Motion to Strike Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint
25CV010471: MAYER, et al. vs SUTTER AUBURN FAITH HOSPITAL FOUNDATION, A CALIFORNIA NONPROFIT CORPORATION, et al. 06/10/2026 Hearing on Motion to Strike Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint in Department 8D
Tentative Ruling
NOTICE:
Consistent with Local Rule 1.06(B), any party requesting oral argument on any matter on this calendar must comply with the following procedure:
To request limited oral argument, on any matter on this calendar, you must call the Law and Motion Oral Argument Request Line at (916) 874-2615 by 4:00 p.m. the Court day before the hearing and advise opposing counsel. At the time of requesting oral argument, the requesting party shall leave a voice mail 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 it has notified the opposing party of its intention to appear and that opposing party may appear via Zoom using the Zoom link and Meeting ID indicated below. If no request for oral argument is made, the tentative ruling becomes the final order of the Court.
Unless ordered to appear in person by the Court, parties may appear remotely either telephonically or by video conference via the Zoom video/audio conference platform with notice to the Court and all other parties in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure §367.75. Although remote participation is not required, the Court will presume all parties are appearing remotely for non-evidentiary civil hearings.
The Department 8D Zoom Link is https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/j/16113421868 and the Zoom Meeting ID is 161 1342 1868. To appear on Zoom telephonically, call (833) 568-8864 and enter the Zoom Meeting ID referenced above. NO COURTCALL APPEARANCES WILL BE ACCEPTED.
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.
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
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 Courts Approved Official Reporter Pro Tempore list.
25CV010471: MAYER, et al. vs SUTTER AUBURN FAITH HOSPITAL FOUNDATION, A CALIFORNIA NONPROFIT CORPORATION, et al. 06/10/2026 Hearing on Motion to Strike Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint in Department 8D
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 forward the form to the Court Reporters Office and an official reporter will be provided.
***NOTICE: EFFECTIVE APRIL 13, 2026, THIS DEPARTMENT HAS MOVED TO THE TANI G. CANTIL-SAKAUYE COURTHOUSE LOCATED AT 500 G. ST. SACRAMENTO, CA. ALL MOTIONS NOTICED FOR DEPARTMENT 25 WILL BE HEARD IN DEPARTMENT 8D 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 OR GORDON D. SCHABER COURTHOUSE. ALL HEARINGS WILL TAKE PLACE AT THIS NEW LOCATION.***
TENTATIVE RULING:
Defendants Sutter Health, Sutter Valley Hospitals, Sutter Auburn Faith Hospital Foundation, and Sutter Roseville Hospital Foundation (the Corporate Defendants) motion to strike portions of Plaintiffs Allan Mayers, Margaret Peggy Mayers, Scott Allan Mayers and Shauna Mayers (Plaintiffs) first amended complaint is DENIED.
Background
Concurrently with this motion to strike, the Corporate Defendants, and Sutter Valley Hospitals dba Sutter Roseville Medical Center and Sutter Valley Hospitals dba Sutter Auburn Faith Hospital (the Hospital Defendants; collectively, Defendants), filed contemporaneous demurrers to Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint (FAC). The Court hereby incorporates the background facts as set forth in the Courts full ruling on the demurrer.
Specifically, Defendants move to strike punitive damages on the ground that Plaintiffs are not entitled to damages pursuant to Civil Code § 425.13 since Plaintiffs have failed to plead facts sufficient to establish the level of malice, oppression or fraud required to plead elder abuse. (Notice of Motion.) Defendants also move to strike attorneys fees pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code § 15657 on the basis that Plaintiffs have not sufficiently ple[]d elder abuse here. (Ibid.)
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
25CV010471: MAYER, et al. vs SUTTER AUBURN FAITH HOSPITAL FOUNDATION, A CALIFORNIA NONPROFIT CORPORATION, et al. 06/10/2026 Hearing on Motion to Strike Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint in Department 8D
Legal Standard
The court may, upon a motion made pursuant to [Code of Civil Procedure] Section 435, or at any time in its discretion, and upon terms it deems proper: (a) Strike out any irrelevant, false, or improper matter inserted in any pleading, (b) Strike out all or any part of any pleading not drawn or filed in conformity with the laws of this state, a court rule, or an order of the court. (Code Civ. Proc., § 436.) The grounds for a motion to strike must appear on the face of the challenged pleading or from any matter of which the court is required to take judicial notice. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437, subd. (a).) The use of the motion to strike should be cautious and sparing. It should not be a procedural line item veto. (PH II, Inc. v. Super. Ct. (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1680, 1683.)
Analysis
Punitive Damages
The Court has overruled Defendants demurrers to all of Plaintiffs causes of action, including the cause of action for Elder Abuse and fraud. The Court likewise finds that the allegations in the FAC are sufficient to support Plaintiffs claims for punitive damages.
Accordingly, Defendants motion to strike punitive damages is DENIED.
Attorneys Fees
As set forth above, the Court has overruled Defendants demurrers to all of Plaintiffs causes of action, including the cause of action for Elder Abuse and fraud. The Court likewise finds that the allegations in the FAC are sufficient to support Plaintiffs claims for attorneys fees.
Disposition
Defendants motion to strike is DENIED in its entirety.
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.)