Case Name: St. Laurent v. Achievement Fitness LLC, et al.
Case No.: 2017-1-CV-319487

This is an action for wrongful death. According to the allegations of the complaint, Insa Belochi (“Decedent”) was participating in a Metabolics class at defendant Achievement Fitness, LLC (“Achievement”), taught by Achievement trainer and co-owner defendant Denise Riesenhuber (“Denise”). (See complaint, ¶ 7.) In the middle of the class, Decedent collapsed, lied flat on her back, motionless, unconscious, not breathing or breathing with agonal respiration, not speaking, and with eyes neither moving nor focused. (See complaint, ¶ 10.) After seeing this, Denise instructed the other students in the class to “[not] worry, just finish the class.” (See complaint, ¶ 44.) After about twenty minutes, bystanders noticed Decedent and decided to assess whether she had a pulse and was breathing. (See complaint, ¶¶ 23, 25.) Apparently, around this time, Achievement employee, Marina Chakmakjian (“Marina”), who was the designated “first responder” for Achievement, and was a former 911 trainee dispatcher, with knowledge and certification in CPR and Automated External Defibrillator (AED) usage, had called 911. (See complaint, ¶¶ 13-14, 23, 42-43.) The two bystanders, Victoria and Cindy, began CPR on Decedent. (See complaint, ¶ 23.) However, Marina then instructed the bystanders to stop CPR on Decedent. (Id.) The bystanders stopped CPR at Marina’s instruction, and then overheard Marina tell the 911 operator that Decedent was breathing—which was untrue. (Id.) The bystanders then began CPR again and Denise then attempted to give Cindy an AED machine as Cindy was giving compressions. (Id.) Ultimately, Decedent suffered irreversible brain damage as a result of Defendants’ willful misconduct, resulting in Decedent’s death.

On November 21, 2017, plaintiffs Edmond St. Laurent, guardian ad litem for Sommer A. St. Laurent, Edmond St. Laurent II, and Collin St. Laurent, filed a complaint against Achievement, Denise, Brett Riesenhuber and Marina (collectively, “Defendants”), asserting causes of action for:

1) Negligence;
2) Gross negligence;
3) Willful misconduct;
4) Negligence per se; and,
5) Wrongful death.

Defendants move to strike portions of the complaint.

Defendants’ motion to strike

Defendants move to strike certain paragraphs of the complaint on the grounds that they are improper, asserting that certain allegations are not statements of fact. (See Defs.’ memorandum of points and authorities in support of motion to strike, pp.3:17-28, 4:1-28, 5:1-28, 6:1-28, 7:1-5.) In support of their argument, Defendants cite to Ankeny v. Lockheed Missiles and Space Co. (1979) 88 Cal.App.3d 531, 537 and Oppenheimer v. Ashburn (1959) 173 Cal.App.2d 624, 628. However, at issue in both Ankeny and Oppenheimer were demurrers to the complaint on the grounds of uncertainty and failure to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, respectively; neither such demurrer is presently before the Court. Here, Defendants have failed to demonstrate that the subject allegations are improper.

Additionally, Defendants argue that the complaint fails to allege sufficient facts demonstrating malice or oppression to justify punitive damages, or facts with sufficient particularity. However, the complaint alleges that bystanders attempted to save Decedent’s life with CPR; however, Defendants intentionally interfered with the bystanders’ attempts, and gave false information to first responders with the specific knowledge that such interference and misinformation would result in further harm and possible death to Decedent. Such allegations are both sufficient to demonstrate malice or oppression and sufficiently specific.

Defendants lastly argue that Plaintiff cannot hold the individual defendants liable for any cause of action on an alter ego theory. Defendants fail to identify what portions of the complaint they seek to strike with regards to such a theory, rendering their argument impossible to understand.

Defendants’ motion to strike portions of the complaint is DENIED in its entirety.

The Court will prepare the Order.