OSWALT, et al. vs DIGNITY HEALTH DBA MERCY SAN JUAN MEDICAL CENTER, et al.

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***

Defendant Surmel LLC dba Asbury Park Nursing and Rehabilitation Center’s (“Asbury Park”) motion to compel arbitration is UNOPPOSED and GRANTED.

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 contact opposing counsel and advise 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 opposing counsel prior to the hearing, moving counsel

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV021784: OSWALT, et al. vs DIGNITY HEALTH DBA MERCY SAN JUAN MEDICAL CENTER, et al. 06/08/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Arbitration in Department 8C

is ordered to appear at the hearing by Zoom or in person.

Plaintiffs Shawn Oswalt and Roxanna Oswalt (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed this action in their individual capacities and in their capacities as successors in interest to Richard Oswalt (“Decedent”). Plaintiffs bring claims for professional medical negligence, wrongful death, and elder abuse and neglect. The Complaint was filed on September 12, 2025, and the operative First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) was filed on December 29, 2025. There is no proof of service on file for the original Complaint.

On February 9, 2026, Plaintiffs filed a proof of service of summons for the FAC showing service on Asbury Park via substituted service on February 5, 2026. On March 17, 2026, Asbury Park filed its Answer to the FAC, which included an affirmative defense based on the existence of an arbitration agreement. (Asbury Park’s Answer, ¶ 33.) Also on March 17, 2026, Asbury Park filed a demand for jury trial that stated that Asbury Park does not waive its right to submit this matter to arbitration. On May 12, 2026, Asbury Park filed the present motion.

The FAC also names Dignity Health dba Mercy San Juan Medical Center (“Dignity”), Arden Park Post Acute (“Arden Park”), and 3400 Alta Arden Expressway, LLC (“Alta Arden”) as defendants. On February 18, 2026, Alta Arden was dismissed without prejudice. Neither Dignity nor Arden Park are parties to this motion.

With its motion, Asbury Park submits an arbitration agreement allegedly signed by Decedent on October 23, 2024 and to which Asbury Park is a party.[1] The agreement states, in part:

ARTICLE I (Medical Malpractice Claims)

1.1 It is understood that any dispute as to medical malpractice, that is as to whether any medical services rendered under this contract were unnecessary or unauthorized or were improperly, negligently or incompetently rendered, will be determined by submission to arbitration as provided by California law, and not by a lawsuit or resort to court process except as California law provides for judicial review of arbitration proceedings. Both parties to this contract, by entering into it, are giving up their constitutional right to have any such dispute decided in a court of law before a jury, and instead are accepting the use of arbitration.

ARTICLE II (Other Claims)

2.1 It is further understood that any dispute between Resident, including Resident’s

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV021784: OSWALT, et al. vs DIGNITY HEALTH DBA MERCY SAN JUAN MEDICAL CENTER, et al. 06/08/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Arbitration in Department 8C

heirs and/or agents, and their owners, investors, operators, officers, directors, administrators, staff, employees, agents, and any management and administrative services company and all related entities and individuals, their staff, personnel, employees, owners, officers, directors, members, and agents that provide services to the Facility that relates to the provision of care, treatment and services the Facility provides to the Resident, (collectively referred to herein as “Facility”), including any action for injury or death arising from negligence, torts, intentional tort and/or statutory causes of action (including all California Welfare and Institutions Code sections, all California Business and Professions Code sections, Health and Safety Code section 1430), and all other statutory claims under any applicable California code, will be determined by submission to binding arbitration and not by lawsuit or resort to court process except as California law provides for judicial review of arbitration proceedings.

(Isaac Decl., Exh. 1, p. 1.)

“Under both federal and state law, the threshold question presented by a petition to compel arbitration is whether there is an agreement to arbitrate.” (Sparks v. Del Mar Child and Family Svcs. (2012) 207 Cal.App.4th 1511, 1517.) If the Court determines that an agreement to arbitrate exists, then it must order the case to arbitration unless grounds exist for revocation of the agreement. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1281.2; 9 U.S.C. § 2.)

Generally, an agreement between a person and health care provider to arbitrate medical malpractice claims that satisfies Code of Civil Procedure section 1295 binds the person’s heirs with respect to their wrongful death claims based on the alleged malpractice, so long as the agreement manifests an intent to bind the heirs. (Ruiz v. Podolsky (2010) 50 Cal.4th 838, 841.) When the wrongful death claim is based on elder abuse, and not medical malpractice, Ruiz does not apply, and the decedent’s signature will not bind the heirs absent some other basis to enforce the agreement against the heirs. (Avila v. Southern California Specialty Care, Inc. (2018) 20 Cal.App.5th 835, 842; Valentine v. Plum Healthcare Group, LLC (2019) 37 Cal.App.5th 1076, 1084-1085.)

Here, Asbury Park contends that Plaintiffs’ claims are rooted in medical malpractice. (See Mot. MPA, p. 11:4-7.) The Court construes Plaintiffs’ failure to oppose the motion as a concession on the merits on this issue. (D.I. Chadbourne, Inc. v. Superior Court (1964) 60 Cal.2d 723, 728, fn. 4 [where nonmoving party fails to oppose a ground for a motion “it is assumed that [nonmoving party] concedes” that ground].) Thus, Plaintiffs’ wrongful death claims fall within the arbitration agreement. As for the medical malpractice and elder abuse claims, Plaintiffs bring these as survivor claims as Decedent’s successors in interest. Thus, these claims are derivative of Decedent’s claims, and since Decedent agreed to arbitrate all disputes between him and Asbury

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV021784: OSWALT, et al. vs DIGNITY HEALTH DBA MERCY SAN JUAN MEDICAL CENTER, et al. 06/08/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Arbitration in Department 8C

Park, these claims are subject to arbitration under the language of the agreement. (See Daniels v. Sunrise Senior Living, Inc. (2013) 212 Cal.App.4th 674, 681.)

Accordingly, Asbury Park’s motion to compel arbitration is GRANTED. Plaintiffs are ordered to submit their claims against Asbury Park to arbitration.

This litigation is STAYED in its entirety pending completion of the arbitration.

This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order or other notice is required. (Code Civ. Proc. § 1019.5; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1312.)

[1] The arbitration agreement is attached as Exhibit 1 to the declaration of Kristin N. Isaac. The Court notes that the

agreement nowhere bears the name of Decedent and the spaces for “Resident name” are blank. However, the agreement does bear the initials “RO” are above two lines for the Resident’s signature and paragraph 5 of the Isaac declaration alleges the agreement was signed by Decedent. Since Plaintiffs have not opposed the motion, the Court accepts that representations in the Isaac declaration that Decedent did, in fact, sign the agreement and that the initials “RO” apparently suffice to constitute a “signature” as opposed to the “mark” of a resident, which would have required notarization. (See Exhibit 1, page 6 [notarization required when resident signs by “mark” instead of signature].)