Torres et al v. Santa Rosa Memorial Hospital et al

Filing 35

ORDER by Judge Hamilton granting 16 Motion to Dismiss; granting 26 Motion to Dismiss (pjhlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/28/2013)

1
2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

4
5
6

MICHAEL GENE TORRES, et al.,

7
8
9

Plaintiffs,
v.

No. C 12-6364 PJH
ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS TO
DISMISS

SANTA ROSA MEMORIAL HOSPITAL,
et al.,

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12

Defendants.
_______________________________/
Defendants’ motions to dismiss came on for hearing before this court on May 22,

13

2013. Plaintiffs Michael Gene Torres; Michael G. Torres, Jr.; Robert Sexton; Zenaida

14

Stilley; and Diane Torres (“plaintiffs”) appeared through their counsel, Douglas Fladseth.

15

Defendants Santa Rosa Memorial Hospital and St. Joseph Health System (“the Hospital

16

defendants”) appeared through their counsel, Cameron Whitehead. Counsel for defendant

17

Glenn T. Meade, M.D. (“Meade”) was not able to attend the hearing. Having read the

18

papers filed in conjunction with the motions and carefully considered the arguments and the

19

relevant legal authority, and good cause appearing, the court hereby GRANTS the Hospital

20

defendants’ motion to dismiss and GRANTS Meade’s motion to dismiss, for the reasons

21

stated at the hearing, and summarized as follows.

22

As a threshold matter, the court finds that no claims can be asserted directly by the

23

decedent, Michael Gene Torres, and orders his name stricken from the complaint and the

24

case caption. Any claims on his behalf may be asserted by his son, Michael G. Torres, Jr.,

25

or by the personal representative of the decedent’s estate, Robert Sexton.

26

The court also finds that certain plaintiffs lack standing to bring their claims.

27

Plaintiffs’ second cause of action is brought under Welfare & Institutions Code § 15657,

28

and plaintiffs concede that this claim belongs to the decedent. Thus, it may be asserted by

1

either decedent’s son or by the personal representative of his estate. For that reason, to

2

the extent that plaintiffs Zenaida Stilley and Diane Torres assert claims for a violation of

3

Welfare & Institutions Code § 15657, their claims are DISMISSED for lack of standing.

4

Plaintiffs’ third cause of action asserts a claim for general negligence, and may be

5

brought by a decedent’s spouse, children, or issue of deceased children, or by anyone who

6

was financially dependent on the decedent. Plaintiffs do not allege that Robert Sexton or

7

Diane Torres fall into either of those categories, and plaintiffs concede that they lack

8

standing to bring this claim. Thus, to the extent that plaintiffs Robert Sexton and Diane

9

Torres assert general negligence claims, those claims are DISMISSED with prejudice for
lack of standing. As to plaintiff Zenaida Stilley, she may have standing to bring a

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

negligence claim, but the complaint does not adequately allege that she was financially

12

dependent on the decedent. Thus, plaintiff Stilley’s negligence claim is DISMISSED with

13

leave to amend, so that she may properly allege such financial dependence.

14

Plaintiffs’ first cause of action is brought under the Emergency Medical Treatment

15

and Active Labor Act (“EMTALA”), which may be brought against a hospital by any

16

individual who suffers harm as a result of a violation. Defendant Meade correctly argues

17

that an EMTALA claim may not be asserted against a physician, and plaintiffs concede that

18

argument. Thus, the first cause of action is DISMISSED with prejudice as to defendant

19

Meade. As to the EMTALA claims brought by the other plaintiffs against the Hospital

20

defendants, the court first notes that plaintiffs have not adequately alleged the harm that

21

they each suffered, which is necessary to establish standing. The complaint generally

22

alleges that the plaintiffs suffered harm, but does not differentiate between the plaintiffs

23

with regard to the harm suffered. Moreover, the complaint is not clear as to which EMTALA

24

prong the plaintiffs intend to assert their claims: the “failure to screen” prong or the “failure

25

to stabilize” prong (or both). In their opposition, plaintiffs indicate that they believe the

26

Hospital defendants failed to screen on two separate occasions: once when the decedent

27

first arrived at the hospital, and again when he remained on the hospital grounds after

28
2

1

being discharged. However, these allegations are not made clear in the complaint, and for

2

that reason, the court DISMISSES plaintiffs’ first cause of action with leave to amend. In

3

the amended complaint, plaintiffs must identify: (1) which plaintiffs are asserting this claim;

4

(2) the specific harm suffered by each plaintiff; (3) the specific EMTALA prong that the

5

Hospital defendants allegedly violated; and (4) the specific conduct that constituted each

6

violation. And to the extent that plaintiffs allege that the Hospital defendants failed to

7

screen the decedent, plaintiffs must explain whether they allege that the Hospital failed to

8

conduct any screening examination, or whether they allege that the screening examination

9

was cursory. Plaintiffs are further directed to review Jackson v. East Bay Hospital, 246

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

F.3d 1248 (9th Cir. 2001), for the requirements of an EMTALA claim.
Plaintiffs’ second cause of action is brought under California Welfare & Institutions

12

Code § 15657, which imposes liability for “for physical abuse as defined in Section

13

15610.63, or neglect as defined in Section 15610.57.” Plaintiffs do not specify under which

14

prong they intend to proceed, but it appears that the “neglect” statute is more applicable to

15

plaintiffs’ allegations. Section 15610.57 imposes liability for the “negligent failure of any

16

person having the care or custody of an elder or a dependent adult to exercise that degree

17

of care that a reasonable person in a like position would exercise.” Plaintiffs have not

18

adequately alleged that the decedent was either an “elder” or a “dependent adult” as

19

required by the statute, and at the hearing, plaintiffs’ counsel was still unable to articulate

20

any facts suggesting that the decedent could be classified under either of those two

21

categories. Thus, plaintiffs’ second cause of action is DISMISSED. The court will grant

22

plaintiffs one opportunity to amend their complaint to attempt to state a claim for a Welfare

23

& Institutions Code violation.

24

Plaintiffs have until June 19, 2013 to file an amended complaint in accordance with

25

this order. No new causes of action or parties may be added without leave of court or a

26

stipulation of all parties. Defendants have until July 10, 2013 to answer or otherwise

27

respond to the amended complaint. If the response is another motion to dismiss, it should

28
3

1

be noticed in accordance with the local rules, but the court will likely not hold any further

2

hearings on the pleadings.

3
4
5

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: May 28, 2013
______________________________
PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON
United States District Judge

6
7
8
9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4