Poole v. Healthright 360

Background

Dawn Poole and Michael Cartwright alleged that they were the parents, heirs, and successors-in-interest of Justin Cartwright. They alleged that Justin entered a Healthright 360 residential treatment program on December 28, 2023, after being released from jail and while suffering from substance-use disorders. The complaint alleged that he was considered highly vulnerable to relapse and at high risk for fentanyl relapse.

The complaint alleged that Justin overdosed on fentanyl at the facility the next day after using drugs found in a bathroom. It further alleged that Healthright 360 did not take corrective measures, later transferred Justin to a lower level of care with less supervision despite another positive drug test and relapse, and failed to conduct required welfare checks before his body was found on January 15, 2024. The complaint asserted four California-law claims: wrongful death, neglect of a dependent adult under the Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act, negligent training, supervision, and retention, and survival.

Motion to Dismiss

The defendants moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim. They argued that the parents lacked the legal right to bring the wrongful-death claim because Justin had a surviving child and because the parents did not allege that they were his dependents or legally appointed personal representatives. They also challenged the wrongful-death claim’s causation allegations, the dependent-adult-neglect claim, the negligent-training claim, and the survival claim. Finally, they argued that all claims against Healthright 360 Foundation should be dismissed because the complaint contained no allegations about that defendant.

Wrongful-Death Claim

The court held that the complaint did not adequately allege that Poole and Cartwright had standing, meaning the legal right, to bring a wrongful-death action. The parents did not allege facts showing that they were Justin’s dependents or personal representatives. Their declarations identifying them as successors-in-interest did not establish that they were personal representatives under the applicable California definition.

The parents argued in their opposition that Justin and his child had never lived together as parent and child and that other facts meant the child’s adoption did not eliminate the parents’ ability to sue. The court did not consider those facts because they were not alleged in the complaint. The court concluded that the deficiency might be cured by amendment and dismissed the wrongful-death claim with leave to amend. The court stated that an amended complaint should address the facts concerning the adoption and the parents’ status as personal representatives, if they could do so.

The court rejected the defendants’ separate challenge to causation. It held that federal pleading rules, rather than California’s heightened state-court pleading standard, applied. The complaint plausibly alleged that Justin died from a drug overdose and that Healthright 360’s alleged failure to control access to drugs and conduct required monitoring could have caused or contributed to his death. The wrongful-death claim was dismissed because of the standing deficiency, not because the court found the causation allegations inadequate.

Dependent-Adult Neglect Claim

The court denied the motion to dismiss the dependent-adult-neglect claim. Under California law, neglect can include failing to protect a dependent adult from health and safety hazards, but the claim requires more than ordinary negligence; the alleged conduct must involve recklessness, oppression, fraud, or malice for the statute’s heightened remedies to apply.

The court found that the complaint alleged more than a single instance of professional negligence. It alleged a pattern of failing to protect residents from drugs and other safety risks, including failures involving drug testing, drug confiscation, monitoring, and welfare checks. These allegations plausibly supported recklessness and therefore were sufficient at the pleading stage.

Negligent Training, Supervision, and Retention Claim

The court also denied the motion to dismiss the negligent-training, supervision, and retention claim. Such a claim requires allegations showing negligence, including a duty, breach, causation, and damages, as well as facts supporting that the employer knew or should have known that an employee posed a particular risk.

Although the court described the allegations as somewhat conclusory, it found them sufficient. The complaint identified the problematic conduct—failures to monitor residents, conduct drug testing and welfare checks, enforce relapse policies, and manage treatment-level changes—and alleged facts showing that Justin’s high risk of relapse made the harm foreseeable. The court held that the plaintiffs did not need to identify specific employees at this stage, although more detail could be required later after discovery.

Survival Claim and Healthright 360 Foundation

The court held that the survival claim, as currently pleaded, was not viable because a survival claim belongs to the deceased person and cannot be based solely on that person’s death. The court gave the plaintiffs leave to amend because they might be able to state a survival claim under the Elder Abuse Act.

The court also dismissed Healthright 360 Foundation. At the hearing, the plaintiffs conceded that they were not then aware of specific facts supporting liability against that defendant. The opinion does not add a prejudice qualifier to that dismissal.

Disposition

The court granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss. It granted the motion as to the wrongful-death and survival claims and dismissed those claims with leave to amend. It also dismissed Healthright 360 Foundation. It denied the motion as to the dependent-adult-neglect and negligent-training, supervision, and retention claims. The amended complaint was due August 6, 2025. The court also ordered the plaintiffs to file a redacted public version of their opposition brief replacing the minor child’s name with initials by July 14, 2025.