The People of the State of California v. National CPR Foundation, LLC, et al

Case Number

24CV05905

Case Type

Hearing Date / Time

Wed, 06/11/2025 - 10:00

Nature of Proceedings

Plaintiff The People of the State of California’s Motion to Strike Defendant National CPR Foundation LLC’s Verified Answer to Complaint, Amended Answer to Complaint, and Request for Judicial Notice

Tentative Ruling

For Plaintiff The People of the State of California: John T. Savrnoch, Christopher B. Dalbey, Office of the Santa Barbara County District Attorney, Michael A. Hestrin, Office of the Riverside County District Attorney

                                   

For Defendants National CPR Foundation LLC and Michael Angelo Paladino: Sean Ponist, Cary D. McReynolds, Natalie E. Ortiz, Ponist Law Group, P.C.

RULING

For all reasons discussed herein, the motion to strike is granted as follows:

1. The verified Answer to the complaint, filed on March 17, 2025, is stricken.
2. The Amended Answer to the complaint, filed on April 18, 2025, is stricken.
3. The Request for Judicial Notice, filed on April 18, 2025, is stricken.
4. Defendants are granted leave to file an amended pleading to Plaintiff’s complaint. The amended pleading is to be filed no later than July 2, 2025.

Background

On October 22, 2024, Plaintiff The People of the State of California (the People) filed a complaint against Defendants National CPR Foundation LLC (the Foundation) and Michael Angelo Paladino (Paladino), individually and as the managing member of the Foundation, alleging six causes of action for violations of Business and Professions Code section 17500, and eleven cause of action for violations of Business and Professions Code section 17200.

The causes of action alleged in the complaint arise from the alleged operation of an online, computer-based certification program for cardiopulmonary resuscitation or “CPR” by the Foundation and Paladino, who is the sole managing member of the Foundation (collectively, Defendants). In the complaint, the People allege that, since June 17, 2019, Defendants operated the online program in a manner that falsely and misleadingly represents to California consumers that the program, among other things, adheres to or meets guidelines or standards of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration and the American Heart Association, is accredited, and is accepted by all employers who require employees to be CPR certified. (Compl., ¶¶ 1-9 & 33-48.)

On November 21, 2024, Defendants filed a notice of removal of the action to the United States District Court for the Central District of California. Court records reflect that on February 6, 2025, the district Court entered an order remanding the action.

On February 19, 2025, the Foundation filed a verified application (the pro hac vice application) of attorney Galen K. Cheney (Cheney) for permission to appear as counsel pro hac vice for the Foundation.

On March 17, 2025, Defendants filed a verified answer to the complaint, responding to its allegations and asserting twenty-eight affirmative defenses. In the answer Paladino purports to represent himself and the Foundation. (Mar. 17, 2025, Answer at p. 1, ll. 1-7.)

On April 1, 2024, counsel for Defendants separately filed motions for orders permitting counsel to be relieved as attorneys of record in this action for Defendants (individually and collectively, the motion or motions to be relieved as counsel).

On April 7, 2025, the Foundation and Cheney filed a notice of withdrawal of the pro hac vice application.

On April 18, 2025, Defendants filed an amended answer to the complaint, responding to its allegations and asserting twenty-three affirmative defenses, and separately filed a request for judicial notice in support of the amended answer. In the amended answer and supporting request for judicial notice, Paladino purports to “temporarily” represent himself and the Foundation. (See Apr. 21, 2025, Amended Answer at p. 1, ll. 5-7.)

On April 30, 2025, counsel for Defendants was relieved as counsel.

Also on April 30, 2025, the People filed the present motion to strike the Foundation’s verified answer to the complaint, the Foundation’s amended answer to the complaint, and the Foundation’s request for judicial notice. The People do not seek to have the documents stricken as to Paladino.

On June 4, 2025, the Foundation and Paladino, through newly obtained counsel, filed a non-opposition to the motion to strike. The Foundation and Paladino do not oppose the motion to strike. However, the Foundation and Paladino request that the papers be struck in their entirety (as to both Defendants) and that they be given leave to file a new responsive pleading to Plaintiff’s complaint.

The People have not filed a reply to the non-opposition.

Defendants’ request is reasonable. The Court will strike the documents as to both Defendants and leave will be given to file an amended pleading.