Appeals Court Rules that Parents are Bound by Son’s Arbitration Agreement in Wrongful Death Claim

In recent news, a Los Angeles skilled nursing facility run by Silverscreen Healthcare was sued for wrongful death by the parents of a resident who died while in their care.

The Case: Holland v. Silverscreen Healthcare, Inc.

The Court: California Court of Appeals, Second District, Second Division

The Case No.: B323237

The Plaintiff: Holland v. Silverscreen Healthcare, Inc.

The plaintiffs in the case, Holland, originally filed for survivor claims and a wrongful death claim in the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, alleging dependent adult abuse and negligence on behalf of their deceased son, Skyler. Silverscreen Healthcare, Inc. (dba Asistencia skilled nursing facility) moved to compel arbitration of the entire complaint, arguing there was an arbitration agreement between Skyler and Asistencia. The trial court granted Asistencia's motion for the survivor claims. However, they denied the motion for the wrongful death cause of action, stating that the parents did not have an enforceable arbitration agreement with Asistencia (relying heavily on Avila v. Southern California Specialty Care, Inc. (2018) 20 Cal. App.5th 835 (Avila)).

The Defendants: Holland v. Silverscreen Healthcare, Inc.

The defendant, Silverscreen Healthcare, Inc. (dba Asistencia), filed for appeal. arguing Ruiz v. Podolsky (2010) 50 Cal.4th 838 (Ruiz) sets a precedent and that the parents are bound by the arbitration agreement signed by their son, so the parents' wrongful death claim is also subject to arbitration. The appeals court agreed with Asistencia and found that under Ruiz and Code of Civil Procedure Section 1295, the parents' wrongful death claim must go to arbitration along with Skyler's survivor claims.

Do Medical Arbitration Agreements Apply to Wrongful Death Claims?

Ruiz addressed the following issue: "[W]hen a person seeking medical care contracts with a health care provider to resolve all medical malpractice claims through arbitration, does that agreement apply to the resolution of wrongful death claims when the claimants are not themselves signatory to the arbitration agreement?" (Ruiz, supra, 50 Cal.4th at p. 841.) In seeking an answer, Ruiz focused on the legal intent behind Section 1295 (part of the Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act of 1975 (MICRA). MICRA's goal of reducing costs in the resolution of malpractice claims encourages arbitration of medical malpractice disputes, stating, "...all medical malpractice claims, including wrongful death claims, may be subject to arbitration agreements between a health care provider and the patient." (Ruiz, supra, 50 Cal.4th at p. 841; see also id. at p. 843).

The Case: Holland v. Silverscreen Healthcare, Inc.

After Skyler's death on October 29, 2020, his parents filed a lawsuit alleging four causes of action against Asistencia: dependent adult abuse, negligence, violation of resident's rights, and wrongful death. The first three causes of action are survivor claims (Skyler's claims) brought by his mother, Holland. Holland filed survivor claims in her capacity as Skyler's successor in interest. Holland and Wayne bring the fourth cause of action for wrongful death as individuals. Silverscreen Healthcare, Inc. filed an appeal after the Superior Court of Los Angeles County (No. 22STCV01945) found that the parents did not have an enforceable arbitration agreement with Asistencia. On appeal, Michelle Williams Court, Judge, reversed the decision and remanded with directions.

If you have questions about how to file a California wrongful death lawsuit, please get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw L.L.P. Experienced wrongful death attorneys are ready to assist you in various law firm offices in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

Did Lax Security Protocols Result in the Death of Concert Attendees?

In recent news, two nurses attending an EDM festival were allegedly killed by another concert attendee, even though security measures in place should have prohibited him from having a weapon on site.

The Case: Bautista-Perez v. Juul Labs

The Court: U.S. District Court of Northern California

The Case No.: 20-cv-01613-HSG

The Plaintiff: Bautista-Perez v. Juul Labs

The plaintiff in the case, Bautista-Perez, initiated a lawsuit in March 2020 against the Defendants Juul and Coalition, alleging that these entities were their legal employers and they failed to adhere to various state and federal labor laws. The plaintiffs argued that Juul employees had control over their wages, hours, and working conditions and that they were supervised partly by Coalition employees, establishing an employer-employee relationship. They claimed that the defendants did not provide compliant pay statements, failed to pay for all hours worked, and did not issue immediate payment upon discharge. Their legal action included claims under the California Labor Code and FLSA. Later, they expanded their claims to include penalties under the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA). Despite the court initially denying the defendants' motions to compel arbitration and dismissing Juul's motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint with leave to amend, the plaintiffs persisted by filing a Second Amended Complaint to continue pressing their allegations and seeking redress for the claimed labor law violations.

The Defendant: Bautista-Perez v. Juul Labs

The defendant in the case, Juul Labs, is a foreign stock corporation known for manufacturing electronic cigarettes, found itself entangled in legal proceedings stemming from its involvement in the Yes on C Campaign during San Francisco's November 5, 2019, municipal election. The campaign aimed to pass Proposition C, which sought to overturn a local ordinance that suspended the sale of e-cigarettes. To manage this campaign, Juul contracted Long Ying International, Inc., a San Francisco-based campaign operator led by CEO David Ho. Long Ying and Ho then employed approximately 365 workers, including the named plaintiffs, to carry out canvassing, phone banking, and administrative tasks. These workers, classified as independent contractors, were required to sign a standard independent contractor agreement. The lawsuit brought against Juul and its associates centers on allegations that Juul, by exerting control over the campaign workers' wages, hours, and working conditions, effectively acted as their employer, thereby violating multiple state and federal labor laws, including failures in providing compliant pay statements and ensuring payment for all hours worked.

The Case: Bautista-Perez v. Juul Labs

In the lawsuit involving Juul Labs, Inc., centered on its management of the Yes on C Campaign and the subsequent employment practices, plaintiffs accused Juul and Coalition of misclassifying campaign workers as independent contractors, among other violations of state and federal labor laws. The legal proceedings saw the plaintiffs moving to conditionally certify the class while Juul and Coalition sought dismissal of the Second Amended Complaint (SAC). The court, however, denied the dismissal motions and granted conditional class certification. In an effort to resolve the matter, the court stayed the proceedings in June 2021 to facilitate mediation, which led to a settlement in August 2021. The settlement agreement, preliminarily approved in February 2022, was finalized with the court granting final approval to a $1.75 million settlement. This amount included $400,000 in penalties under the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA), $525,000 for attorneys' fees, $14,568.49 for litigation costs, and service awards totaling $17,000 for the three named plaintiffs. The resolution marked the conclusion of the dispute, with the court directing the parties to implement the settlement terms and file a stipulated final judgment.

California Nurses Face Significant Risks of Misclassification:

The resolution of the lawsuit involving Juul Labs and its campaign workers underscores a broader legal issue prevalent in California—misclassification of workers. This challenge extends significantly to the healthcare sector, particularly nurses. The case of Juul, where workers were misclassified as independent contractors despite performing roles akin to regular employees, mirrors the risks that nurses face across the state. Nurses, often hired as independent contractors by healthcare facilities, find themselves in precarious positions without the full benefits and protections afforded to regular employees, such as overtime pay, health benefits, and workers' compensation. This legal precedent highlights the ongoing issues of labor misclassification and serves as a crucial reminder for healthcare institutions to evaluate their employment practices carefully. Correctly classifying workers is essential for legal compliance and protecting the rights and well-being of nurses, who are vital to the functioning of California's healthcare system.

If you have questions about filing a California wrongful death lawsuit, please get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced wrongful death attorneys are ready to assist you in various law firm offices in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

Family Files Wrongful Death Lawsuit After Orange County Apartment Explosion

In recent news, Mikeanesha Moore was injured during an Orange County apartment explosion on March 1, 2024, and later died on March 9, 2024. Her family filed a wrongful death lawsuit.

The Case: Fondia v. Woodhill, Highmark Residential, and Lake Apopka Natural Gas

The Court: 9th Judicial Circuit Court Orange County, Florida

The Case No.: 48-2024-CA-002046

The Plaintiff: Fondia v. Woodhill, Highmark Residential, and Lake Apopka Natural Gas

The plaintiff in the case, the family of Mikeanesha Moore, filed a wrongful death lawsuit. According to the lawsuit, Moor died about a week after her Orange County apartment exploded. The family is suing the apartment property’s owner and manager, as well as the property’s gas service provider, for alleged wrongful death. According to Moore’s family, the explosion left her critically injured and led to her death on March 9. The explosion at Moore’s recently leased apartment at the Woodhill Apartments allegedly left her with third- and fourth-degree burns on more than 40% of her body.

The Defendant: Fondia v. Woodhill, Highmark Residential, and Lake Apopka Natural Gas

The defendants in the case are SPT Wah Woodhill LLC, Highmark Residential LLC, and the Lake Apopka Natural Gas District, identified in the lawsuit as the Woodhill Apartment complex’s owner, managing organization, and gas services provider. According to the lawsuit, there were years of complaints about the smell of leaking gas in the building. Orange County fire crews also allegedly identified an unplugged natural gas line in Moore’s laundry room as the source of leaked natural gas and the cause of the explosion. However, investigators are yet to confirm if the unplugged line was the cause of the March 1, 2024 explosion. Also mentioned in the lawsuit are alleged years of complaints regarding the smell of leaking gas in the 600 apartment complex building, where Moore had signed a lease about two weeks prior.

The Case: Fondia v. Woodhill, Highmark Residential, and Lake Apopka Natural Gas

The wrongful death lawsuit (filed on April 2, amending a March 8 complaint) seeks damages in the loss of earnings from the day Moore was injured to the date of her death, as well as the loss of income to her family due to her death. The family also seeks payment of all medical and funeral expenses. The plaintiffs seek a jury trial.

If you have questions about filing a California wrongful termination lawsuit, please get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced wrongful death attorneys are ready to assist you in various law firm offices in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

Did Lax Security Protocols Result in the Death of Concert Attendees?

In recent news, two nurses attending an EDM festival were allegedly killed by another concert attendee, even though security measures in place should have prohibited him from having a weapon on site.

The Case: Estate of Brady Escamilla Obo et al. VS Live Nation Entertainment Inc. et al.

The Court: Superior Court of Washington, County of King

The Case No.: 24-2-07949-1 KNT

The Plaintiff: Estate of Brady Escamilla Obo et al. VS Live Nation

The plaintiffs in the case, the Estate of Brady Escamilla Obo et al., are the parents and siblings of Brandy Escamilla and Josilyn Ruiz. The two Seattle nurses were killed on June 17, 2023, while attending a Live Nation festival. The family filed a wrongful death lawsuit seeking to hold Live Nation (and other allegedly responsible entities) accountable for alleged deficient conduct and lax security protocols.

The Defendant: Estate of Brady Escamilla Obo et al. VS Live Nation Entertainment Inc. et al.

The defendant in the case, Live Nation, is a subsidiary of Insomniac Holdings and several security companies that face a wrongful death lawsuit connected to an incident at the 2023 Beyond Wonderland at The Gorge EDM festival. According to the lawsuit, alleged deficient conduct and lax security protocols on the part of the defendant are responsible for the armed concertgoer, James M. Kelly, who shot the two nurses during the EDM event.

The Case: Estate of Brady Escamilla Obo et al. VS Live Nation Entertainment Inc. et al.

In the case Estate of Brady Escamilla Obo et al. VS Live Nation Entertainment Inc. et al., the shooter, Kelly, ingested hallucinogenic mushrooms at the concert, went to his vehicle (which was parked at The Gorge Campground) to retrieve a handgun and ammunition, and proceeded to open fire. Several people were injured, and both Brandy and Josilyn (who were walking nearby) were killed. The wrongful death complaint alleged that Live Nation and The Gorge have strict policies that prohibit the possession of drugs and weapons on the premises and in the campgrounds.

If you have questions about filing a California wrongful death lawsuit, don't hesitate to contact Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced wrongful death attorneys are ready to assist you in various law firm offices in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

Family of Kristen Smart Filed Wrongful Death Lawsuit Against Cal Poly

In recent news, Kristin Smart's family filed a civil complaint against Cal Poly, claiming negligence and wrongful death.

The Case: Smart Family v. Cal Poly

The Court: Superior Court of California, San Luis Obispo County

The Case No.: 24CV-0046

The Plaintiff: Smart Family v. Cal Poly

The plaintiff in the case, the Smart Family, filed a civil complaint after the Cal Poly President publicly apologized to the family in May 2023, recognizing that things should have been handled differently and stating that he "personally wish[ed] that they had." Kristin Smart was a 19-year-old Cal Poly student who disappeared in May 1996 after attending an off-campus party. Twenty-six years later, in October of 2022, Paul Flores was found guilty of her murder.

The Defendant: Smart Family v. Cal Poly

The defendant in the case, Cal Poly, allegedly breached its legal duty by not pursuing a missing persons case promptly, failing to interview witnesses promptly, not sealing the primary suspect's dorm room (Paul Flores), and allowing the primary suspect's dorm room to be sanitized before the search that was conducted 16 days after Smart's disappearance. In addition to the university's actions following the disappearance of Smart, they allegedly failed to take appropriate action to multiple other reports about Paul Flores's threatening stalking and harassing behaviors before Smart's murder.

The Case: Smart Family v. Cal Poly

While the Smart family has exhausted the procedural processes available to receive the full investigative file from Cal Poly, they still have not received it. The Smart family alleges that the primary suspect in their daughter's disappearance and murder should not have been on campus based on prior complaints and incidents. Secondly, they claim that the university was negligent in responding to Smart's disappearance.

If you have questions about filing a California wrongful death lawsuit, don't hesitate to contact Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced wrongful death attorneys are ready to assist you in various law firm offices in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

Google and Google Co-Founder Sued for Wrongful Death After Ferry Flight Crash

Google and its co-founder, Brin, face a wrongful death lawsuit after a ferry flight crashed on the first leg from California to Fiji.

The Case: Maria Magdalena Olarte (Estate of Lance Maclean, deceased) v. Theodore M. Neale, Sergey Brin, Bayshore Global Management LLC, Google LLC, Seafly LLC, Southern Cross Aviation Inc., and Does 1-50, inclusive

The Court: California Superior Court, County of Santa Clara

The Case No.: 24CV430717

The Plaintiff: Olarte v. Brin, Google LLC, et al.

Lance Maclean was one of two pilots aboard the flight. The plaintiff in the case, Maria Magdalena Olarte, is Maclean’s widow and a personal representative of the Estate of Lance Maclean. Olarte filed suit claiming wrongful death and survival negligence.

The Defendant: Olarte v. Brin, Google LLC, et al

The defendant in the case, Brin, Google LLC, et al., faces allegations that a poorly installed modification caused the plane crash off the coast of California in May 2023. The defendants also face claims that recovery was slowed intentionally to accommodate efforts to destroy evidence of the cause of the crash.

The Case: Olarte v. Brin, Google LLC, et al

According to an updated complaint filed on February 13, 2024, Maclean and his co-pilot, Dean Rushfedlt, were hired to fly Brin’s seaplane from California to Fiji for island-hopping with friends. Brin’s seaplane is an $8M twin-engine Viking Air Twin Otter Series 400 that requires an auxiliary fuel system. According to the complaint, a mechanic did it from “memory” - not consulting a checklist or logging the work with the FAA. According to court documents, the fuel system failed during the first leg of the flight to Hawaii, and the seaplane crashed into the ocean while trying to return to California. While the Coast Guard arrived on site within 15 minutes, the seaplane was upside-down and partially submerged, and they could not retrieve either of the pilots.

Following the incident, the plaintiff claims Brin said he would assist with recovery. However, Brin’s representatives allegedly told Olarte that the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) was blocking the recovery of the bodies. According to the complaint, The NOAA denied the claim that they were preventing the recovery of the bodies. Olarte seeks damages and a jury trial.

If you have questions about how to file a California wrongful death lawsuit, please get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced wrongful death attorneys are ready to help you in various law firm offices in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

Did a Lack of Proper Safety Checks Result in a Pre-Trial Inmate’s Death?

The County of Orange is facing wrongful death allegations after OCSD deputies allegedly failed to conduct proper safety checks of a mentally ill inmate.

The Case: Lucio v. County of Orange

The Court: United States District Court-Central District of California

The Case No.: 8:24 cv- 00359

The Plaintiffs: Lucio v. County of Orange

The plaintiffs in the case are the family of Ronald Garcia Lucio, Jr, who died while in custody at the Santa Ana County Jail. According to Lucio’s children and parent, Lucio was a pre-trial inmate who suffered from mental illness. The wrongful death lawsuit claims Lucio died while being housed in Orange County Central Jail due to a lack of proper safety checks for a mentally ill patient/inmate.

The Incident: Lucio v. County of Orange

According to the court records, on March 18, 2022, Lucio received his evening meal in his Orange County Central Jail cell at 3:20 pm. At 7:12 pm, the OCSD Deputy entered Lucio’s cell with a vocational nurse to conduct a well check. The deputy observed Lucio lying in the lower bunk on his right side and made a “man down” call once the radio that resulted in additional deputies and medical staff reporting for assistance. At 7:14 pm, the deputies moved Luxio from the bottom bunk in his cell to the dayroom floor outside his cell, where the medical staff began cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Orange County Fire Authority (OCFA) arrived and took over Lucio’s treatment at 7:27 pm. Upon arrival, the paramedics found Lucio pulseless and noted he was exhibiting the onset of rigor mortis. OCFA personnel pronounced Lucio dead at 7:30 pm.

The Case: Lucio v. County of Orange

The case, Lucio v. County of Orange, claims that deputies and Orange County Central Jail medical staff failed to provide proper safety checks that could have prevented the death of Lucio, a pre-trial inmate who suffered from mental illness.

If you have questions about how to file a California wrongful death lawsuit, please get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced wrongful death attorneys are ready to assist you in various law firm offices in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.