Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
In September 2022, while in his early 20s, Paris Moffett was shot and paralyzed from the waist down. The following month he was admitted to Lake Merritt Healthcare Center (LMHC), a skilled nursing facility owned by Crystal Solorzano. In early March 2023, Paris signed an arbitration agreement with LMHC; his father, plaintiff Paris D’Marco Moffett, did not sign it. The agreement stated it was binding on all parties, including the resident’s representatives, executors, family members, and heirs bringing claims individually or in a representative capacity. Several days after signing, Paris was again shot, this time fatally, by two people who entered the facility in the middle of the night through an unlocked rear door.
Moffett sued LMHC and Solorzano both in his personal capacity and as Paris’s successor in interest, alleging negligence, negligent abuse of a dependent adult under the Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act, damages for the extreme pain Paris suffered before he died, and wrongful death. Defendants moved to compel arbitration, but the Alameda County Superior Court denied the motion largely because Moffett had not signed the agreement. Defendants appealed, and the Court of Appeal separated the father’s independent wrongful death claim from the three claims that survived Paris’s death.
The Court’s Holding
As to the wrongful death claim, the court affirmed the denial of arbitration. Wrongful death is an independent statutory action accruing to the decedent’s heirs for their own pecuniary losses, not a derivative of the decedent’s claims, so Paris’s signature did not bind Moffett, a nonsignatory. Although Ruiz v. Podolsky permits nonsignatory heirs to be compelled to arbitrate wrongful death claims alleging medical malpractice under MICRA when the deceased agreed to bind them, that exception does not extend to wrongful death claims sounding in dependent-adult abuse. Under Holland v. Silverscreen Healthcare, courts look to the primary basis of the claim and the type of conduct alleged, not the type of facility where it occurred. The complaint alleged failures in custodial care—inadequate monitoring, supervision, staffing, security, safe accommodations, and failure to secure exterior access—so the trial court properly denied arbitration of the wrongful death claim.
As to the remaining three claims, the court reversed. Those were survivor claims that belonged to Paris before his death and were enforceable by Moffett as his successor in interest, and Paris had signed the arbitration agreement—a point Moffett did not dispute on appeal. The agreement expressly excluded Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.2(c), which otherwise gives a trial court discretion to stay or deny arbitration in specified third-party litigation situations involving possible conflicting rulings. Moffett did not respond to the defendants’ argument on that exclusion, so the court treated the issue as submitted on the appellants’ brief and concluded the trial court had no discretion under that provision to deny arbitration of the three survivor claims.
Key Takeaways
- A resident’s signature does not automatically compel a nonsignatory heir to arbitrate an independent California wrongful death claim.
- The MICRA-based Ruiz exception for nonsignatory heirs did not apply because the complaint’s primary basis was custodial neglect rather than medical malpractice.
- Courts distinguish the type of conduct alleged from the type of facility where it occurred, focusing on security, supervision, staffing, and basic safety rather than the facility’s healthcare status.
- Negligence, dependent-adult abuse, and pre-death pain-and-suffering claims belonged to Paris and survived through his successor in interest, making Paris’s arbitration signature controlling for those claims.
- The order was affirmed as to the wrongful death cause of action and reversed as to the remaining three causes of action, with each party bearing its own appellate costs.
Why It Matters
The decision applies Holland’s conduct-focused distinction between professional negligence and custodial dependent-adult abuse to allegations that a nursing facility failed to protect a resident from a fatal intrusion. It shows that labeling a facility a healthcare provider does not determine whether the MICRA arbitration exception binds nonsignatory wrongful death heirs.
The mixed result also illustrates the procedural importance of separating wrongful death from survivor claims: the father could pursue his own claim in court, but Paris’s claims proceeded under his agreement. The section 1281.2(c) conclusion was tied to the agreement’s express exclusion and the absence of a responsive appellate argument, so the opinion did not announce a broader resolution beyond that posture.