DOE, et al. vs BHC SIERRA VISTA HOSPITAL, INC., A TENNESSEE CORPORATION, et al.

25CV018904: DOE, et al. vs BHC SIERRA VISTA HOSPITAL, INC., A TENNESSEE CORPORATION, et al. 08/11/2026 Hearing on Motion to Strike Portions of Plaintiffs' Complaint in Department 16C

Tentative Ruling

Defendant BHC Sierra Vista Hospital, Inc.’s (“Sierra Vista”) motion to strike portions of Plaintiffs’ complaint is ruled upon as follows.

Overview

In this action, seven Doe Plaintiffs (“Plaintiffs”) allege that they were sexually abused, harassed, and molested when they were minors while they were patients at Sierra Vista, which is a behavioral health facility. Plaintiffs allege that co-defendants Universal Health Services, Inc. and UHS of Delaware, Inc. (collectively, “UHS”) own Sierra Vista.[1] Plaintiffs allege that they were abused by Defendants’ staff members.

Plaintiffs allege that prior to the sexual assaults, Defendants knew that the perpetrators “had engaged in unlawful sexually related conduct with minors in the past, and/or w[ere] continuing to engage in such conduct. UHS and BHC had a duty to disclose these facts to Plaintiffs, their parents, and others, but suppressed, concealed, or failed to disclose this information. The duty to disclose this information arose by the special, trusting, confidential, fiduciary, and in loco parentis relationship between Defendants and Plaintiffs.” (Complaint, ¶ 50.)

Plaintiffs allege that prior to and during the sexual harassment, molestation and abuse of Plaintiffs, Defendants “knew or should have known that THE PERPETRATORS violated their roles as staff members, and used their positions of authority and trust acting on behalf [Defendants] to gain access to children, including Plaintiffs, on and off the medical and behavioral health facilities and grounds, to allow them to touch Plaintiffs in a sexual manner, and engaged in sexual conduct and abuse, including harassment and molestation, with such children including Plaintiffs.” (Complaint, ¶ 53.)

Plaintiffs allege that with this knowledge, “Defendants conspired to and did knowingly fail to take reasonable steps and failed to implement reasonable safeguards to avoid acts of unlawful sexual conduct in the future by THE PERPETRATORS, including preventing or avoiding placement of THE PERPETRATORS in a function or environment in which contact with children is an inherent aspect of that function or environment.” (Complaint, ¶ 54.)

Plaintiffs also allege that Defendants “failed to report and did hide and conceal from Plaintiffs, their parents/guardians, law enforcement authorities, civil authorities and others, the true facts and relevant information necessary to bring THE PERPETRATORS to justice for the sexual misconduct he [sic] committed with minors, as well as protect minors under their care, including Plaintiffs.” (Complaint, ¶ 55.) Plaintiffs further allege that Defendants implemented various measures designed to, or which effectively, made THE PERPETRATORS’ conduct harder to detect. (Complaint, ¶ 56.)

25CV018904: DOE, et al. vs BHC SIERRA VISTA HOSPITAL, INC., A TENNESSEE CORPORATION, et al. 08/11/2026 Hearing on Motion to Strike Portions of Plaintiffs' Complaint in Department 16C

Plaintiffs further allege that during the period of abuse, Defendants:

had the authority and ability to obstruct or stop THE PERPETRATORS’ sexual assaults on Plaintiffs, but failed to do so, thereby allowing the abuse to occur and to continue unabated. This failure was a part of UHS and BHC’s plan and arrangement to conceal wrongful acts, to avoid and inhibit detection, to block public disclosure, to avoid scandal, to avoid the disclosure of their tolerance of child sexual molestation and abuse, to preserve a false appearance of propriety, and to avoid investigation and action by public authority including law enforcement. Such actions were motivated by a desire to protect the reputation of UHS and BHC, and to protect the monetary support of Defendants while fostering an environment where such abuse could continue to occur.

(Complaint, ¶ 72.)

The complaint asserts the following thirteen causes of action: (1) negligence; (2) negligent supervision; (3) negligent hiring and/or retention; (4) negligent failure to warn, train, or educate; (5) sexual assault; (6) sexual battery; (7) intentional infliction of emotional distress; (8) sexual harassment (Civil Code § 51.9); (9) violation of the Unruh Act (Civil Code § 51); (10) violation of the Bane Act (Civil Code § 52.1); (11) gender violence (Civil Code § 52.4); (12) unfair business practices (Business & Professions Code § 17200); and (13) constructive fraud (Civil Code § 1573).[2]

UHS’ joinder to the motion to strike is GRANTED.

Defendants move to strike the following from the complaint:

• Page 2, lines 15-17: “The facility is owned by the notorious UHS. At UHS facilities, children have been treated inhumanely, physically abused, and sexually abused by staff members for decades.”

• Page 2, lines 19-21: “However, despite widespread reports, investigations, criminal convictions, and lawsuits, UHS’ culture of abuse at their facilities, including BHC, has continued to flourish with little to no changes made to safeguard its patient residents.”

• Page 3, line 19: “and/or punitive behavior”

• Page 3, line 22: “and/or punitive behavior”

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV018904: DOE, et al. vs BHC SIERRA VISTA HOSPITAL, INC., A TENNESSEE CORPORATION, et al. 08/11/2026 Hearing on Motion to Strike Portions of Plaintiffs' Complaint in Department 16C

• Page 3, line 23: “and/or punitive behavior”

• Page 6, lines 7-20: “UHS is a private behavioral health organization and the largest provider of behavioral health services in the United States. UHS owns and operates hospitals throughout the United States, the United Kingdom, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. The company, which is incorporated in Delaware and headquartered in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania, operates an Acute Care Division, which operates general hospitals, and the Behavioral Health Division, which operates inpatient and outpatient psychiatric facilities.

Through its subsidiaries, UHS operates 360 facilities. 27 of those facilities are Acute Care facilities; the remaining 333 facilities are managed by the Behavioral Health Division. In 2023 alone, UHS, through its network of subsidiaries, cared for nearly 3.6 million patients. The Behavioral Health Division served approximately 730,000 of those patients. Much of UHS’ child and adolescent business is on its residential side, treating children and young adults with advanced intellectual, developmental, mental health, and behavioral needs.

In addition, UHS accepts children with eating disorders, sexual trauma, sexual maladaptive behaviors, a history of trafficking, and substance use disorder. In 2023, UHS reported revenue of over $14 billion, of which $6.2 billion was generated by their Behavioral Health segment.”

• Page 6, lines 21 through page 7, line 8: “UNIVERSAL HEALTH SERVICES, INC. operates through its subsidiaries, including its administrative services company and subsidiary, UHS OF DELAWARE, INC. At all relevant times herein, UHS owned and/or operated residential treatment centers, psychiatric hospitals, supported living communities, and outpatient programs throughout California, where Plaintiffs, and many other individuals like Plaintiffs, were sexually abused, harassed, and molested, including, but not limited to, the following: Heritage Oaks Hospital, Sacramento, CA Foundations San Francisco, San Francisco, CA Fremont Hospital, Fremont, CA River Vista Behavioral Health, Madera, CA The Canyon at Santa Monica, Los Angeles, CA Reasons Eating Disorder Center, Rosemead, CA Canyon Ridge Hospital, Chino, CA Del Amo Behavioral Health Systems, Torrance, CA Thousand Branches Wellness- Mission Valley, San Diego, CA Michael’s House, Palm Springs, CA”

• Page 23, lines 7-11: “In subjecting Plaintiffs to the wrongful treatment herein described, Defendants acted willfully and maliciously with the intent to harm Plaintiffs, and in conscious disregard of Plaintiffs’ rights, so as to constitute malice and oppression under California Civil Code section 3294. Plaintiffs are

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV018904: DOE, et al. vs BHC SIERRA VISTA HOSPITAL, INC., A TENNESSEE CORPORATION, et al. 08/11/2026 Hearing on Motion to Strike Portions of Plaintiffs' Complaint in Department 16C

therefore entitled to the recovery of punitive damages, in an amount to be determined by the court, against Defendants, in a sum to be shown according to proof.”

• Page 33, lines 17-19: Defendants’ conduct described herein was intentional, malicious and done for the purpose of causing or with the substantial certainty that Plaintiffs would suffer humiliation, mental anguish, and emotional and physical distress.

• Page 33, lines 27 through page 34, line 5: “In subjecting the Plaintiffs to the wrongful treatment herein described, Defendants, acted willfully and maliciously with the intent to harm the Plaintiffs, and in conscious disregard of the Plaintiffs’ rights, so as to constitute malice and/or oppression under California Civil Code section 2 3294. Plaintiffs are informed, and on that basis allege, that these willful, malicious, and/or oppressive acts, as alleged herein above, were ratified by the officers, directors, and/or managing agents of Defendants. Plaintiffs are therefore entitled to recover punitive damages, in an amount to be determined by the court, against all Defendants.”

• Page 46, line 17: “For appropriate punitive or exemplary damages;”

• Page 46, lines 24-25: “For declaratory and injunctive relief, including but not limited to court supervision of UHS and BHC”

(Amended Notice of Motion, 2:25-5:3.)

Defendants move to strike the above allegations on the grounds that “(1) Plaintiff’s [sic] punitive damages claims are improper and unsupported by the allegations in the Complaint; (2) Plaintiff [sic] makes [sic] irrelevant, false, and improper allegations which should be stricken; and (3) Plaintiff’s [sic] request for declaratory and injunctive relief is improper and unsupported by the allegations of the complaint.” (Amended Notice of Motion. 2:4-8.)

Legal Standard

Under Code of Civil Procedure section 436, the court may “[s]trike out any irrelevant, false, or improper matter inserted in any pleading” as well as “all or part of any pleading not drawn or filed in conformity with the laws of this state.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 436, subds. (a) and (b).) The grounds for a motion to strike must appear on the face of the pleading under attack, or from matter which the court may judicially notice. (Code Civ. Proc. §437; CPF Agency Corp. v. R&S Towing Service (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 1014, 1032.)

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV018904: DOE, et al. vs BHC SIERRA VISTA HOSPITAL, INC., A TENNESSEE CORPORATION, et al. 08/11/2026 Hearing on Motion to Strike Portions of Plaintiffs' Complaint in Department 16C

Motions to strike are disfavored. Courts considering such motions must presume the allegations contained therein are true and must consider those allegations in context. (Clauson v. Superior Court (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 1253, 1255.) The use of the motion to strike should be cautious and sparing. It should not be a procedural “line item veto” for the civil defendant. (PH II, Inc. v. Superior Court (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1680, 1683.) An allegation that is not essential to the statement of a claim or defense is an immaterial allegation that is subject to be stricken as irrelevant matter. (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 431.10(b)(1), (c), 436(a).)

Punitive Damages

The motion to strike Plaintiffs’ punitive damages allegations from the IIED cause of action is DROPPED as moot since the Court has sustained Defendants’ demurrer to the cause of action.

To the extent Plaintiff seeks punitive damages with regard to the other causes of action in the complaint, the motion to strike is DENIED. Defendants argue that Plaintiffs fail to sufficiently allege that they acted with oppression, fraud, or malice, and fail to sufficiently allege that Defendants ratified the Perpetrators’ conduct, or that Defendants themselves were guilty of oppression. The Court finds that Plaintiffs’ allegations in paragraphs 50, 53-56 and 72 referenced above, are sufficient, at the pleading stage, to allege oppression, fraud, or malice. The Court also overruled Defendants’ demurrer on the grounds of respondeat superior theory of vicarious liability and ratification.

“Irrelevant, False, and Improper” Allegations

Defendants move to strike the allegations at Page 2, lines 15-17; Page 2, lines 19-21; Page 6, lines 7-20; and Page 6, lines 21 through page 7, line 8, on the grounds that Plaintiffs attempt to “vilify” Defendants, and “provide revenue and employment information, approximate employee count, and details about Defendants that in no way meaningfully advance this matter.” (Motion, 12:17-25.)

Plaintiffs argue in opposition that the allegations are:

directly relevant to establishing Defendants' advance knowledge of unfitness under California Civil Code § 3294, subdivision (b), as well as the foreseeability element of Plaintiffs' negligence claims. The allegations of a systemic “culture of abuse” at UHS facilities establish that Defendants, including Sierra Vista, are alleged to have had institutional notice of the dangerous propensities of their staff. Complaint, ¶¶ 2, 6. Striking these allegations would improperly deprive Plaintiffs of the factual context necessary to prove that Defendants, including Sierra Vista,

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV018904: DOE, et al. vs BHC SIERRA VISTA HOSPITAL, INC., A TENNESSEE CORPORATION, et al. 08/11/2026 Hearing on Motion to Strike Portions of Plaintiffs' Complaint in Department 16C

knew of the risks yet failed to protect the highly vulnerable minor patients in their care.

(Opposition, 8:11-18.)

Plaintiffs add that the allegations regarding Defendants’ corporate size, patient volume, and billions of dollars in revenue are relevant to Plaintiffs' claim for punitive damages and directly relevant to Defendants’ motive. Plaintiffs explain that “[b]y intentionally misleading vulnerable patients and their families about known dangers to protect their pecuniary interests, Defendants acted with conscious disregard for Plaintiffs' safety. The allegations regarding UHS's substantial revenue and corporate scale therefore provide factual support for Plaintiffs' theory that Defendants, including Sierra Vista, had a significant financial incentive to engage in the alleged concealment, making those allegations relevant not only to the amount of punitive damages but also to the existence of the malice that justifies such an award.”

The motion to strike is DENIED. The Court is not persuaded by Defendants’ argument that the allegations are “false, improper, or irrelevant.”

Declaratory and Injunctive Relief

Defendants argue that the declaratory and injunctive relief in Plaintiffs’ prayer for relief should be stricken because:

[t]his is Plaintiffs’ first and only request for injunctive relief. “In order for a party to pursue an action for declaratory relief, the grounds for such relief must be specifically pleaded in the complaint.[”] See Davis v. Farmers Ins. Exchange (2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 1302, 1325, as modified on denial of reh’g (Apr. 21, 2016). Plaintiffs have already voluntarily dismissed any claim that could permit such relief. To the extent that Plaintiffs’ request for injunctive relief relates to any other cause of action, it should be dismissed.

(Motion, 13:24-14:2.)

The motion to strike is DENIED. Defendants cite to Davis v. Farmers, supra, 245 Cal.App.4th 1302, for the request for declaratory relief; however, Defendants’ argument fails to provide any analysis as to why the request for injunctive relief should be stricken.

This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order or other notice is required. (Code Civ. Proc. §1019.5; CRC Rule 3.1312.)

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV018904: DOE, et al. vs BHC SIERRA VISTA HOSPITAL, INC., A TENNESSEE CORPORATION, et al. 08/11/2026 Hearing on Motion to Strike Portions of Plaintiffs' Complaint in Department 16C

Moving counsel’s notice of motion does not provide notice of the Court’s tentative ruling system, as required by Local Rule 1.06. Moving counsel is directed to contact Plaintiffs’ counsel and UHS’ counsel and advise counsel of Local Rule 1.06 and the Court’s tentative ruling procedure and the manner to request a hearing. If moving counsel is unable to contact Plaintiffs’ counsel and UHS’ counsel prior to hearing, moving counsel is ordered to appear at the hearing.

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 Department 16C Oral Argument Request Line at (916) 874-1475 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 16C Zoom Link is https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/j/16030877014 and the Zoom Meeting ID is 160 3087 7014. 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 on the Court Reporter Services webpage available on the Sacramento Superior Court website at https://saccourt.ca.gov/general-information/court-reporter-services-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

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV018904: DOE, et al. vs BHC SIERRA VISTA HOSPITAL, INC., A TENNESSEE CORPORATION, et al. 08/11/2026 Hearing on Motion to Strike Portions of Plaintiffs' Complaint in Department 16C

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

[1] Sierra Vista and UHS are collectively referred to herein as “Defendants.” [2] On September 15, 2025, Plaintiffs filed a Request for Dismissal with this Court seeking

dismissal of their causes of action for Violations of the Unruh Act (Count 9), Bane Act (Count 10), Unfair Business Practices (Count 11), and Constructive Fraud (Count 12). On July 14, 2026, the Court overruled Defendants’ demurrer to the sexual harassment (Civil Code § 51.9) and sustained with leave to amend the demurrer to the Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress cause of action.