A high-stakes legal battle has emerged involving an assisted living facility and the family of a deceased resident. The plaintiffs, Miranda Viani, Robert Baker, and Michael Baker, filed a complaint against Fair Oaks Estates, Inc., in the Court of Appeal of the State of California, Third Appellate District on August 20, 2024. The lawsuit revolves around allegations of wrongful death, negligence, and breach of contract following the death of Debra Baker.
The plaintiffs claim that Debra Baker's health deteriorated rapidly after sustaining an injury while being moved by a facility employee at Fair Oaks Estates. This alleged incident led to her death eight days later. The trial court initially granted summary adjudication in favor of Fair Oaks Estates concerning the wrongful death and negligence claims. In response, the plaintiffs' attorney dismissed the entire action without prejudice to appeal this decision strategically. However, this move backfired when the appellate court dismissed their appeal due to lack of jurisdiction.
Undeterred, the plaintiffs filed a motion in the trial court to set aside their voluntary dismissal under Code of Civil Procedure section 473. They argued that their attorney lacked authority to dismiss the case without their knowledge and that his mistaken belief about gaining appellate jurisdiction constituted grounds for relief under both mandatory and discretionary provisions of section 473. Despite these arguments and supporting declarations from both plaintiff Viani and their attorney acknowledging the mistake, the trial court denied their motion.
Fair Oaks Estates countered that there was no substantial proof that plaintiffs’ attorney lacked authority to dismiss the case or that his strategic decision amounted to excusable neglect as contemplated by section 473. The trial court agreed with Fair Oaks Estates, ruling that such strategic decisions do not equate to mistakes warranting relief under section 473’s discretionary provision.
The plaintiffs appealed this denial but faced another setback as this order was deemed non-appealable since it did not follow a final judgment on merits but rather a voluntary dismissal without prejudice. The appellate court highlighted that such orders could only be challenged through a writ of mandate in extraordinary circumstances—conditions not met in this case.
Plaintiffs sought various forms of relief from reinstating their claims for negligence and wrongful death to setting aside what they termed an unauthorized dismissal by their counsel. They emphasized procedural missteps by their attorney as justifiable reasons for reopening their case under statutory provisions meant to protect clients from legal misjudgments made without proper client consent.
Ultimately, despite compelling declarations detailing unawareness and lack of consent regarding dismissal ramifications from plaintiff Viani and her attorney’s admission of error, these were insufficient for overturning prior decisions. The appellate court upheld previous rulings citing jurisdictional limitations preventing them from treating this appeal as anything more than an unsuccessful attempt at judicial redress through inappropriate channels.
Presiding over proceedings are Justices Mauro (Acting P.J.), Renner (J.), Feinberg (J.) under Case ID C099457/Superior Court No: 34-2020-00280046-CU-PO-GDS).