Case Law Lapachet v. Cal. Forensic Med. Grp., Inc.

Lapachet v. Cal. Forensic Med. Grp., Inc.

Document Cited Authorities (64) Cited in (24) Related

Julia Sherwin, Maya Melissa Sorensen, Michael Joseph Haddad, Teresa Denise Allen, Haddad & Sherwin, LLP, Thomas Kennedy Helm, IV, Oakland, CA, Sanjay Stephen Schmidt, Law Office of Sanjay S. Schmidt, San Francisco, CA, for Plaintiff.

Jemma Allison Parker Saunders, Peter G Bertling, Bertling Law Group, Santa Barbara, CA, Jesse M. Rivera, Jill B. Nathan, Jonathan B. Paul, Shanan L. Hewitt, Rivera & Associates, Sacramento, CA, for Defendants.

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS

Dale A. Drozd, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

This matter is before the court on defendants' motion to dismiss. (Doc. No. 51.) On December 19, 2017, a hearing on the motion was held. Attorneys Teresa Allen, Michael Haddad, and Sanjay Schmidt appeared telephonically on behalf of plaintiff Jeremy Lapachet. Attorneys Jemma Saunders, Jesse M. Rivera, and Jill Nathan appeared telephonically on behalf of defendants. Having reviewed the parties' briefing and heard arguments, and for the reasons that follow, defendants' motion to dismiss will be granted in part and denied in part.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff brings this action against the County of Stanislaus ("County"), Sheriff Adam Christianson ("Christianson"), California Forensic Medical Group, Inc. ("CFMG"), various CFMG employees, and unidentified Stanislaus County Sheriff's Department supervisors. In his complaint, plaintiff alleges as follows. When plaintiff entered the Stanislaus County Jail on December 9, 2014, he possessed the ability to walk, jog, run, and use all of his extremities freely. (Doc. No. 1 (Compl.) at ¶ 25–26.) On or about October 26, 2015, he left the jail on a stretcher as a quadriplegic, with injuries that included a fractured skull, multiple subdural hematomas, a traumatic brain injury, severe spinal cord injuries, and a torn rotator cuff. (Id. ) On October 24, 2015, around 5:50 p.m., plaintiff was placed in the jail's "Sobering Cell" because County and CFMG staff became aware that he had been injected with and was under the influence of an unknown controlled substance. (Id. at ¶ 27.) Specifically, defendant Jessamae Trinidad, R.N. ("Trinidad"), a CFMG employee, received a report that plaintiff had been injected with an unknown substance by another inmate. (Id. ) Trinidad noted three red marks in plaintiff's right AC joint, with bruising present. Plaintiff reported to Trinidad that he had experienced the effects of various drugs prior to being in custody, but that the effects produced by this unknown substance did not feel like any he had experienced previously. (Id. ) Prior to his placement in the Sobering Cell, plaintiff had also been observed to be engaging in self-harm, including punching himself multiple times. (Id. at ¶ 28.) County jail staff reported this to CFMG staff. (Id. )

Less than an hour later, defendant Tabitha King ("King"), a CFMG employee and L.V.N., documented an "Emergency Response," indicating that she had responded to a call for possible drug use. (Id. at ¶ 29.) Defendant Lani Antonio ("Antonio"), another CFMG employee, was also notified of the call. (Id. ) King responded and found plaintiff sitting in a chair with handcuffs on. (Id. ) His symptoms included trembling, restlessness, dilated pupils, and elevated vital signs. (Id. ) Defendant Antonio directed that plaintiff's vital signs be checked every six hours until he stabilized. (Id. )

Around 8:02 p.m. that same evening, defendant Trinidad checked the Sobering Cell and observed plaintiff touching his chest, pacing in his cell, and behaving restlessly. (Id. at ¶ 30.) Plaintiff also complained that his lungs and chest were filling with fluid. (Id. ) Rather than treating plaintiff, Trinidad merely told plaintiff to "relax." (Id. ) Around 11:46 p.m., defendant Judith Alejandre, L.V.N. ("Alejandre"), a CFMG employee, checked the Sobering Cell again. (Id. at ¶ 31.) Defendant Alejandre took plaintiff's vital signs, which remained elevated. (Id. ) Although plaintiff had been injected with an unknown substance, and had displayed elevated vital signs for several hours, defendant Alejandre did not request any further medical treatment or order a toxicology screening test. (Id. ) At about midnight, plaintiff was moved from the Sobering Cell to a "Safety Cell," although the Safety Cell lacked the precautions that such cells normally have. (Id. )

On October 25, 2015, around 5:01 a.m., plaintiff's vital signs were checked again, and remained elevated. (Id. at ¶ 35.) Defendant Veronica Berghorst, R.N. ("Berghorst"), a CFMG employee, observed plaintiff and related to CFMG medical staff that plaintiff had told her "people were going to get him in his cell." (Id. ) Defendant Berghorst did not order a toxicology screening or request medical treatment, despite the fact that plaintiff's vital signs had been elevated for roughly 10 hours. (Id. ) At 9:08 a.m., CFMG R.N. Varinder Sablok attempted to perform a "Drug Withdrawal" monitoring evaluation, but did not do so because County staff at the jail had removed plaintiff from his cell. (Id. at ¶ 36.)

Around 4:00 p.m. on October 25, 2015, defendant Amardeep Tawana L.V.N. ("Tawana"), a CFMG employee, conducted a check on plaintiff to monitor the effects of the substance he had taken. (Id. at ¶ 37.) At that time defendant Tawana, as well as other CFMG and County staff, observed plaintiff standing beside the wall in his cell with a towel tied tightly around his left wrist. (Id. ) Defendant Tawana requested that County staff open the cell in order for Tawana to check plaintiff's vital signs, but County staff refused to do so. (Id. ) Around 5:30 p.m. that same day, CFMG staff, including defendant Tawana, were summoned for a "man down" call because plaintiff was bleeding from his nose and the right side of his head. (Id. at ¶ 38.) No further medical examination or treatment was performed at that time since defendant Tawana observed "no visible injuries." (Id. ) At around 5:55 p.m., defendant Tawana observed plaintiff without a safety garment, and with towels wrapped around his neck and hands. (Id. at ¶ 40.) CFMG's mental health R.N., defendant Grashika Devendra ("Devendra"), was notified of these observations at roughly 6:10 p.m., but conducted no follow-up. (Id. )

Around 5:58 p.m., defendant Tawana noted that she responded to plaintiff's cell with other CFMG staff and found plaintiff lying on the floor and "bleeding from an unknown place." (Id. at ¶ 41.) Plaintiff had blood on his mouth, forehead, and both hands, and was apparently using "filthy language to medical and custody staff." (Id. ) County correctional officers dragged plaintiff out of his cell by the head and neck. (Id. ) An unidentified County shift sergeant directed that plaintiff be placed in a safety cell due to the risk of him injuring himself, but otherwise no medical action was taken at that time. (Id. ) At 6:58 p.m., defendant Tawana conducted a "Suicide Watch" of plaintiff and observed him lying on the floor without a safety garment and with dried blood on his face and nose. (Id. at ¶ 42.) At 11:02 p.m., defendant Tawana checked on plaintiff and observed him lying flat on the floor. (Id. at ¶ 43.) Defendant Tawana scheduled a mental health evaluation for the next morning, but the evaluation was never conducted. (Id. )

On October 26, 2015, at about 12:40 a.m., defendant Berghorst wrote a Suicide Watch Report stating that plaintiff was "found laying" in the "prone position" and, according to County staff, had not moved since he had been placed in the safety cell. (Id. at ¶ 45.) Plaintiff was found lying in a pool of yellow and brown liquid around his face and upper body and provided with a safety garment, although his breathing was reportedly labored at that time. (Id. ) An examination of his mouth and throat revealed the presence of blood. (Id. at ¶ 46.) At 12:49 a.m., defendant Berghorst requested that the County sergeant on duty call for an ambulance. (Id. ) Plaintiff's statements to treating personnel at that time indicated that he did not know where he was. (Id. )

Medical staff arrived at around 12:59 a.m., placed plaintiff into "full spine precautions" and transported him to an emergency room. (Id. at ¶ 49.) Plaintiff arrived at the Doctors Medical Center hospital at 1:39 a.m., approximately 32 hours after he was first placed in the jail's "Sobering Cell." (Id. ) After being admitted to the hospital and undergoing tests, plaintiff was found to be suffering from numerous injuries including, but were not limited to, lack of feeling or movement of his legs, a cervical spine fracture at the C5 vertebrae, a nondepressed skull fracture, and a torn rotator cuff. (Id. at ¶ 52.) Plaintiff remains paralyzed from the neck down. (Id. )

In his complaint, plaintiff presents eight causes of action. On November 20, 2017, defendants separately moved to dismiss the first, third, fourth, sixth, and seventh causes of action.1 (Doc. No. 51.) On December 5, 2017, plaintiff filed an opposition to the motion. (Doc. No. 54.) On December 12, 2017, defendants filed a reply. (Doc. No. 56.)

LEGAL STANDARD

The purpose of a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) is to test the legal sufficiency of the complaint. N. Star Int'l v. Ariz. Corp. Comm'n , 720 F.2d 578, 581 (9th Cir. 1983). "Dismissal can be based on the lack of a cognizable legal theory or the absence of sufficient facts alleged under a cognizable legal theory." Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't , 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990). A plaintiff is required to allege "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly , 550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007). "A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the...

5 cases
Document | U.S. District Court — Southern District of California – 2020
District Columbia v. Cnty. of San Diego, Case No.: 18-cv-13-WQH-MSB
"...that the County had a policy or custom that caused the alleged violations of the Adoption Act. See Lapachet v. Cal. Forensic Med. Grp., Inc. , 313 F. Supp. 3d 1183, 1193 (E.D. Cal. 2018) (holding that the plaintiff sufficiently alleged a municipal policy or custom where the plaintiff allege..."
Document | U.S. District Court — Southern District of California – 2020
Palacios v. Cnty. of San Diego
"...1982); and then citing Watson v. State, 26 Cal. Rptr. 2d 262, 265-66 (Ct. App. 1993)); see also Lapachet v. California Forensic Med. Grp., Inc., 313 F. Supp. 3d 1183, 1197 (E.D. Cal. 2018) ("Under California law, 'once an inmate is receiving medical care, § 845.6 does not create a duty to p..."
Document | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California – 2023
Mollica v. Cnty. of Sacramento
"... ... See ... Burch v. Regents of Univ. of Cal. , 433 F.Supp.2d 1110, ... 1119 (E.D. Cal ... v ... ACandS, Inc. , 5 F.3d 1255, 1261 (9th Cir. 1993); see ... serious medical needs. See Lapachet v. Cal. Forensic Med ... Grp., Inc. , 313 ... "
Document | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California – 2020
Estate of Miller v. Cnty. of Sutter
"...These rules are applicable to claims of deliberate indifference to serious medical needs. See Lapachet v. California Forensic Med. Grp., Inc., 313 F. Supp. 3d 1183, 1196 (E.D. Cal. 2018). The plaintiffs' allegations that Mullenax, HIG and Wellpath were deliberately indifferent support their..."
Document | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California – 2023
Arceo v. City of Roseville
"... ... or represented defendant California Forensic Medical Group, ... Inc. (“CFMG”), with ... Contractors of Cal., Inc ... v. Cal. State Council of ... Lapachet v. Cal. Forensic Med. Grp., Inc. , 313 ... "

Try vLex and Vincent AI for free

Start a free trial

Experience vLex's unparalleled legal AI

Access millions of documents and let Vincent AI power your research, drafting, and document analysis — all in one platform.

Start a free trial

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
5 cases
Document | U.S. District Court — Southern District of California – 2020
District Columbia v. Cnty. of San Diego, Case No.: 18-cv-13-WQH-MSB
"...that the County had a policy or custom that caused the alleged violations of the Adoption Act. See Lapachet v. Cal. Forensic Med. Grp., Inc. , 313 F. Supp. 3d 1183, 1193 (E.D. Cal. 2018) (holding that the plaintiff sufficiently alleged a municipal policy or custom where the plaintiff allege..."
Document | U.S. District Court — Southern District of California – 2020
Palacios v. Cnty. of San Diego
"...1982); and then citing Watson v. State, 26 Cal. Rptr. 2d 262, 265-66 (Ct. App. 1993)); see also Lapachet v. California Forensic Med. Grp., Inc., 313 F. Supp. 3d 1183, 1197 (E.D. Cal. 2018) ("Under California law, 'once an inmate is receiving medical care, § 845.6 does not create a duty to p..."
Document | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California – 2023
Mollica v. Cnty. of Sacramento
"... ... See ... Burch v. Regents of Univ. of Cal. , 433 F.Supp.2d 1110, ... 1119 (E.D. Cal ... v ... ACandS, Inc. , 5 F.3d 1255, 1261 (9th Cir. 1993); see ... serious medical needs. See Lapachet v. Cal. Forensic Med ... Grp., Inc. , 313 ... "
Document | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California – 2020
Estate of Miller v. Cnty. of Sutter
"...These rules are applicable to claims of deliberate indifference to serious medical needs. See Lapachet v. California Forensic Med. Grp., Inc., 313 F. Supp. 3d 1183, 1196 (E.D. Cal. 2018). The plaintiffs' allegations that Mullenax, HIG and Wellpath were deliberately indifferent support their..."
Document | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California – 2023
Arceo v. City of Roseville
"... ... or represented defendant California Forensic Medical Group, ... Inc. (“CFMG”), with ... Contractors of Cal., Inc ... v. Cal. State Council of ... Lapachet v. Cal. Forensic Med. Grp., Inc. , 313 ... "

Try vLex and Vincent AI for free

Start a free trial

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex