VELASCO, IRINIEO vs PIERCE, JOSEPH STANLEY

emotional distress"].) Here, the First Amended Complaint pleads a cause of action for negligent infliction of emotional distress by Mr. Gavert only. Mr. Gavert may claim damages due to emotional distress under a cause of action for negligence. Accordingly, the Court SUSTAINS without leave to amend the demurrer to the eighth cause of action for negligent infliction of emotional distress.

Ninth cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress Plaintiffs agree to dismiss the tenth cause of action against Defendant The Estate of Michael Brodie. (Opposition, 16.) Plaintiffs should submit a notice of dismissal.

Tenth cause of action for tort per se Defendant argues that the tenth cause of action for tort per se is duplicative of the causes of action for professional negligence and negligence. "[T]he doctrine of negligence per se is not a separate cause of action, but creates an evidentiary presumption that affects the standard of care in a cause of action for negligence." (Turner v. Seterus, Inc. (2018) 27 Cal.App.5th 516, 534 [internal quotation marks and citation omitted].) Accordingly, the Court SUSTAINS without leave to amend the demurrer to the tenth cause of action for negligence per se.

Statutory Remedies under Health & Safety Code Sec. 1430(b) The fifth cause of action for violation of resident rights is not asserted against The Estate of Michael Brodie. According, the Court DENIES the motion to strike statutory damages and attorney's fees pursuant to Health and Safety Code section 1430(b).

CV-26-002065 - VELASCO, IRINIEO vs PIERCE, JOSEPH STANLEY - Defendant's Motion to Quash Service of Summons and Complaint - GRANTED, and unopposed. On May 6, 2026, Defendants submitted the instant Motion to Quash Service of Summons and Complaint on the basis that the summons and complaint were served at a residence that is not the home or usual place of abode of Defendants and also on the basis that the individual defendant passed away before service was purportedly effectuated. The motion is unopposed.

Here, the proof of service indicates substituted service on a residential address that is not the dwelling house or usual place of abode of Defendant Joseph Stanley Pierce dba Mi Valley Dairy. (See Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 415.20.) In addition, Defendant Joseph Stanley passed away on March 10, 2026, which is before service was purportedly effectuated on March 23, 2026. Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Sec. 418.10, the unopposed motion is GRANTED. The proposed order submitted by Defendants inaccurately references opposing papers (and oral argument). Moving party to submit a corrected proposed order that conforms to this ruling within five court days.