Modification: Shalghoun v. North Los Angeles County Regional Center, Inc.

ALI SHALGHOUN,

Plaintiff and Appellant,

v.

NORTH LOS ANGELES COUNTY REGIONAL CENTER, INC.,

Defendant and Respondent.

No. B323186

(Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. 19STCV19756)

California Court of Appeal

Second Appellate District

Division Two

Filed February 22, 2024

ORDER MODIFYING

OPINION AND DENYING

REHEARING

NO CHANGE IN THE

JUDGMENT

THE COURT:

It is ordered that the opinion filed herein on January 25, 2024, be modified as follows:

1. After the last sentence of footnote 2 on page 5, which ends "resolved by March 2018," add the following sentences to the end of the footnote:

At oral argument and in a petition for rehearing, plaintiff repeatedly cites this report as evidence that Hargis Home was not providing J.C. with an "appropriate level of care" vis-à-vis his physical outbursts. This is a blatant misrepresentation of the record.

2. On page 10, line 18, after the citation ending "[regional centers do not engage in 'hour-by-hour monitoring'].)," add as footnote 4 the following footnote, which will require renumbering of all subsequent footnotes:

⁴ For the first time in his petition for rehearing, plaintiff relies on information on a website in urging us to disagree with our Supreme Court's characterization of the extensiveness of monitoring by regional centers. New evidence may not be presented on appeal, let alone for the first time in a petition for rehearing. What is more, the information plaintiff quotes from the website merely confirms what we have set forth in this opinion.

3. On page 19, line 17, after the sentence ending "had a practice of doing so for J.C. in the past," add the following sentences:

In his petition for rehearing, plaintiff for the first time offered up section 4648, subdivisions (a)(10)(A) and (f), as well as section 4698 as statutes empowering such unilateral relocation. These statutes are inapt. Subdivision (a)(10)(A) of section 4648 authorizes a regional center---either "directly or through an agency acting on [its] behalf"---to place a consumer in a "health care facilit[y]" (or a "foster family" or other residential facility), but does not empower a regional center to do so unilaterally and over that facility's (or family's) objection; subdivision (f) of section 4648 deals with a regional center's power to "provide direct treatment and therapeutic services" in "emergency situations" (italics added), but does not empower a regional center to directly and unilaterally house a consumer; and section 4698 deals with the certification and oversight of "community crisis homes," but again does not empower a regional center to place a consumer into such a home over the home's objection.

4. On page 22, line 21, after the sentence ending "into the consumer's orbit," add as footnote 9 the following footnote, which will require renumbering of all subsequent footnotes:

⁹ The Regional Center's acknowledgment, in its July 6, 2018 progress report, that it had secured funding for additional staff "to keep [J.C.] and staff safe" (italics added) does not, contrary to what plaintiff argues in his petition for rehearing, establish a duty running from the Regional Center to staff. The question of duty is a question of law for the courts.

5. On page 27, line 2, after the sentence ending "namely, workers' compensation," add the following sentence:

Plaintiff complains that the workers' compensation system does not provide for full recovery, but that only illuminates the true motivation of this action and demonstrates why recognizing the duty plaintiff urges would be devastating to regional centers.

6. In line 3 of the first full paragraph on page 27, after the sentence ending "is able to obtain insurance," add as footnote 10 the following footnote:

¹⁰ For the first time in his petition for rehearing and once again pointing us to a website to provide additional evidence never presented before, plaintiff argues that Hargis Home was required to name the Regional Center as an additional insured on Hargis Home's insurance policy. But an insurance company's willingness to ensure a regional center on the basis of the limited liability that exists today does not speak to whether insurance would be available for the open-ended liability that would exist if we recognized the duty plaintiff proposes.

There is no change in the judgment.

Appellant's petition for rehearing is denied.

ASHMANN-GERST, Acting P. J.

CHAVEZ, J.

HOFFSTADT, J.