated that Plaintiff Williams was contacted as the Decedent’s “support person” and reported that the Decedent did not have access to “prescription medications,” “lethal medications and/or other means of self-harm.” (TAC ¶ 115.) Plaintiffs allege this was false because Plaintiff Williams was never contacted by Sierra Vista to verify the information. (Id.) Plaintiffs allege that the Social Services Discharge Summary falsely stated that the Decedent had no one on her Release of Information (“ROI”) to confirm safety and that the Decedent’s son is on the ROI. Yet, Plaintiffs allege that the Decedent had no children and that Plaintiff Williams, her brother, was listed on the ROI. (Id. ¶ 116.)

Plaintiffs allege that Sierra Vista’s authorized representative Case Manager Melinda concealed from Plaintiffs that the Decedent was actually discharged on April 12, 2022, until it was too late. They allege that Melinda falsely promised to Plaintiff Jackson on April 8, 2022, that she could speak to the Decedent and that other representatives misrepresented to Plaintiff Jackson that they did not know where the Decedent was when they knew the Decedent had been transferred to Turning Point. (TAC ¶¶ 117- 118.) Plaintiffs allege that Sierra Vista’s authorized representative Audrey misrepresented to Plaintiff Jackson on April 18, 2022, that she would pass a message along to the Decedent even though the Decedent had already been transferred to Turning Point. (Id. ¶ 118.)

Sierra Vista first argues that it had no legal duty to disclose to Plaintiffs anything about the Decedent’s condition or her location. Similar to the argument which the Court rejected in ruling on Turning Point’s demurrer to these causes of action on July 25, 2024, Sierra Vista argues that as a medical healthcare provider, it is legally and ethically required to maintain confidential patient information and documents such that Plaintiffs’ requested disclosure would violate both state and federal privacy rights.

Sierra Vista argues that only Plaintiff Williams was listed on the ROI and thus only he was entitled to receive any information about the Decedent, and yet Plaintiff Jackson continues to allege these causes of action against Sierra Vista. Sierra Vista points to the Court’s ruling on the demurrer to the first amended complaint which found that Plaintiffs had not alleged any facts showing that Sierra Vista had any duty to disclose information. However, the Court’s ruling sustaining Sierra Vista’s demurrer to these two causes of action simply stated that “as Mr.

Williams is not a plaintiff in this action, Defendant’s demurrer to the third and fourth causes of action is SUSTAINED on the ground that the FAC fails to allege that Defendant owed a legal duty to Plaintiffs sufficient to support

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2022-00331719-CU-PO-GDS: Catherine Moseley Jackson, in her individual capacity and as successor-in-interest to the Estate of Blair Moseley vs. BHC Sierra Vista Hospital, Inc. 08/06/2024 Hearing on Demurrer in Department 53

Plaintiffs’ claims for fraud and negligent concealment. Leave to amend will be granted as this is the first challenge to the pleadings and it appears that Plaintiffs can correct this deficiency simply by naming Mr. Williams as a plaintiff together with his parents.” (Minute Order 8/4/23 at p.7.) The Court did not, as Sierra Vista claims, rule that Sierra Vista was statutorily prohibited from releasing information to Plaintiff Jackson. Plaintiffs have since added Plaintiff Williams to the action.

Further, the Court notes that even without the addition of Plaintiff Williams to the TAC, the claims are sufficient. Indeed, to the extent that Sierra Vista claims that it owed no duty to disclose any information to Plaintiff Jackson who was not listed on the Decedent’s ROI, Plaintiff Jackson is also alleging that Sierra Vista, through its authorized representatives, made affirmative misrepresentations to her that the Decedent was still at Sierra Vista when she was not and also that Jackson would be able to speak with the Decedent.

Indeed, Plaintiffs allege that Sierra Vista contacted Plaintiff Jackson on April 6, 2022, and directed her to contact Case Manager Melinda. (TAC ¶ 26.) The Court’s previous ruling did not address these allegations, or this theory in any meaningful manner. Indeed, a defendant may be under a duty to disclose for purposes of a fraudulent concealment action “(1) when the defendant is in a fiduciary relationship with the plaintiff; (2) when the defendant had exclusive knowledge of material facts not known to the plaintiff; (3) when the defendant actively conceals a material fact from the plaintiff; and (4) when the defendant makes partial representations but also suppresses some material facts.” (LiMandri v.

Judkins (1997) 52 Cal.App.4th 326, 336.) At a minimum, there are allegations that Sierra Vista made partial disclosures to Plaintiff Jackson regarding the Decedent while suppressing material facts, which gives rise to a duty to disclose. Any privacy concerns do not protect Sierra Vista from voluntarily providing false information to Plaintiffs. Moreover, as to Plaintiff Jackson, the cause of action could be construed as being premised on misrepresentations which do not depend on a duty to disclose.

Sierra Vista also argues that it had no duty to disclose anything to Plaintiff Williams even though he was identified on the ROI. Sierra Vista provided no authority supporting the proposition that it had no duty under the circumstances to make disclosures regarding the Decedent’s location, to an individual identified on the Decedent’s ROI, when there are allegations that Sierra Vista’s representative informed him that “Case Manager Melinda should have called him prior to the [Decedent’s] discharge since he was clearly listed on her ROI.” (TAC ¶ 114.) The Court finds that Sierra Vista failed to demonstrate that the TAC does not allege facts showing that it owed a duty to Plaintiff Williams under the circumstances set forth above.

In addition, Sierra Vista fails to address any of the allegations regarding the statements

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2022-00331719-CU-PO-GDS: Catherine Moseley Jackson, in her individual capacity and as successor-in-interest to the Estate of Blair Moseley vs. BHC Sierra Vista Hospital, Inc. 08/06/2024 Hearing on Demurrer in Department 53

alleged to be false in the Discharge Safety Plan or Social Services Discharge Summary discussed above. Plaintiffs allege that Sierra Vista made false statements in these documents. Sierra Vista makes no argument that these allegations are insufficient to support the fraud/negligent misrepresentation causes of action. That alone would be a sufficient basis on which to overrule the demurrer.

Sierra Vista next argues that nothing was concealed, suppressed, or misrepresented as to Plaintiff Williams because on April 19, 2022, a representative told him that the Decedent had been discharged and that Case Manager Melinda should know where the Decedent was. Sierra Vista also points to the allegation that Plaintiff Williams was told by Melinda on April 25, 2022, that the Decedent was discharged to Turning Point on April 12, 2022. Thus, Sierra Vista argues that Plaintiff Williams was informed of the discharge and the location.

The Court rejects this argument. Plaintiffs allege that the Decedent died on April 24, 2022, after Plaintiff Williams was informed by Sierra Vista of the discharge. The allegations of the TAC make clear that the true facts of the discharge were concealed from Plaintiffs until it “was too late.” (TAC ¶ 117) The Court rejects the argument that there was no concealment, suppression, or misrepresentation as to Plaintiff Williams, or any of the Plaintiffs.

Sierra Vista also argues that Plaintiffs fail to allege any wrongful death damages caused by its conduct. Sierra Vista asserts that there is no causal connection between the Decedent leaving Turning Point and being hit by a car because, for example, the Decedent had already been discharged when any misrepresentation was made. The Court rejects this argument which is an inherently factual one. Plaintiffs alleged that they “justifiably relied on the numerous representations of Defendants. Had Plaintiffs known about [the Decedent’s] whereabouts, treatment status and progress, they would have taken necessary steps to prevent her tragic, untimely death.” (TAC ¶ 127.)

They alleged they suffered loss of companionship, love, comfort, and more as a result. Whether or not there is a causal connection between Sierra Vista’s conduct and the Decedent’s death cannot be resolved on demurrer. Plaintiffs have alleged such a connection. The Court must stress that causation is generally a question of fact that cannot be resolved on demurrer. (Alejo v. City of Alhambra (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 1180, 1190.) “A plaintiff need not plead evidentiary facts supporting the allegation of ultimate fact.” (Birke v.

Oakwood Worldwide (2009) 169 Cal.App.4th 1540, 1548.) Further, “[u]nder well established principles, general allegations of proximate causation and resulting damages suffice to state a cause of action.” (Hoyem v. Manhattan Beach City Sch. Dist. (1978) 22 Cal.3d 508, 514.) Plaintiffs have done so here. For the first time in reply, Sierra Vista argues that Plaintiffs failed to allege any damages for a survival claim under CCP § 377.34(a) because such damages are limited to the loss or damage suffered by the decedent.

However, these causes of action are not survivor claims but

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2022-00331719-CU-PO-GDS: Catherine Moseley Jackson, in her individual capacity and as successor-in-interest to the Estate of Blair Moseley vs. BHC Sierra Vista Hospital, Inc. 08/06/2024 Hearing on Demurrer in Department 53

are wrongful death claims.

Sierra Vista does not specifically discuss the causes of action in connection with Plaintiff Burnette and thus the Court need not set forth any separate analysis in that regard. Indeed, it is not until reply, that Sierra Vista first contends that it did not owe Burnette a duty. (Rep. 3:24-25.) In fact, the opening memorandum argues that Sierra Vista did not owe a duty to Plaintiff Jackson, and asked that the demurrer be sustained as to Plaintiff Jackson, with no mention of Burnette. (Memo. 4:23-5:7.) Regardless, even if Sierra Vista had mentioned Burnette, once again, the demurrer failed to address the allegations regarding the misrepresentations in the Discharge Safety Plan or Social Services Discharge Summary.

Sierra Vista’s demurrer to the third and fourth causes of action is overruled.

Fifth Cause of Action (Elder Abuse)

Sierra Vista’s demurrer is sustained without leave to amend as to this order.

Sierra Vista argues that Plaintiffs added this cause of action to the TAC without court approval.

Plaintiffs’ first amended complaint contained four (4) causes of action: wrongful death/professional negligence, general negligence, fraud/intentional misrepresentation, and negligence misrepresentation. Sierra Vista demurred to all causes of action against it in the FAC. The Court sustained Sierra Vista’s demurrer to the third and fourth causes of action, with leave to amend. (Minute Order 8/4/23.) The Court did not grant leave to add any new cause of action in its ruling on the prior demurrer.

The Court specifically ruled that Sierra Vista’s demurrer was “SUSTAINED with leave to amend as to the third and fourth causes of action.” (Minute Order 8/4/23 at p.7.) Following an order sustaining a demurrer the plaintiff may amend his or her complaint only as authorized by the court’s order.” (Harris v. Wachovia Mortg. (2010) 185 Cal.App.4th 1018, 1023.) Addition of a new cause of action is appropriate after a demurrer has been sustained with leave to amend where it “directly responds to the court’s reason for sustaining the earlier demurrer.” (Patrick v.

Alacer Corp. (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 995, 1015 [sustaining demurrer to causes of action added that exceeded the scope of the court’s order].) Absent an express statement of leave by the trial court to add entirely new causes of action, when a demurrer is sustained with leave to amend, that leave is properly construed as permission to amend the causes of action as to which the demurrer was sustained. (People ex rel. Dept. Pub. Wks. v. Clausen (1967) 248 Cal.App.2d 770, 785). Plaintiffs were required to seek leave to amend to add the fifth

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2022-00331719-CU-PO-GDS: Catherine Moseley Jackson, in her individual capacity and as successor-in-interest to the Estate of Blair Moseley vs. BHC Sierra Vista Hospital, Inc. 08/06/2024 Hearing on Demurrer in Department 53

cause of action.

Sierra Vista’s demurrer as to the fifth cause of action is sustained on this basis alone. The Court does not address the sufficiency of the allegations in the fifth cause of action as it is not properly before the court. If Plaintiffs seeks to add a new cause of action, they must move for leave to do so.

Plaintiff Williams’ Standing to Sue

Sierra Vista lastly argues that Plaintiff Williams lacks standing to assert a wrongful death cause of action. It contends that only the Decedent’s parents are permitted to bring such an action under CCP § 377.60.

CCP § 377.60 sets forth who is entitled to assert a wrongful death cause of action. “A cause of action for the death of a person caused by the wrongful act or neglect of another may be asserted by any of the following persons or by the decedent’s personal representative on their behalf:

(a) The decedent’s surviving spouse, domestic partner, children, and issue of deceased children, or, if there is no surviving issue of the decedent, the persons, including the surviving spouse or domestic partner, who would be entitled to the property of the decedent by intestate succession. If the parents of the decedent would be entitled to bring an action under this subdivision, and the parents are deceased, then the legal guardians of the decedent, if any, may bring an action under this subdivision as if they were the decedent’s parents.” (CCP § 377.60(a).)

“Wrongful death actions are creatures of statute and the right to maintain such an action is afforded only by the Legislature.” (Lewis v. Reg'l Ctr. of the E. Bay (1985) 174 Cal. App. 3d 350, 355.) “The category of persons eligible to bring wrongful death actions is strictly construed.” (Marks v. Lyerla (1991) 1 Cal. App. 4th 556, 560 [overruled on other grounds by 1992 amendment to CCP § 377.60].) “Because the right to sue for wrongful death damages is strictly a creature of statute and exists only so far and in favor of such persons as the Legislature has declared [citation omitted], ‘standing’ among multiple claimants is determined by statutory rank.” (Nelson v.

County of Los Angeles (2003) 113 Cal. App. 4th 783, 789.) In addition, a wrongful death plaintiff must plead and prove standing. (Id.) “[T]he wrongful death statute incorporates the Probate Code's intestacy chain of succession to determine proper plaintiffs ” (Scott v. Thompson (2010) 184 Cal. App. 4th 1506, 1514.) To that end, Probate Code § 6402(b) indicates that absent a surviving spouse, domestic partner, or issue, the decedent’s estate passes to “the

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2022-00331719-CU-PO-GDS: Catherine Moseley Jackson, in her individual capacity and as successor-in-interest to the Estate of Blair Moseley vs. BHC Sierra Vista Hospital, Inc. 08/06/2024 Hearing on Demurrer in Department 53

decedent’s parent or parents equally.” The estate only passes to the issue of the parents if there are no surviving parents. (Prob. Code § 6402(c).)

Here, Plaintiffs allege that they are “entitled to bring an action for the wrongful death of [the Decedent] pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 377.60 as the surviving parents and sibling of [the Decedent].” (TAC ¶ 2.) While this allegation is sufficient for Plaintiffs Jackson and Burnette, it is deficient with respect to Plaintiff Williams. CCP § 377.60 makes clear that standing is determined by the rules of intestate succession and that Plaintiff Williams would only be entitled to succeed to the Decedent’s estate in the event that the Decedent had no surviving parents. This is not the case here.

The Court notes that CCP § 377.60(b) states that a person has standing to bring a wrongful death action “[w]hether or not qualified under subdivision (a), if they were dependent on the decedent, the putative spouse, children of the putative spouse, stepchildren, parents, or the legal guardians of the decedent if the parents are deceased.” Plaintiff Williams has not alleged that he was dependent on the Decedent.

Plaintiffs fail entirely to address the above arguments other that stating that they added Plaintiff Williams pursuant to the Court’s ruling on Sierra Vista’s demurrer to the FAC. However, this did not relieve them of the obligation to allege facts showing Plaintiff Williams’ standing. The Court does note, as indicated above, that it does not believe that Plaintiff Williams’ addition to the third and fourth causes of action was ultimately necessary in order for the other Plaintiffs to assert those causes of action. Thus, the ruling on the demurrer based on Plaintiff Williams’ standing does not affect the ruling on the demurrer to the third and fourth causes of action set forth above.

In summary, the demurrer is overruled as to the third and fourth causes of action. The demurrer is sustained without leave to amend as to the fifth cause of action. To the extent that Plaintiffs seek to assert an Elder Abuse cause of action they must seek leave to amend. Finally, the demurrer is sustained as to Plaintiff Williams on the basis that he has failed to allege facts showing standing.

Where leave was given, Plaintiffs may file and serve a fourth amended complaint no later than August 20, 2024. Defendant shall file and serve its response within 30 days thereafter, 35 days if the amended complaint is served by mail as modified by the CCP 430.41 extension if necessary.

The minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to CRC Rule 3.1312 or further notice is required.