2015-00184230-CU-PO

Beverly Edwards vs. Plum Healthcare Group, LLC

Nature of Proceeding: Motion to Strike Portions of the 2nd Amended Complaint

Filed By: Weissman, Aaron J.

Defendants Vohra Wound Physicians of California, P.C. Vohra Wound Physicians Management LLC, Vohra Heath Services, P.A. and Luis Lee MD (“Defendants”) Motion to Strike Portions of the Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) is denied.

Defendant’s objection to the timeliness of the opposition is overruled. CCP 1013 does not apply to the service of opposition papers. CCP 1005(b). The opposition was served in compliance with CCP 1005(c) because the papers opposing the motion were

reasonably calculated to ensure delivery to the other party no later than the close of the next business day after the time the opposing papers were filed. The opposition was filed and served by express mail on March 2, 2017 the date the opposition was due. Monday March 5 is one business day after the opposing papers were filed, thus receipt of the opposition on that date is timely.

Defendants seek to strike paragraph 111 of the SAC that alleges punitive damages language against defendants, as well as paragraph 3 of the Prayer that seeks punitive damages.

The grounds for a motion to strike must appear on the face of the pleading under attack, or from matter that is properly subject to judicial notice. (Code Civ. Proc. § 437.) As with demurrers, motions to strike are disfavored. “The policy of the law is to construe pleadings ‘liberally…with a view to substantial justice.” (Weil & Brown, Civ.Pro. Before Trial § 7:197 (2017), citing Code Civ. Proc. § 452

Paragraph 111 references Paragraphs 1 through 110, which describe the

abusive, fraudulent, oppressive, and malicious conduct meriting enhanced remedies and a punitive damage award. Paragraphs 28 through 29 set forth the interrelationships of the Vohra entifies, which are alleged to be a single business enterprise founded, and substantially owned, by one person-Ameet Vohra MD. The Vohra entities are alleged act in concert, and manage and oversee every aspect of the wound care services they provide to skilled nursing facilities, including development and implementation of policies and procedures, documentation, billing, hiring, training, and supervision of physicians,

including Defendants Michael Montgomery, M.D., and Lee. Plaintiff alleges that defendants had advanced notice of the conduct of excessive debridement.

Therefore, plaintiff has adequately alleged facts to support punitive damages and enhanced remedies under the Elder Abuse Act.

The motion to strike is denied.