N.D. v. Regional Center of Orange County CA4/3

Filed 4/30/14 N.D. v. Regional Center of Orange County CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

N.D.,

Plaintiff and Appellant, G048573

v. (Super. Ct. No. 30-2010-00414596)

REGIONAL CENTER OF ORANGE OPINION COUNTY,

Defendant and Respondent.

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Janet C. Pesak, Temporary Judge. (Pursuant to Cal. Const., art. VI, § 21.) Reversed and remanded. Pamela Patterson for Plaintiff and Appellant. Woodruff, Spradlin & Smart and M. Lois Bobak for Defendant and Respondent.

* * *

The court sustained the demurrer of defendant and respondent Regional Center of Orange County (RCOC) to all but one of the causes of action of the fourth amended complaint filed by plaintiff and appellant N.D., by her guardian ad litem, Pamela Patterson, who is her mother (mother) and also attorney of record. This was done at a hearing on a motion for reconsideration of the ruling on the demurrer. Although there was a cause of action for breach of contract remaining, to which RCOC had not demurred, the court entered judgment in favor of defendant. On appeal N.D. argues entry of judgment was an abuse of the court’s discretion and violated her United States constitutional rights to a jury trial and under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. We agree the court abused its discretion in entering judgment when there was a cause of action pending, and reverse on that basis. This case has a procedurally tortuous history, but the appeal boils down to one simple issue: Did the trial court have the authority to enter judgment on the motion for reconsideration? And the equally simple answer is no. N.D., now 15 years old, is a person with developmental disabilities. In 2007, after a dispute with RCOC about services to be provided to N.D., RCOC and mother entered into a settlement agreement to resolve those issues (2007 Settlement Agreement). In October 2010, N.D. and mother filed a complaint against RCOC for breach of the 2007 Settlement Agreement and for intentional and negligent misrepresentation. In November 2010 mother and/or N.D. filed an Application for Emergency Order of Mandamus for Nursing Care to require RCOC to provide sufficient nursing care.1 The court granted the application and ordered the care to be paid at the Medi-Cal rate.