CARR v. 7-ELEVEN, INC. ET AL.

Hyon (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 1489, 1509.) Mere allegations of wrongful, willful, knowing conduct are conclusory and insufficient to plead punitive damages. (G.D. Searle & Co. v. Superior Court (1975) 49 Cal.App.3d 22, 32.)

When the defendant is a corporation, "the oppression, fraud, or malice must be perpetrated, authorized, or knowingly ratified by an officer, director, or managing agent of the corporation." (Wilson v. Southern California Edison Company ¿(2015) 234 Cal.App.4th 123, 164; see Civ. Code Sec. 3294(b).)¿¿ That requirement can be satisfied " 'if the evidence permits a clear and convincing inference that within the corporate hierarchy authorized persons acted despicably in "willful and conscious disregard of the rights or safety of others." ' [Citation.]" (Morgan v.

J-M Manufacturing Company, Inc. (2021) 60 Cal.App.5th 1078, 1090 (Morgan).) A plaintiff also "can satisfy the 'managing agent' requirement 'through evidence showing the information in the possession of the corporation and the structure of management decision making that permits an inference that the information in fact moved upward to a point where corporate policy was formulated.' [Citation.]" (Id. at p. 1091.)

Plaintiffs allege Mar and Sun Meridian "dictated and controlled" Defendant Sunny, exercising "direct and pervasive control" over staffing levels, resource allocation, training protocols, census targets, and cost-containment measures. (SAC P. 7.) Plaintiffs further allege Defendants imposed unrealistically low staffing budgets, creating circumstances where "basic custodial care, such as monitoring residents for safety measures to prevent falls and other injuries, was routinely and foreseeably neglected." (SAC P. 8.)

Plaintiffs also allege Moving Defendants knew of substandard conditions and regulatory deficiencies repeatedly issued by the California Department of Public Health against SUNNY and despite this knowledge, "ratified, endorsed, and perpetuated the very practices that placed vulnerable residents such as GARCIA at grave risk." (SAC P. 9.) Finally, Plaintiffs allege Defendants "by and through their corporate officers, directors, and managing agents, presently unknown to Plaintiff and according to proof at the time of trial, ratified the misconduct alleged herein in that they were aware of the understaffing of their hospitals and skilled nursing facilities." (SAC P. 17.)

The Court finds these allegations to be sufficient to demonstrate reckless disregard.

Conclusion

Defendants' Demurrer is OVERRULED. Defendants' Motion to Strike is DENIED.

CARR v. 7-ELEVEN, INC. ET AL. CASE NO.: 25NWCV02188 HEARING: Tuesday, September 8, 2026, at 9:30 AM Plaintiff DR. FIRPO WYCOFF CARR, PhD's Motion to Compel

Defendant RAVINDER SINGH's Further Responses to Request for Admissions, Set One is CONTINUED to Wednesday, October 21, 2026, at 9:30 AM in Dept. SE-R.

Background

Moving Party to give notice. On June 17, 2025, Plaintiff DR. FIRPO WYCOFF CARR, PhD ("Plaintiff") filed this action against Defendants 7-ELEVEN, FRANCHISE; RAVINDER SINGH ("Singh" or "Defendant"); and John Doe. Plaintiff's Compliant assets the following causes of action: (1) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress; (2) Violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act; (3) Defamation; (4) Negligence; (5) Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress; and (6) Vicarious Liability On April 28, 2026, Plaintiff filed the instant motion to Compel Defendant RAVINDER SINGH's Further Responses to Request for Admissions, Set One.

Compel Further The Court is not persuaded that counsel and Dr. Carr have exhausted their meet and confer obligations pursuant to the Code. Counsel are advised that their meet and confer efforts should go beyond merely sending letters stating their respective positions. (See Townsend v. Superior Court (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 1431, 1439.) "A determination of whether an attempt at informal resolution is adequate...involves the exercise of discretion. The level of effort at an informal resolution which satisfies the 'reasonable and good faith attempt' standard depends upon the circumstances.

In a larger, more complex discovery request, a greater effort at informal resolution may be warranted. In a simpler, or more narrowly focused case, a more modest effort may suffice. The history of the litigation, the nature of the interaction between counsel, the nature of the issues, the type and scope of the discovery requested, the prospects for success and other similar factors can be relevant. Judges have broad powers and responsibilities to determine what measures and procedures are appropriate in varying circumstances." (Obregon v.

Sup. Ct. (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 424, 431.)

Counsel and Dr. Carr are ORDERED to make further efforts to resolve the issues presented. If, after exhausting those efforts, court intervention is needed, counsel may appear and argue the merits on the continued hearing date. If counsel are unable to informally resolve their discovery disputes, then counsel are instructed to submit a JOINT STATEMENT outlining the remaining disputed issues for which a ruling is required. The joint statement must be FILED on or before Friday, October 9, 2026. | Home -->)" -->