Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-05025/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-05025-10/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Other Contract

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1 On September 4, 2007, plaintiff filed a motion for

leave to file a reply to defendant’s opposition. As I find no

need for further briefing, that motion is DENIED.

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GLORIA GRENING WOLK,

Plaintiff(s),

v.

PHILIP R. GREEN,

Defendant(s).

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C06-5025 BZ

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION TO RECONSIDER, AND

RESTORING PLAINTIFF’S CLAIM

FOR ELDER FINANCIAL ABUSE

Following my Order dismissing, inter alia, plaintiff’s

claim for elder financial abuse, Cal. Welf. and Inst. Code §§

15610, et seq., plaintiff filed a “Motion to Alter or Amend

Order”. Construing her motion as one for reconsideration

under Civil Local Rule 7-9, I ordered defendant to file an

opposition. After reviewing the parties’ papers,1

 I have

concluded that my dismissal of the elder financial abuse claim

at this stage of the pleading was in error, and I will restore

Case 3:06-cv-05025-BZ Document 68 Filed 09/04/07 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2 Reconsideration of an interlocutory order may be

granted where there is a “manifest failure by the Court to

consider . . . dispositive legal arguments which were presented

to the Court before such interlocutory order.” Civil Local

Rule 7-9(b)(3).

2

the claim to plaintiff’s complaint.2

Plaintiff’s eighth cause of action, styled as “Elder

Fraud Abuse,” relies on the California Welfare and

Institutions Code sections 15610, et seq., and in particular

section 15657.5(a). See Pl.’s Am. Compl. at ¶¶ 78, 81. 

Section 15667.5(a) states: “Where it is proven by a

preponderance of the evidence that a defendant is liable for

financial abuse, as defined in Section 15610.30, in addition

to all other remedies otherwise provided by law, the court

shall award to the plaintiff reasonable attorney’s fees and

costs.” Section 15610.30, in turn, defines elder abuse as,

inter alia, taking or appropriating the real or personal

property of an elder with intent to defraud. Cal. Welf. And

Inst. Code § 15610.30(a)(1). An “elder” is defined as “any

person residing in th[e] state, 65 years of age or older.” 

Id. at § 15610.27.

Several courts have held that this California statute

creates a civil cause of action for elder financial abuse. 

See Genton v. Vestin Reality Mortgage II, Inc., 2007 WL

951838, at *2 (S.D. Cal.). Defendant’s arguments that

plaintiff’s claim must fail because she is not a “dependant”

adult, and because payments made to an attorney for services

rendered cannot constitute “taking” or “appropriation”, do not

find clear support in the statute or relevant case law. Cf.

Case 3:06-cv-05025-BZ Document 68 Filed 09/04/07 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3 In his opposition to plaintiff’s motion to

reconsider, defendant requested that I reconsider the entirety

of my Order, arguing that I improperly relied on facts and

evidence outside the pleadings. The only issue which required

reliance on facts outside the pleadings, however, was the

argument that plaintiff’s claims are time barred. I properly

applied the summary standard to resolve that issue. Therefore,

defendant’s request for reconsideration is DENIED.

3

Cal. Welf. And Inst. Code § 15610.23 (defining “dependant

adult”) with § 15610.30 (defining “elder”); see, e.g.,

Negrete, 444 F. Supp. 2d at 1002-03 (holding that plaintiff

sufficiently pleaded elder abuse by alleging that the

defendant investment firm took or appropriated her funds by

use of a fraudulent scheme). 

Here, plaintiff alleges that defendant knew she was over

sixty-five years of age at the time she contracted for his

services. Am. Compl. ¶ 78. She claims that defendant

obtained payments through “deceptive” practices. Id. at ¶ 79. 

Other paragraphs of her complaint, incorporated by reference

into her claim for elder abuse, id. at ¶ 77, sufficiently

plead actual fraud. Id. at ¶¶ 42-47. I cannot conclude as a

matter of law that this cause of action cannot exist against

defendant.

For the reasons discussed, plaintiff’s motion to

reconsider is GRANTED, and her cause of action for elder

financial abuse is RESTORED to her complaint. My Order dated

August 22, 2007 otherwise remains operative.3

Dated: September 5, 2007

 Bernard Zimmerman 

 United States Magistrate Judge

G:\BZALL\-BZCASES\WOLK\Order Granting Reconsideration.wpd

Case 3:06-cv-05025-BZ Document 68 Filed 09/04/07 Page 3 of 3