WHALEY, BY AND THROUGH HIS ATTORNEY-IN-FACT, LORI ANNE WHALEY vs MISSION CARMICHAEL POST ACUTE, LLC, et al.

25CV029772: WHALEY, BY AND THROUGH HIS ATTORNEY-IN-FACT, LORI ANNE WHALEY vs MISSION CARMICHAEL POST ACUTE, LLC, et al. 09/02/2026 Hearing on Demurrer to Plaintiff's Complaint in Department 8C

Tentative Ruling

NOTICE:

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that any oral arguments regarding this tentative ruling will be heard at 1:30 p.m. in Department 8C in the Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye Courthouse at 500 G 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) 874-8380, 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/j/16039062174

SIP Address:

16039062174@sip.zoomgov.com

25CV029772: WHALEY, BY AND THROUGH HIS ATTORNEY-IN-FACT, LORI ANNE WHALEY vs MISSION CARMICHAEL POST ACUTE, LLC, et al. 09/02/2026 Hearing on Demurrer to Plaintiff's Complaint in Department 8C

(833) 568-8864

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 HAS MOVED TO THE TANI G. CANTIL-SAKAUYE COURTHOUSE LOCATED AT 500 G STREET SACRAMENTO, CA. ALL MOTIONS NOTICED FOR DEPARTMENT 28 WILL BE HEARD IN DEPARTMENT 8C OF THE NEW COURTHOUSE. ALL PAPERS FOR THIS DEPARTMENT MUST BE FILED AT THIS NEW LOCATION AND WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED AT THE HALL OF JUSTICE. ALL HEARINGS WILL TAKE PLACE AT THIS NEW LOCATION***

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV029772: WHALEY, BY AND THROUGH HIS ATTORNEY-IN-FACT, LORI ANNE WHALEY vs MISSION CARMICHAEL POST ACUTE, LLC, et al. 09/02/2026 Hearing on Demurrer to Plaintiff's Complaint in Department 8C

Defendant Mission Carmichael Post Acute, LLC (“Mission Carmichael”) and Sun Meridian Management Services, LLC’s (“Sun Meridian”) (collectively referred to as “Defendants”) demurrer to Plaintiff Warren Whaley’s (“Plaintiff”) complaint is ruled upon as follows.

The 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 attempt to contact opposing counsel and advise them 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 them prior to hearing, moving counsel is ordered to appear at the hearing in person or remotely.

Background

Plaintiff’s complaint alleges elder abuse and other causes of action stemming from Plaintiff’s injuries purportedly sustained during his admission to Mission Carmichael. Plaintiff alleges liability against Mission Carmichael’s owner, Sun meridian, based on alter ego, respondeat superior, and joint venture theories of liability. (See Comp. ¶¶ 21- 23.)

Defendants now jointly demur to the complaint on the following grounds:

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION (ELDER ABUSE/NEGLECT) By all Defendants, the second cause of action for Survival fails to state a cause of action against Defendants pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 430.10 (e-f) because Plaintiff has not plead this cause of action with the requisite particularity and facts on behalf of the estate.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION (NEGLIGENCE) By all Defendants, the first cause of action for general negligence fails to state a cause of action against Defendants pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 430.10(e-f) because Plaintiff has not pleaded this cause of action with the requisite

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV029772: WHALEY, BY AND THROUGH HIS ATTORNEY-IN-FACT, LORI ANNE WHALEY vs MISSION CARMICHAEL POST ACUTE, LLC, et al. 09/02/2026 Hearing on Demurrer to Plaintiff's Complaint in Department 8C

particularity or sufficient facts. Defendants’ legal duties or conduct fail to identify how they were negligent and contain improper allegations against Defendants assigning them public entity statuses. There is uncertainty as to the duties and failure of facts to ascertain the agency status.

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION (NEGLIGENT HIRING, SUPERVVISION, AND RETENTION) By all Defendants, the third cause of action for premises liability fails to state a cause of action against Defendants pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 430.10(e-f) because Plaintiff has not pleaded this cause of action with the requisite particularity or sufficient facts.

(Demurrer, 3:6-23.)

Plaintiff opposes the demurrer.

Legal Standard

The function of a demurrer is to test the sufficiency of the pleading it challenges by raising questions of law. (Salimi v. State Comp. Ins. Fund (1997) 54 Cal.App.4th 216, 219; Nordlinger v. Lynch (1990) 225 Cal.App.3d 1259, 1271.) 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.) Extrinsic evidence may not properly be considered on demurrer. (Ion Equipment Corp. v. Nelson (1980) 110 Cal.App.3d 868, 881; Hibernia Savings & Loan Soc. v. Thornton (1897) 117 Cal. 481, 482.)

On demurrer, allegations of the challenged pleading are liberally construed, with a view toward substantial justice. (Code Civ. Proc., § 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.) In this respect, 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 311, 318; Poseidon Development, Inc. v. Woodland Lane Estates, LLC (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 1106, 1111-1112.)

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV029772: WHALEY, BY AND THROUGH HIS ATTORNEY-IN-FACT, LORI ANNE WHALEY vs MISSION CARMICHAEL POST ACUTE, LLC, et al. 09/02/2026 Hearing on Demurrer to Plaintiff's Complaint in Department 8C

A demurrer may be sustained only if the challenged pleading lacks any sufficient allegations to entitle the plaintiff to relief. (Financial Corp. of America v. Wilburn (1987) 189 Cal.App.3d 764, 778.) “‘“[P]laintiff 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 . . . .’” (Highlanders, Inc. v. Olsan (1978) 77 Cal.App.3d 690, 696-697.)

Discussion

Mission Carmichael - First Cause of Action for Elder Abuse/Neglect and Second Cause of Action for Negligence

While Defendants jointly demurrer as to the first and second causes of action, Defendants do not present legal authority or argument to support that the demurrer is warranted against Mission Carmichael and instead argue why they assert that the pleadings are insufficient as to Sun Meridian.

Defendants’ demurrer as to the first and second causes of action against Mission Carmichael is therefore OVERRULED.

Sun Meridian - First Cause of Action for Elder Abuse/Neglect

Sun Meridian argues that it is not subject to Plaintiff’s elder abuse cause of action because (a) a substantial caretaking relationship did not exist between Sun Meridian and Plaintiff; (b) the facts do not constitute egregious misconduct because it does not allege that Sun Meridian intentionally caused or was involved in care provided to Plaintiff and no resulting causal link between Sun Meridian’s misconduct and Plaintiff’s injuries; and (c) no duty of care exists because the alleged duty owed is based upon Plaintiff being a nursing home patient and the duties of the licensee cannot be delegated to Sun Meridian.

Each of these arguments by Sun Meridian fail because they ignore Plaintiff’s joint venture and alter-ego theories of liability against Sun Meridian. While Defendants, on reply, argue that Plaintiff’s alter-ego allegations do not meet California standards,

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV029772: WHALEY, BY AND THROUGH HIS ATTORNEY-IN-FACT, LORI ANNE WHALEY vs MISSION CARMICHAEL POST ACUTE, LLC, et al. 09/02/2026 Hearing on Demurrer to Plaintiff's Complaint in Department 8C

Defendants cannot succeed on their demurrer because their moving papers fail to attack the alter-ego portion of the pleadings. Moreover, Defendants’ demurrer is silent as to Plaintiff’s joint venture theory of liability.

Plaintiff alleges:

At all relevant times, DEFENDANTS and each of their tortious acts and omissions as alleged herein, were done in concert with one another in furtherance of their common design and agreement to accomplish a particular result, namely decreasing costs and increasing revenues from the operation of the FACILITY by underfunding and understaffing the FACILITY with an insufficient number of care personnel, many of whom were not trained and/or qualified to care for the residents at the FACILITY. Moreover, DEFENDANTS aided and abetted each other in accomplishing the acts and omissions alleged herein. (Restatement (Second) of Torts § 876 (1979)).

(Complaint, ¶ 17.)

Where a joint venture is established, the parties to the venture are vicariously liable for the torts of the other in furtherance of the venture. (Cochrum v. Costa Victoria Healthcare, LLC, 25 Cal. App. 5th 1034, 1053; Dixon v. City of Livermore (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 32, 42.) Plaintiff’s joint venture theory of liability allows for Plaintiff to establish vicarious liability against Sun Meridian for acts and omissions of Mission Carmichael, and this theory of liability is not attacked by Defendants in the instant demurrer.

Defendants’ demurrer as to the first cause of action against Sun Meridian is OVERRULED.

Sun Meridian - Second Cause of Action for Negligence

Defendants do not clearly set out a separate legal argument or authority supporting demurrer as to Plaintiff’s second cause of action against Sun Meridian. The Court surmises that Defendants rely on the same arguments discussed above, i.e., that Sun

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV029772: WHALEY, BY AND THROUGH HIS ATTORNEY-IN-FACT, LORI ANNE WHALEY vs MISSION CARMICHAEL POST ACUTE, LLC, et al. 09/02/2026 Hearing on Demurrer to Plaintiff's Complaint in Department 8C

Meridian is not responsible for any of the acts or omissions which allegedly caused injury to Plaintiff.

For the same reasons discussed above relating to Plaintiff’s cause of action for elder abuse, Defendants’ demurrer as to Plaintiff’s second cause of action for negligence fails.

Defendants’ demurrer as to the second cause of action against Sun Meridian is OVERRULED.

Third Cause of Action for Negligent Hiring, Supervision, and Retention Against Defendants

Defendants argue that Plaintiff’s allegations of negligent hiring, supervision, and retention are insufficient and lack adequate particularity and they do not identify particular employees, nor the specifics of why the employees were unqualified or how Defendants knew or should have known that they were a risk.

Plaintiff argues that a plaintiff need not “identify by name or position” the employees who negligently hired, trained, or supervised the wrongdoer.” (C.A. v. William S. Hart Union High School Dist. (2012) 53 Cal.4th 861, 872.) “To survive a demurrer, the complaint need only allege facts sufficient to state a cause of action; each evidentiary fact that might eventually form part of the plaintiff’s proof need not be alleged.” (Id.) The Court finds it sufficient, at the pleading stage, for the Plaintiff to have alleged that Defendants hired and retained the Administrator, Director of Nursing, Director of Staff Development, and nursing staff who were unfit to perform their duties, that Defendants knew or should have known of that unfitness through the hiring, reference-check, and evaluation processes, and that this unfitness harmed Mr. Whaley. (Comp., ¶¶ 114-120.)

On reply, Defendants assert that the allegations here do not meet the standard set forth in C.A. v. William S. Hart Union High School District, not simply because Plaintiff did not use employees’ names, but because here Plaintiff does not allege why they were unfit to do their job, what their job duties consisted of, how the unfitness created a particular risk to the residents of the facility, or the specific harm that each person caused.

The Court concludes that Plaintiff’s vague allegations that employees created a risk to

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV029772: WHALEY, BY AND THROUGH HIS ATTORNEY-IN-FACT, LORI ANNE WHALEY vs MISSION CARMICHAEL POST ACUTE, LLC, et al. 09/02/2026 Hearing on Demurrer to Plaintiff's Complaint in Department 8C

elder and infirm residents are insufficient.

Defendants’ demurrer as to the third cause of action against Defendants Mission Carmichael and Sun Meridian for negligent hiring, supervision, and retention is SUSTAINED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND.

Disposition

Defendant’s demurrer to Plaintiff’s first and second causes of action against Defendants Mission Carmichael and Sun Meridian is OVERRULED.

Defendants’ demurrer to the third cause of action against Defendants Mission Carmichael and Sun Meridian is SUSTAINED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND.

Plaintiff may file and served an amended complaint no later than September 14, 2026.

Defendants shall file and serve their response within 30 days thereafter, 35 days if the amended complaint is served by mail.

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