33 Cal. App. Supp. 5th 20
Cal. Super. Ct.2019Background
- York Healthcare appealed a $20,000 Department of Public Health citation for inadequate care of a resident; York filed suit July 12, 2016 and the Department answered October 3, 2016.
- Health & Safety Code §1428(b) (as amended 2006) requires a licensee prosecuting a judicial appeal to file and serve a case management statement (CMS) "pursuant to Rule 212" within six months after the Department files its answer, and mandates dismissal on Department motion if the CMS is not timely filed.
- York filed its CMS on May 16, 2017—more than one month after the six-month deadline—so the Department moved to dismiss and the trial court granted the motion and entered judgment for the Department.
- York argued it was not required to file a CMS because the Judicial Council repealed former rule 212 and successor rules allow local courts to exempt categories of cases (and Los Angeles local rule 3.23 exempts limited civil cases) from the case management rules.
- The Court of Appeal held §1428(b)’s CMS-and-dismissal mandate remains effective despite repeal of rule 212; the statute’s "notwithstanding" language, legislative history, and purposes (quick resolution of citation appeals) show the Legislature intended a mandatory CMS filing and mandatory dismissal if not timely filed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §1428(b) requires filing a CMS notwithstanding repeal/amendment of rule 212 | York: the repeal and replacement rules (allowing local opt-outs) mean no CMS was required in Los Angeles limited civil cases | Dept.: §1428(b) expressly mandates a CMS within six months and dismissal if none; statutory command controls rules and local orders | The statute requires a CMS within six months and mandatory dismissal on Department motion if not filed; rule changes/local opt-outs cannot override the statute |
| Whether the reference to "pursuant to Rule 212" altered who must file or could be read to permit local opt-outs | York: the statute’s reference to Rule 212 imports the rule framework, so opt-out provisions foreclose the six-month trigger in some courts | Dept.: the Rule 212 reference was only to define timing/content; the statute’s "notwithstanding any other provision of law" shows intent to make filing mandatory everywhere | Court: The cross-reference was meant to identify content/timing (using form CM-110) not to allow courts to negate the statutory filing/dismissal mandate |
| Whether Judicial Council or local rules can excuse compliance with §1428(b) | York: successor rules and Los Angeles local rule exempt limited civil cases from CMS requirement | Dept.: judicial or local rules cannot override statute; Judicial Council/local courts lack authority to conflict with legislative directions | Court: Rules/local orders inconsistent with the statute cannot defeat the statute’s commands; statute controls |
| Whether failing to file within six months warranted dismissal where CMS was filed late | York: filed CMS "in an abundance of caution" and argued the filing was unnecessary; sought to avoid dismissal | Dept.: mandatory dismissal provision applies irrespective of reasons for delay | Court: Late filing did not cure the statutory violation; dismissal was required and judgment affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Ceja v. Rudolph & Sletten, Inc., 56 Cal.4th 1113 (de novo review principle for statutory/rule interpretation)
- Green v. State of California, 42 Cal.4th 254 (plain meaning controls unless ambiguous)
- Caliber Bodyworks, Inc. v. Superior Court, 134 Cal.App.4th 365 ("notwithstanding any other provision of law" overrides contrary law)
- Grosset v. Wenaas, 42 Cal.4th 1100 (legislative inaction is a weak basis to infer acquiescence)
- In re Abbigail A., 1 Cal.5th 83 (rules inconsistent with statute conflict with legislative intent)
- Haines v. Department of Employment, 125 Cal.App.2d 304 (reenactment/continuation principles)
- Coburn v. Sievert, 133 Cal.App.4th 1483 (use of extrinsic aids when statutory language is susceptible to more than one reasonable interpretation)