Daniels v. Sunrise Senior Living, Inc.
212 Cal. App. 4th 674
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Daniels sues Sunrise Senior Living entities on survivor elder-abuse, negligence, breach, willful misconduct claims as Barcenas’s successor in interest; Daniels also asserts a wrongful death claim in her personal capacity.
- Barcenas, age 92, resident with dementia with psychosis, developed untreated pressure sores leading to severe illness and death in February 2011.
- Daniels signed the Sunrise residency agreement as Barcenas’s attorney in fact; the arbitration clause binds the agreement’s parties, spouses, heirs, representatives, executors, administrators, successors, and assigns.
- The trial court denied arbitration of all claims, ruling Daniels was a third party to the agreement and that §1281.2(c) danger of conflicting rulings supported denial.
- Defendants petitioned to compel arbitration; court refused, leading to interlocutory appeal on whether Daniels could be compelled to arbitrate her wrongful death claim and on the potential for conflicting rulings.
- The appellate court affirmed, holding Daniels is a third party to the arbitration agreement and not bound to arbitrate the wrongful death claim; Ruiz and Herbert do not apply to non-§1295 RCFE contexts; no abuse of discretion in avoiding conflicting rulings by not arbitrating the survivor but not wrongful death claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Can Daniels be compelled to arbitrate her wrongful death claim as a third party to the agreement | Daniels signed as Barcenas’s agent; the clause binds heirs and representatives | Herbert/Ruiz allow nonsignatories to be bound when §1295 applies | Daniels cannot be forced to arbitrate the wrongful death claim |
| Whether the court properly refused arbitration to avoid conflicting rulings on common issues | Survivor claims and wrongful death share facts; arbitration could create conflict | Conflict risk justifies arbitration separation | No abuse of discretion; potential for inconsistent rulings supports staying/arbitration denial |
| Whether Ruiz/Herbert extend to non-§1295 RCFE wrongful death claims | Ruiz/Herbert justify third-party arbitration binding wrongful death when decedent signed arbitration for medical malpractice | Ruiz/Herbert limited to §1295 medical malpractice context | Ruiz/Herbert do not apply to this RCFE, non-medical context |
| Application of §1281.2(c) thresholds where a third party is involved | Nonsignatory should not be forced; issues not properly aligned | Section 1281.2(c) allows withholding arbitration when third-party conflict risks exist | Threshold criteria satisfied; court did not abuse discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Fitzhugh v. Granada Healthcare & Rehabilitation Center, LLC, 150 Cal.App.4th 469 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007) (third-party arbitration binding heirs; facts distinguish here (non‑1295 context))
- Buckner v. Tamarin, 98 Cal.App.4th 140 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002) (exceptions to third-party arbitration binding)
- Ruiz v. Podolsky, 50 Cal.4th 838 (Cal. 2010) (section 1295 binds heirs in medical malpractice context when language shows intent to bind)
- Herbert v. Superior Court, 169 Cal.App.3d 718 (Cal. Ct. App. 1985) (AR arbitration of wrongful death under §1295; heirs bound when appropriate)
- Ruiz v. Podolsky, 50 Cal.4th 838 (Cal. 2010) (as above)
- Bush v. Horizon West, 205 Cal.App.4th 924 (Cal. Ct. App. 2012) (distinguishes Ruiz; not medical malpractice context)
- Laswell v. AG Seal Beach, LLC, 189 Cal.App.4th 1399 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010) (discretionary denial where no third party involved)
- RN Solution, Inc. v. Catholic HealthCare West, 165 Cal.App.4th 1511 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008) (discusses interpretation of third-party arbitration context)
- Cronus Investments, Inc. v. Concierge Services, 35 Cal.4th 376 (Cal. 2005) (contextual framework for §1281.2(c))