78 Cal.App.5th 1065
Cal. Ct. App.2022Background
- Mauricio Cardenas, a dementia patient at Horizon Senior Living (Manse on Marsh), wandered away on December 21, 2014, and was struck and killed by a car.
- Christopher Skiff (director) was convicted of felony elder abuse and manslaughter; Gary Potts (manager) was convicted of felony elder abuse. Horizon itself was not criminally charged or convicted.
- Mauricio’s heirs, Paul and Samuel Cardenas, sued Horizon, Skiff, and Potts for negligence, willful misconduct, elder abuse, and wrongful death.
- Plaintiffs filed the complaint nearly six years after the death, beyond the two-year personal injury/wrongful death statute of limitations (Code Civ. Proc. § 335.1).
- Plaintiffs argued Penal Code/Code of Civil Procedure § 340.3 (extended limitations period where defendant was convicted of a felony) revived claims against Horizon under respondeat superior; they also invoked Labor Code § 2802 indemnity.
- The trial court sustained Horizon’s demurrer without leave to amend; the Court of Appeal affirmed, holding § 340.3 does not apply to an employer not convicted of a felony and § 2802 does not create a third‑party cause of action against an employer.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Code Civ. Proc. § 340.3’s extended limitations for actions "based upon the defendant’s commission of a felony offense for which the defendant has been convicted" applies to an employer sued vicariously under respondeat superior | § 340.3’s revived limitations for convicted felons should extend to employers held vicariously liable for the felons’ conduct | § 340.3 applies only to defendants whose own commission of a felony resulted in conviction; Horizon was not convicted, so the extension does not apply | § 340.3 does not apply to Horizon; the extended limitations period covers defendants convicted of a felony, not their employers; Horizon’s claims are barred by the two‑year statute (§ 335.1) |
| Whether Labor Code § 2802 (employer indemnity of employee expenses) provides a cause of action enabling third parties to reach an employer’s liability or insurer via suit against the employee | Plaintiffs argued Horizon could be liable under § 2802 (indemnity) | § 2802 provides employee indemnity against employers, not a basis for third parties to sue employers or insurers through claims against employees | § 2802 does not create a third‑party cause of action; it obligates employers to indemnify employees, but does not give plaintiffs access to employer/insurer funds through suits against employees |
Key Cases Cited
- Hill v. City of Long Beach, 33 Cal.App.4th 1684 (1995) (order sustaining demurrer appealability principles)
- Melton v. Boustred, 183 Cal.App.4th 521 (2010) (treating demurrer‑sustaining order without leave as final for judicial economy)
- Intengan v. BAC Home Loans Servicing LP, 214 Cal.App.4th 1047 (2013) (demurrer standard; assume truth of properly pleaded facts)
- Fontenot v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 198 Cal.App.4th 256 (2011) (standard for leave to amend after demurrer)
- Yvanova v. New Century Mortgage Corp., 62 Cal.4th 919 (2016) (discussing limits on precedential aspects of earlier appellate rulings)
- Boyer v. Jensen, 129 Cal.App.4th 62 (2005) (§ 2802 indemnity remedies are for employees; do not provide plaintiffs direct access to employer/insurer via third‑party suit)
- Guardian North Bay, Inc. v. Superior Court, 94 Cal.App.4th 963 (2001) (discussing § 340.3’s enactment as part of restitution rights under Prop. 8)