This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 08/09/2022 at 06:04:00 (UTC).

MARYLOU FREER, BY AND THROUGH HER SUCCESSOR-IN-INTEREST, ROSALINDA STUART, ET AL. VS EMANATE HEALTH FOOTHILL PRESBYTERIAN HOSPITAL, ET AL.

Case Summary

On 07/06/2020 MARYLOU FREER, BY AND THROUGH HER SUCCESSOR-IN-INTEREST, ROSALINDA STUART filed a Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury lawsuit against EMANATE HEALTH FOOTHILL PRESBYTERIAN HOSPITAL. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are MAURICE A. LEITER and ANTHONY MOHR. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.
Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *******5210

  • Filing Date:

    07/06/2020

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

ANTHONY MOHR

MAURICE A. LEITER

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs

HER SUCCESSOR-IN-INTEREST ROSALINDA STUART MARYLOU FREER BY AND THROUGH

STUART INDIVIDUALLY ROSALINDA

Defendants

THC - ORANGE COUNTY LLC DBA KINDRED HOSPITAL ONTARIO

EMANATE HEALTH FOOTHILL PRESBYTERIAN HOSPITAL

EMANATE HEALTH MEDICAL CENTER DBA EMANATE HEALTH INTER-COMMUNITY HOSPITAL

THC - ORANGE COUNTY LLC DBA KINDRED HOSPITAL BREA

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SPECIALTY CARE LLC DBA DBA KINDRED HOSPITAL - SAN GABRIEL VALLEY

KND DEVELOPMENT 55 LLC DBA KINDRED HOSPITAL RANCHO

FOOTHILL NURSING COMPANY PARTNERSHIP DBA GLENDORA CANYON TRANSITIONAL CARE UNIT

THC - ORANGE COUNTY LLC DBA KINDRED HOSPITAL BREA DBA KINDRED HOSPITAL BREA

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

PECK SPENCER ELIOT

Defendant Attorneys

NGUYEN JENNY TRANG

NGUYEN MAI

MKRTCHYAN KARINE

 

Court Documents

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (POST-MEDIATION STATUS CONFERENCE)

5/3/2022: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (POST-MEDIATION STATUS CONFERENCE)

Answer - ANSWER SECOND AMENDED

4/1/2022: Answer - ANSWER SECOND AMENDED

Reply - REPLY MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER TO DEFENDANT EMANATE HEALTH FOOTHILL PRESBYTERIAN HOSPITALS AMENDED ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

2/25/2022: Reply - REPLY MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER TO DEFENDANT EMANATE HEALTH FOOTHILL PRESBYTERIAN HOSPITALS AMENDED ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON DEMURRER - WITHOUT MOTION TO STRIKE)

3/4/2022: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON DEMURRER - WITHOUT MOTION TO STRIKE)

Notice of Ruling

3/10/2022: Notice of Ruling

Opposition - OPPOSITION TO DEMURRER TO ANSWER; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

2/17/2022: Opposition - OPPOSITION TO DEMURRER TO ANSWER; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

Declaration - DECLARATION DECLARATION OF TRIAL COUNSEL BY DEFENDANT THC - ORANGE COUNTY, LLC DBA KINDRED HOSPITAL BREA

11/29/2021: Declaration - DECLARATION DECLARATION OF TRIAL COUNSEL BY DEFENDANT THC - ORANGE COUNTY, LLC DBA KINDRED HOSPITAL BREA

Notice of Posting of Jury Fees

11/29/2021: Notice of Posting of Jury Fees

Answer

11/29/2021: Answer

Demand for Jury Trial

11/29/2021: Demand for Jury Trial

Notice - NOTICE NOTICE TO COMPLY WITH CALIFORNIA RULE OF COURT 3.254 BY DEFENDANT THC - ORANGE COUNTY, LLC DBA KINDRED HOSPITAL BREA

11/29/2021: Notice - NOTICE NOTICE TO COMPLY WITH CALIFORNIA RULE OF COURT 3.254 BY DEFENDANT THC - ORANGE COUNTY, LLC DBA KINDRED HOSPITAL BREA

Demurrer - without Motion to Strike

10/27/2021: Demurrer - without Motion to Strike

Answer

10/28/2021: Answer

Notice - NOTICE OF TAKING DEMURRER OFF CALENDAR

10/28/2021: Notice - NOTICE OF TAKING DEMURRER OFF CALENDAR

Demurrer - without Motion to Strike

11/4/2021: Demurrer - without Motion to Strike

Answer

10/18/2021: Answer

Notice of Posting of Jury Fees - NOTICE OF POSTING OF JURY FEES MARYLOU FREER,

10/6/2021: Notice of Posting of Jury Fees - NOTICE OF POSTING OF JURY FEES MARYLOU FREER,

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (POST-MEDIATION STATUS CONFERENCE; TRIAL SETTING CONFERENCE)

10/6/2021: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (POST-MEDIATION STATUS CONFERENCE; TRIAL SETTING CONFERENCE)

59 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 01/17/2023
  • Hearing01/17/2023 at 09:30 AM in Department 54 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Jury Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/06/2023
  • Hearing01/06/2023 at 09:30 AM in Department 54 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Final Status Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/13/2022
  • Docketat 09:00 AM in Department 54; Hearing on Joinder to Motion for Summary Judgment / Adjudication - Not Held - Taken Off Calendar by Party

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/03/2022
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 54, Maurice A. Leiter, Presiding; Post-Mediation Status Conference - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/03/2022
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Post-Mediation Status Conference)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/01/2022
  • DocketAnswer (Second Amended); Filed by EMANATE HEALTH FOOTHILL PRESBYTERIAN HOSPITAL (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/24/2022
  • Docketat 09:00 AM in Department 54; Hearing on Demurrer - without Motion to Strike - Not Held - Taken Off Calendar by Party

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/10/2022
  • DocketNotice of Ruling; Filed by Emanate Health Medical Center (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/04/2022
  • Docketat 09:00 AM in Department 54, Maurice A. Leiter, Presiding; Hearing on Demurrer - without Motion to Strike - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/04/2022
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Hearing on Demurrer - without Motion to Strike)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
66 More Docket Entries
  • 08/06/2020
  • DocketDeclaration (of Trial Counsel); Filed by THC - ORANGE COUNTY, LLC (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/06/2020
  • DocketNotice (to Comply with CRC 3.254); Filed by THC - ORANGE COUNTY, LLC (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/06/2020
  • DocketDemand for Jury Trial; Filed by THC - ORANGE COUNTY, LLC (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/23/2020
  • DocketNotice (of Case Management Conference); Filed by MARYLOU FREER, by and through her Successor-in-Interest, Rosalinda Stuart (Plaintiff); ROSALINDA STUART, individually (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/13/2020
  • DocketNotice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/09/2020
  • DocketProof of Personal Service; Filed by MARYLOU FREER, by and through her Successor-in-Interest, Rosalinda Stuart (Plaintiff); ROSALINDA STUART, individually (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/06/2020
  • DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Unlimited Civil Case; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/06/2020
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by MARYLOU FREER, by and through her Successor-in-Interest, Rosalinda Stuart (Plaintiff); ROSALINDA STUART, individually (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/06/2020
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by MARYLOU FREER, by and through her Successor-in-Interest, Rosalinda Stuart (Plaintiff); ROSALINDA STUART, individually (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/06/2020
  • DocketSummons (on Complaint); Filed by MARYLOU FREER, by and through her Successor-in-Interest, Rosalinda Stuart (Plaintiff); ROSALINDA STUART, individually (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: *******5210 Hearing Date: March 4, 2022 Dept: 54

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Marylou Freer, by and through her Successor-in-Interest, Rosalinda Stuart and Rosalinda Stuart, individually,

Plaintiff,

Case No.:

*******5210

vs.

Tentative Ruling

Emanate Health Foothill Presbyterian Hospital, et al.,

Defendants.

Hearing Date: March 4, 2022

Department 54, Judge Maurice A. Leiter

Demurrer to First Amended Answer

Moving Party: Plaintiff Rosalinda Stuart, individually and as Successor-in-Interest to Marylou Freer

Responding Party: Defendant Emanate Health Foothill Presbyterian Hospital

T/R: PLAINTIFF’S DEMURRER TO AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES NOS. 45-50 IS SUSTAINED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. PLAINTIFF’S DEMURRER TO THE REMAINING AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES IS OVERRULED.

DEFENDANT MAY FILE AND SERVE A SECOND AMENDED ANSWER WITHIN 30 DAYS OF NOTICE OF RULING.

PLAINTIFF TO NOTICE.

If the parties wish to submit on the tentative, please email the courtroom at SMCdept54@lacourt.org with notice to opposing counsel (or self-represented party) before 8:30 am on the day of the hearing.

The Court considers the moving papers, opposition and reply.

BACKGROUND

On July 6, 2020, Plaintiff Rosalinda Freer, individually and as Successor-in-Interest to decedent Marylou Freer sued Defendants Emanate Health Foothill Presbyterian Hospital and THC Orange County, LLC dba Kindred Hospital Ontario, asserting causes of action for (1) elder abuse; and (2) wrongful death. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants neglected decedent and caused her death. On May 6, 2021, the Court sustained Emanate’s demurrer to the complaint. Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint on June 8, 2021.

ANALYSIS

Plaintiff demurs to affirmative defenses nos. 1-12, 14-20, 22-23, 27-29, 31-33, 35-37, 39-50 in Defendant’s first amended answer.

“Generally speaking, the determination whether an answer states a defense is governed by the same principles which are applicable in determining if a complaint states a cause of action.” (South Shore Land Co. v. Petersen (1964) 226 Cal.App.2d 725, 732.) However, some vagueness may exist in a defendant’s answer because most defendants do not have the ability to prove their defenses at the initial answering phase, which usually occurs before discovery. In addition, a defendant has a significant incentive to plead every affirmative defense because a party waives defenses that are not pleaded. As a result, even where a defense is defectively pled, it may be allowed if the defendant’s pleading gives sufficient notice to enable the plaintiff to prepare to meet the defense, in part because un-pled defenses are waived. (Harris v. City of Santa Monica (2013) 56 Cal. 4th 203, 240.) Further, it is settled law in California that a defendant may plead as many inconsistent defenses in an answer as her or she may desire and that such defenses may not be considered as admissions against interest in the action in which the answer was filed. (Id. at 241.)

Plaintiff asserts that Defendant has failed to state sufficient facts to support the challenged affirmative defenses. But Defendant’s answer provides an clear list of affirmative defenses and alleges ultimate facts. Defendant also may plead multiple inconsistent affirmative defenses.

In opposition, Defendant concedes “the timing of the Covid 19 pandemic vis a vis the death of decedent renders [affirmative defenses nos. 45-40] non-viable.” The Court SUSTAINS the demurrer to those affirmative defenses. The demurrer to the remaining affirmative defenses is OVERRULED.



b"

Case Number: *******5210 Hearing Date: September 17, 2021 Dept: 54

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Marylou Freer, by and through her Successor-in-Interest, Rosalinda Stuart and Rosalinda Stuart, individually,

Plaintiff,

Case No.:

*******5210

vs.

Tentative Ruling

Emanate Health Foothill Presbyterian Hospital, et al.,

Defendants.

Hearing Date: September 17, 2021

Department 54, Judge Maurice A. Leiter

Demurrer to First Amended Complaint

Moving Party: Defendant Emanate Health Foothill Presbyterian Hospital

Responding Party: Plaintiff Rosalinda Stuart, individually and as Successor-in-Interest to Marylou Freer

T/R: DEFENDANT’S DEMURRER TO THE FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION IS OVERRULED.

DEFENDANT TO FILE AND SERVE AN ANSWER TO THE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT WITHIN 30 DAYS OF NOTICE OF RULING.

DEFENDANT TO NOTICE.

If the parties wish to submit on the tentative, please email the courtroom at ;SMCdept54@lacourt.org ;with notice to opposing counsel (or self-represented party) before 8:30 am on the day of the hearing.

The Court considers the moving papers, opposition and reply.

BACKGROUND

On July 6, 2020, Plaintiff Rosalinda Freer, individually and as Successor-in-Interest to decedent Marylou Freer sued Defendants Emanate Health Foothill Presbyterian Hospital and THC Orange County, LLC dba Kindred Hospital Ontario, asserting causes of action for (1) elder abuse; and (2) wrongful death. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants neglected decedent and caused her death. On May 6, 2021, the Court sustained Emanate’s demurrer to the complaint. Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint on June 8, 2021.

ANALYSIS

A demurrer to a complaint may be taken to the whole complaint or to any of the causes of action in it. (CCP ; 430.50(a).) A demurrer challenges only the legal sufficiency of the complaint, not the truth of its factual allegations or the plaintiff's ability to prove those allegations. (Picton v. Anderson Union High Sch. Dist. (1996) 50 Cal. App. 4th 726, 732.) The court must treat as true the complaint's material factual allegations, but not contentions, deductions or conclusions of fact or law. (Id. at 732-33.) The complaint is to be construed liberally to determine whether a cause of action has been stated. (Id. at 733.)

A. First Cause of Action for Elder Abuse

To plead elder abuse, the plaintiff must allege “facts establishing that the defendant: (1) had responsibility for meeting the basic needs of the elder or dependent adult, such as nutrition, hydration, hygiene or medical care [citations]; (2) knew of conditions that made the elder or dependent adult unable to provide for his or her own basic needs [citations]; and (3) denied or withheld goods or services necessary to meet the elder or dependent adult’s basic needs, either with knowledge that injury was substantially certain to befall the elder or dependent adult (if the plaintiff alleges oppression, fraud or malice) or with conscious disregard of the high probability of such injury (if the plaintiff alleges recklessness) [citations].” (Carter v. Prime Healthcare Paradise Valley LLC (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 396, 406-07.) “The plaintiff must also allege . . . that the neglect caused the elder or dependent adult to suffer physical harm, pain or mental suffering.” (Id. at 407.) “[T]he facts constituting the neglect and establishing the causal link between the neglect and the injury ‘must be pleaded with particularity,’ in accordance with the pleading rules governing statutory claims.” (Id. (quoting Covenant Care, Inc. v. Superior Court (2004) 32 Cal.4th 771, 790).)

Defendant Emanate argues that Plaintiff Rosalinda Stuart lacks standing, has failed to allege elder abuse with the requisite specificity and the allegations amount only to professional negligence. CCP ; 377.32 requires that a person who seeks to commence an action on behalf of a decedent file a declaration attesting to certain enumerated facts. (CCP ; 377.32(a).) Plaintiff filed the appropriate declaration on July 9, 2021.

As for the sufficiency of the allegations, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant caused decedent to suffer from pressure injuries and infections and ultimately caused her death. (FAC ¶ 47.) Plaintiff claims decedent was deemed high risk for skin breakdown but on several days between March 19, 2019 and May 3, 2019 Defendant’s staff failed to inspect for skin breakdown and failed to reposition decedent. (FAC ¶¶ 26-38.) This is sufficient to establish a cause of action for elder abuse.

The demurrer as to the first cause of action is OVERRULED.

"


Case Number: *******5210    Hearing Date: May 6, 2021    Dept: 54

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Marylou Freer, by and through her Successor-in-Interest, Rosalinda Stuart and Rosalinda Stuart, individually,

Plaintiff,

Case No.:

*******5210

vs.

Tentative Ruling

Emanate Health Foothill Presbyterian Hospital, et al.,

Defendants.

Hearing Date: May 6, 2021

Department 54, Judge Maurice A. Leiter

Demurrer to Complaint

Moving Party: Defendant Emanate Health Foothill Presbyterian Hospital

Responding Party: Plaintiff Rosalinda Stuart, individually and as Successor-in-Interest to Marylou Freer

T/R: DEFENDANT’S DEMURRER TO THE FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION IS SUSTAINED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND.

PLAINTIFF TO FILE AND SERVE A FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT WITHIN 30 DAYS OF NOTICE OF RULING. DEFENDANT TO FILE AND SERVE A RESPONSE WITHIN 30 DAYS THEREAFTER.

DEFENDANT TO NOTICE.

The Court considers the moving papers, opposition and reply.

BACKGROUND

On July 6, 2020, Plaintiff Rosalinda Freer, individually and as Successor-in-Interest to decedent Marylou Freer filed a complaint against Defendants Emanate Health Foothill Presbyterian Hospital and THC Orange County, LLC dba Kindred Hospital Ontario, asserting causes of action for (1) elder abuse; and (2) wrongful death. Plaintiff alleges Defendants neglected decedent and caused her death.

ANALYSIS

A demurrer to a complaint may be taken to the whole complaint or to any of the causes of action stated in it. (CCP ; 430.50(a).) A demurrer challenges only the legal sufficiency of the complaint, not the truth of its factual allegations or the plaintiff's ability to prove those allegations. (Picton v. Anderson Union High Sch. Dist. (1996) 50 Cal. App. 4th 726, 732.) The court must treat as true the complaint's material factual allegations, but not contentions, deductions or conclusions of fact or law. (Id. at 732-33.) The complaint is to be construed liberally to determine whether a cause of action has been stated. (Id. at 733.)

A. First Cause of Action for Elder Abuse

To plead elder abuse, the plaintiff must allege “facts establishing that the defendant: (1) had responsibility for meeting the basic needs of the elder or dependent adult, such as nutrition, hydration, hygiene or medical care [citations]; (2) knew of conditions that made the elder or dependent adult unable to provide for his or her own basic needs [citations]; and (3) denied or withheld goods or services necessary to meet the elder or dependent adult’s basic needs, either with knowledge that injury was substantially certain to befall the elder or dependent adult (if the plaintiff alleges oppression, fraud or malice) or with conscious disregard of the high probability of such injury (if the plaintiff alleges recklessness) [citations].” (Carter v. Prime Healthcare Paradise Valley LLC (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 396, 406-07.) “The plaintiff must also allege . . . that the neglect caused the elder or dependent adult to suffer physical harm, pain or mental suffering.” (Id. at 407.) “[T]he facts constituting the neglect and establishing the causal link between the neglect and the injury ‘must be pleaded with particularity,’ in accordance with the pleading rules governing statutory claims.” (Id. (quoting Covenant Care, Inc. v. Superior Court (2004) 32 Cal.4th 771, 790).)  

Defendant demurs to the first cause of action, arguing that Plaintiff Rosalinda Stuart lacks standing, has failed to allege elder abuse with the requisite specificity, and the allegations amount only to professional negligence. CCP ; 377.32 requires a person who seeks to commence an action on behalf of a decedent to file a declaration attesting to certain enumerated facts. (CCP ; 377.32(a).) Plaintiff alleges she has complied with CCP ; 377.32 but the Court’s record reflects that no such declaration has been filed. Plaintiff does not address this issue in the opposition. This is insufficient to establish standing.

As to the sufficiency of the allegations, Plaintiff alleges only that Defendants caused decedent to suffer from pressure injuries and infections and ultimately caused her death. (Compl. ¶ 18.) Plaintiff alleges in paragraph 1 of the complaint that decedent died on November 29, 2019, and on September 17, 2019 in paragraph 28. The remaining allegations are conclusory statements of understaffing and neglect without factual support. This is insufficient to establish a cause of action for elder abuse.

The demurrer as to the first cause of action is SUSTAINED with leave to amend.



related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where FOOTHILL NURSING COMPANY PARTNERSHIP DBA GLENDORA CANYON TRANSITIONAL CARE UNIT is a litigant

Latest cases where HER LLC is a litigant

Latest cases where SOUTHERN CALFIORNIA SPECIALTY CARE INC. is a litigant

Latest cases where EMANATE HEALTH FOOTHILL PRESBYTERIAN HOSPITAL is a litigant