MCDERMOTT, et al. vs CARLTON SENIOR LIVING, LLC DBA CARLTON SENIOR LIVING SACRAMENTO, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, et al.

25CV031472: MCDERMOTT, et al. vs CARLTON SENIOR LIVING, LLC DBA CARLTON SENIOR LIVING SACRAMENTO, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, et al. 03/25/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Arbitration in Department 28

Tentative Ruling

NOTICE:

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that any oral arguments regarding this tentative ruling will be heard at 1:30 p.m. in Department 28, located at 720 9th Street, Sacramento, CA, the Hon. Richard C. Miadich presiding.

Any party who wishes to contest the tentative ruling below must:

(1) request a hearing by calling the Law and Motion Oral Argument Request Line at (916) 874-2615, by 4:00 p.m. the Court day before the noticed hearing date, and leave a voicemail 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 they have notified the opposing party of their intention to appear; and

(2) advise the opposing party of the location and time of hearing pursuant to Local Rule 1.06.

If a hearing is not requested by 4:00 p.m. on the Court day before the noticed hearing date, the tentative ruling will become the final order of the Court.

If a hearing is requested, the Court prefers in-person attendance by the parties. However, parties may appear by Zoom unless the Court specifically orders in-person attendance. Parties choosing to appear by Zoom are reminded, however, that a Zoom appearance is still a formal appearance before the Court. Parties appearing via Zoom should do so from a quiet location, free from undue distractions, and wear attire suitable for an in-person court appearance.

The parties may join the Zoom session for hearing on the tentative ruling by audio and/or video through the following link:

https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/my/sscdept28

SIP Address:

16039062174@sip.zoomgov.com

(833) 568-8864

25CV031472: MCDERMOTT, et al. vs CARLTON SENIOR LIVING, LLC DBA CARLTON SENIOR LIVING SACRAMENTO, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, et al. 03/25/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Arbitration in Department 28

ID: 16039062174

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 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.

TENTATIVE RULING

****NOTICE: EFFECTIVE APRIL 13, 2026, THIS DEPARTMENT WILL MOVE TO THE TANI G. CANTIL-SAKAUYE COURTHOUSE LOCATED AT 500 G. ST. SACRAMENTO, CA. MOTIONS NOTICED FOR DEPARTMENT 28 WILL BE HEARD IN DEPARTMENT 8C OF THE NEW COURTHOUSE.*****

Defendants, Carlton Senior Living, LLC dba Carlton Senior Living Sacramento; CSL Associates, Inc.; Carlton Plaza Forever of Sacramento, LP; and Carlton Crown Plaza of Sacramento, LP’s (“Defendants”) motion to compel Plaintiffs Frances Rubalcaba (Decedent); Helen Hernandez, individually and as successor in interest to Frances Rubalcaba; Consuelo Skelton, individually and as successor in interest to Frances Rubalcaba; and Esther Matthews, by and through her Guardian Ad Litem Katherine McDermott, individually and as successor in interest to Frances Rubalcaba (collectively “Plaintiffs”) is DENIED.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV031472: MCDERMOTT, et al. vs CARLTON SENIOR LIVING, LLC DBA CARLTON SENIOR LIVING SACRAMENTO, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, et al. 03/25/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Arbitration in Department 28

Plaintiffs filed suit on December 29, 2025, alleging causes of action for Neglect of an Elder and Dependent Adult; Negligence / Negligence Per Se; Unfair Business Practices and Professions Code § 17200; Fraud/Misrepresentation; Financial Elder Abuse; and Wrongful Death, all arising from the failure to adequately staff the facility to care for and supervise its and prevent the abuse and neglect of Frances Rubalcaba at Carlton Senior Living Sacramento.

On July 3, 2018, Helen Hernandez (“Ms. Hernandez”) executed a resident service agreement on behalf of Frances Rubalcaba. She was the durable power of attorney for finance and healthcare decisions for Frances Rubalcaba. The resident services agreement contained an arbitration agreement.

The arbitration clause provides:

17. Arbitration

By signing below, you agree that any and all claims and disputes arising from or related to this Agreement or to your residency, care or services at The Community, whether made against us or any other individual or entity, including, without limitation, personal injury claims, shall be resolved by submission to neutral, binding arbitration in accordance with the Federal Arbitration Act; except that any claim or dispute involving unlawful detainer proceedings (eviction) or any claims that can be brought in small claims court shall not be subject to arbitration unless both parties agree to arbitrate such proceedings.

Both parties give up their constitutional rights to have any such dispute decided in a court of law before a jury, and instead accept the use of arbitration. You further waive your right to participate in a representative capacity, or to participate as a member of a class, in any litigation or arbitration proceeding with respect to any such dispute. The arbitration shall be administered by the Judicial Arbitration and Mediation Services ('JAMS') and shall be conducted in Sacramento, California by a single neutral arbitrator selected by JAMS, unless otherwise mutually agreed.

In reaching a decision, the arbitrator shall prepare a written decision that includes findings of fact, the reasons underlying the decision, and conclusions of law. The parties agree not to disclose the existence, content, or results of the arbitration without the prior written consent of the parties, unless disclosure is required by court

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV031472: MCDERMOTT, et al. vs CARLTON SENIOR LIVING, LLC DBA CARLTON SENIOR LIVING SACRAMENTO, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, et al. 03/25/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Arbitration in Department 28

order. Each party shall bear its own costs and fees in connection with the arbitration, unless otherwise provided by law. You may withdraw your agreement to arbitrate within thirty (30) days after signing this Agreement by giving written notice of your withdrawal to us. This arbitration clause binds all parties to this Agreement and their spouses, heirs, representatives, executors, administrators, successors, assigns, managers, and agents as applicable. After termination of this Agreement, this arbitration clause shall remain in effect for the resolution of all claims and disputes that are unresolved as of that date.

In the event that any part of this arbitration clause is determined to be unenforceable, the remaining portions of the clause shall remain valid and shall be enforced by the parties. If JAMS is unable to administer the arbitration in accordance with the terms of this clause, the parties shall select another arbitration administrator that is able to do so, and if no such arbitration administrator is available, the parties shall select an arbitrator in accordance with the Federal Arbitration Act.

If the Federal Arbitration Act does not permit arbitration in accordance with this clause, then the matter shall be arbitrated in accordance with state law.

By signing below, You warrant that this paragraph has been explained to You, that You understand its significance, that You voluntarily agree to be bound by it, and that You understand that agreeing to arbitration is not a condition of admission to The Community.

(Decl. Schumann, Ex. A at pp. 19-20. [Emphasis in Original.])

Defendants assert that this dispute must be resolved in binding arbitration and bring the instant motion to compel arbitration.

Defendants have the burden of proving the existence of a valid arbitration clause and that the dispute is covered by the Agreement, before a party may be compelled to arbitrate a claim. (Larian v. Larian (2004) 123 Cal.App.4th 751, 760.)

A written agreement to submit to arbitration an existing controversy or a controversy thereafter arising is valid, enforceable and irrevocable, save upon such grounds as exist for the revocation of any contract. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 1281; 1281.2.)

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV031472: MCDERMOTT, et al. vs CARLTON SENIOR LIVING, LLC DBA CARLTON SENIOR LIVING SACRAMENTO, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, et al. 03/25/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Arbitration in Department 28

Defendants assert that arbitration is appropriate for Decedent's causes of action under the facts at issue here. Defendants argue that Decedent (through Ms. Hernandez via power of attorney) entered into a valid arbitration agreement which covers the claims at issue. The plain language of the Arbitration Clause encompasses “any and all claims and disputes arising from or related to this Agreement or to your residency, care or services at The Community” (Decl. Schumann, Ex. A at p. 19.) The agreement further applies “whether made against us or any other individual or entity, including, without limitation, personal injury claims” (Ibid.)

Plaintiffs’ Individual Claims

The Court first looks to the individual claims of the Plaintiffs. No Plaintiff signed the arbitration agreement on their own behalf in their individual capacity.

Plaintiffs argue that as non-signatories they never consented to arbitration and their individual wrongful death claims are not subject to arbitration.

Plaintiffs assert that as in Daniels v. Sunrise Senior Living, Inc. (2013) 212 Cal.App.4th 674, 680, plaintiffs' wrongful death claim is personal to individual plaintiffs and lies independent of the survivor claims. “Unlike some jurisdictions wherein wrongful death actions are derivative, Code of Civil Procedure section 377.60 'creates a new cause of action in favor of the heirs as beneficiaries, based upon their own independent pecuniary injury suffered by loss of a relative, and distinct from any the deceased might have maintained had he survived. Because a wrongful death action compensates the heirs for their own independent pecuniary losses, it is one for personal injury to the heirs. (Id.)

Indeed in both Fitzhugh v. Granada Healthcare & Rehabilitation Center, LLC (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 469, 471, and Daniels, supra, surviving relatives who had signed arbitration agreements as authorized representatives of nursing home residents were held not to be bound to arbitrate their individual claims for wrongful death. As the court stated in Daniels, '[b]ecause Daniels signed the residency agreement solely as Barcena's agent and not in her personal capacity, there is no basis to infer that Daniels agreed to arbitrate her wrongful death claim.'

Similarly, in Pagarigan v. Libby Care Center, Inc. (2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 298, a patient's adult children sued a skilled nursing facility as their mother's successors in interest (as well as on their own behalf, for wrongful death). The superior court denied the facility's petition to compel arbitration and the appellate court affirmed. Further, here, there is no medical malpractice/professional negligence claim asserted by any Plaintiff, only claims for elder abuse. See, e.g.Bush v. Horizon West (2012) 205 Cal.App.4th 924; see, also Goldman v.

Sunbridge Healthcare, LLC (2013) 220 Cal.App.4th 1160.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV031472: MCDERMOTT, et al. vs CARLTON SENIOR LIVING, LLC DBA CARLTON SENIOR LIVING SACRAMENTO, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, et al. 03/25/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Arbitration in Department 28

Here, the individual plaintiff heirs are not parties to the arbitration agreement. Therefore, they are not bound. In Bush, supra, one of the defendants, a skilled nursing facility, argued that 'Ruiz [v. Podolsky (2010) 50 Cal.4th 838] should be held to hold 'that section 1295, when construed in light of its purpose, is designed to permit patients who sign arbitration agreements to bind their heirs in actions for personal injuries, ...'' Id. at 930 (emphasis in original). The appellate court soundly rejected this argument, as follows: “[S]ection 1295 has no bearing here because, as we have explained, no one ... has asserted any claim against defendants for medical malpractice.' Id.

In Daniels, the court refused to bind the plaintiff to arbitration, even though the agreement expressly bound the successors and heirs of the decedent. (Id. at 678.)

In Daniels the court found no error of law or abuse of discretion in the order refusing to compel arbitration of any of the claims. It disagreed with moving defendant that the plaintiff Daniels should have been compelled to arbitrate her personal wrongful death claim along with the survivor claims. (Id at 677.)

Moreover, the exception to these rules provided by Code of Civil Procedure section 1295 has no application to lawsuits brought against Residential Care Facilities for the Elderly. (Id. at 680- 686.)

Defendants do not present the Court with authority which would cause the Court to find that the arbitration agreement applies to Plaintiff’s individual claims.

Defendants’ motion to compel Plaintiffs’ individual claims to arbitration is DENIED.

Decedent’s Claims

Plaintiff argues that the motion to compel decedent’s claims must also be denied because of the danger of conflicting rulings on common issues of law or fact.

Where a party “to the arbitration agreement is also a party to a pending court action or special proceeding with a third party, arising out of the same transaction or series of related transactions and there is a possibility of conflicting rulings on a common issue of law or fact,” the Court has discretion to refuse to enforce the arbitration agreement. (Code Civ. Proc. § 1294.2(c).)

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV031472: MCDERMOTT, et al. vs CARLTON SENIOR LIVING, LLC DBA CARLTON SENIOR LIVING SACRAMENTO, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, et al. 03/25/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Arbitration in Department 28

Plaintiffs argue that here, the Court should apply Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.2(c) and deny the motion to compel Decedent’s claims due to the risk of conflicting rulings as Decedent’s elder neglect claims are premised upon identical facts as the claims for wrongful death.

Defendants assert that there is no risk of conflicting rulings. Defendants argue, “Elder abuse and neglect require proof of recklessness or egregious conduct, while the other claims sound in ordinary negligence. Because the elements and proof burdens diverge, a finding on one claim does not compel or contradict a finding on another.” (Reply, 4:12-14.)

Defendants also argue that the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) preempts Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.2(c) because the parties agreed to arbitrate “in accordance with the Federal Arbitration Act.”

As to the applicability of Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.2(c), the Court finds Cronus Invs., Inc. v. Concierge Servs. (2005) 35 Cal.4th 376 instructive. In Cronus, the California Supreme Court held that Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.2(c) was applicable, reasoning that the procedural rules of section 1281.2(c) do not conflict with the FAA's procedural provisions because the FAA's procedural provisions do not apply in state court, and also that section 1281.2(c) does not conflict with the FAA’s substantive provisions.

The Court explained: “Section 1281.2(c) addresses the peculiar situation that arises when a controversy also affects claims by or against other parties not bound by the arbitration agreement. The California provision giving the court discretion not to enforce the arbitration agreement under such circumstances—in order to avoid potential inconsistency in outcome as well as duplication of effort—does not contravene the letter or the spirit of the FAA. Our opinion does not preclude parties to an arbitration agreement to expressly designate that any arbitration proceeding should move forward under the FAA's procedural provisions rather than under state procedural law.

We simply hold that the language of the arbitration clause in this case, calling for the application of the FAA ‘if it would be applicable,’ should not be read to preclude the application of 1281.2(c), because it does not conflict with the applicable provisions of the FAA and does not undermine or frustrate the FAA's substantive policy favoring arbitration.” (Id. at 393-394, original emphasis.)

In this case, the Agreement does not expressly designate that the FAA’s procedural rules control.

The Court concludes that here, as in Cronus, section 1281.2(c) applies and gives the Court procedural discretion not to enforce the arbitration agreement in order to avoid potential inconsistency in outcome as well as duplication of effort and does not contravene the letter or the spirit of the substantive provisions of the FAA. Section 1281.2(c) is a procedural rule of

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV031472: MCDERMOTT, et al. vs CARLTON SENIOR LIVING, LLC DBA CARLTON SENIOR LIVING SACRAMENTO, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, et al. 03/25/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Arbitration in Department 28

California law that applies even where an arbitration agreement is subject to the substantive provisions of the FAA. (See, e.g. Nixon v. AmeriHome Mortgage Co., LLC (2021) 67 Cal.App.5th 934, 945-946; Valencia v. Smyth (2010) 185 Cal.App.4th 153, 173-174.) Moreover, the overall admission agreement, which contains the arbitration clause at issue, states that “[t]his agreement shall be governed by California law.” (See, Defendants’ Ex. A at p. 27.)

The Court also concludes that there is a risk of conflicting rules, despite the differing standards of proof for wrongful death and elder abuse claims because the same underlying facts and circumstances form the basis of both sets of claims.

In this case, the Court finds that Plaintiffs, in their individual capacity, were not parties to the arbitration agreement and their wrongful death action is brought by them as individuals. The Court finds that as each of the children is a third party to the arbitration agreement, the Court may deny arbitration. Defendants are parties to a pending court action for wrongful death with the third-party children of decedent, in their individual capacities, arising out of the same transaction or series of related transactions and there is a possibility of conflicting rulings on common issues of fact, should the elder abuse cause of action be ordered to arbitration. (Code Civ. Proc. § 1281.2(c))

The motion to compel arbitration is DENIED in its entirety.

The Court need not reach Plaintiff’s additional arguments, nor the parties’ objections to evidence.

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