Judge: Cherol J. Nellon, Case: 23STCV18738, Date: 2024-07-03 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV18738    Hearing Date: July 3, 2024    Dept: 14

#13

Case Background

 

Plaintiffs’ father, Kevin Marine (“Decedent”) was a resident at a nursing home who was attacked and killed by another resident, John Greystoke (“Greystoke”). Plaintiffs allege that Defendants failed to properly address Greystoke’s mental health needs and thereby enabled the attack.

 

            On August 8, 2023, Plaintiffs filed their Complaint for (1)-(3) Wrongful Death, (4) Negligent Supervision, Hiring, and Training, (5) Breach of Fiduciary Duty, (6) Elder Abuse, (7) Survival Action, (8) Negligence, and (9) Violation of Resident’s Bill of Rights against Defendants Crenshaw Nursing Home, LLC dba Crenshaw Nursing Home (“Crenshaw”), Longwood Management, LLC (“Longwood”), and DOES 1-500. The first, second, fifth, sixth, and ninth causes of action are asserted against Crenshaw and Does 1-500. The third cause of action is asserted against Longwood and Does 3-500. The fourth, seventh, and eighth causes of action are asserted against all defendants.

 

            On October 5, 2023, Crenshaw and Longwood filed their Answer.

 

            On January 26, 2024, this case was assigned to this court from the Personal Injury Hub.

 

Trial is currently set for April 28, 2025.

 

Instant Motion

 

Plaintiff Justine Marie now moves this court, per Code of Civil Procedure §§ 473(a)(1), 576, and 426.50, for leave to file a First Amended Complaint, add to this lawsuit two defendants, William Elliott (“Elliott”) and Dr. Rajendra Prasad (“Prasad”), and two additional causes of action for wrongful death.

 

Decision

 

            The motion is GRANTED. Plaintiffs are ordered to file the First Amended Complaint appended to the Declaration of Michael Murphy, which will be deemed the operative complaint in this action.

 

Governing Standard/Statute

 

Code of Civil Procedure § 473(a) vests the court with discretion, after a noticed motion, to allow any party to amend any pleading. The motion must comply with the requirements set forth in California Rules of Court Rule 3.1324, which states as follows:

 

(a)       Contents of motion

A motion to amend a pleading before trial must:

(1)     Include a copy of the proposed amendment or amended pleading, which must be serially numbered to differentiate it from previous pleadings or amendments.

(2)     State what allegations in the previous pleading are proposed to be deleted, if any, and where, by page, paragraph, and line number, the deleted allegations are located; and

(3)     State what allegations are proposed to be added to the previous pleading, if any, and where, by page, paragraph, and line number, the additional allegations are located.

(b)       Supporting declaration

A separate declaration must accompany the motion and must specify:

(1)   The effect of the amendment;

(2)   Why the amendment is necessary and proper;

(3)   When the facts giving rise to the amended allegations were discovered; and

(4)     The reasons why the request for amendment was not made earlier . . .

 

(CRC 3.1324(a) and (b), emphasis added.)

 

“[T]he court’s discretion will usually be exercised liberally to permit amendment of the pleadings. [Citations]. The policy favoring amendment is so strong that it is a rare case in which denial of leave to amend can be justified.” Howard v. County of San Diego (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 1422, 1428. It is an abuse of discretion to deny leave to amend based on delay alone; the amendment must affirmatively prejudice the opposing side. Higgins v. Del Faro (1981) 123 Cal.App.3d 558, 564-565. Prejudice exists where the delay is unwarranted and the result will be additional cost for trial preparation, witness depositions, and other discovery. See Doe v. Los Angeles County Dept. of Children & Family Services (2019) 37 Cal.App.5th 675, 689 (citing Melican v. Regents of University of California (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 168, 175); P&D Consultants, Inc. v. City of Carlsbad (2010) 190 Cal.App.4th 1332, 1345 (citing Huff v. Wilkins (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 732, 746).

 

Discussion

 

            Plaintiff’s motion meets the procedural requirements for bringing a motion for leave to amend. The Declaration of Mr. Murphy includes a proposed FAC and identifies the proposed changes to the Complaint. (See Murphy Decl.) Exhibit 3 of the Murphy Declaration is a redline comparing the Complaint and proposed FAC. Plaintiff seeks to add two defendants, William Elliott (“Elliott”) and Dr. Rajendra Prasad (“Prasad”), and a cause of action for wrongful death as to each of them.

 

            The Court finds that good cause exists to allow the amendment.

 

Elliott works as an admission coordinator at Crenshaw. (Murphy Decl., ¶ 32.) One of his job duties is to evaluate a prospective patient’s suitability before they are admitted into the nursing home. (Ibid.) On January 20, 2023, Elliott, against protocol, escorted Greystone out of the nursing home to a nearby liquor store where Greystone acquired the knife that he used to attack Decedent. (Id., ¶ 34; Compl., ¶ 24.) Plaintiffs discovered Elliott’s name on December 4, 2023, when Crenshaw produced Greystoke’s medical file. (Murphy Decl., ¶ 32.) However, Crenshaw did not release Elliott’s address and telephone number until May 9, 2024. (Id., ¶ 35.)

 

Prasad was Greystoke’s treating physician at the Southern California Hospital at Culver City immediately before Greystoke was admitted to the nursing home. (Id., ¶ 26.) At the same time, Prasad also served as a medical director for Crenshaw. (Id., ¶ 30.) Greystoke’s record shows that he has a criminal history and violent propensities, and that he was prescribed medication to treat schizophrenia. (Id., ¶ 28.) Yet, Crenshaw never once administered this medication to Greystoke. (Ibid.) Crenshaw compensated Prasad for referring patients to the nursing home. (Id., ¶ 30.) Prasad’s dual role raises concerns for conflict of interest. (Ibid.) Plaintiffs discovered this information on March 11, 2024. (Id., ¶ 28.) On March 27, 2024, Plaintiffs sent a letter to Prasad to fulfil the notice requirement of CCP § 364 (actions based upon healthcare provider’s negligence require 90-day notice to defendants). Therefore, Prasad only recently became available to be brought into this action.

 

Defendants oppose the motion on the grounds that it would prejudice Defendants in the form of additional discovery. However, there is no showing that Plaintiffs’ delay in seeking to bring Elliott and Prasad into the action is unwarranted. Instead, Defendants merely state, in a conclusory manner, that Plaintiff “conveniently glosses over the timeline of events”. (Opp’n, 6:8.)

 

Conclusion

 

There is good cause for the amendment, and Defendants have not shown undue prejudice.

 

The motion is GRANTED. Plaintiffs are ordered to file the First Amended Complaint appended to the Declaration of Michael Murphy, which will be deemed the operative complaint in this action.