Judge Daniel M. Crowley, Case 20STCV29770 2022-10-26 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Daniel M. Crowley, Case: 20STCV29770, Date: 2022-10-26 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV29770 Hearing Date: October 26, 2022 Dept: 28

Plaintiff Xadrian Yanez’s Motion for Leave to File the First Amended Complaint

Having considered the moving, opposing and reply papers, the Court rules as follows.

BACKGROUND

On August 6, 2020, Plaintiff Xadrian Yanez (“Xadrian”) filed this action against Defendants Children’s Hospital Los Angeles (“CHLA”), USC Care Medical Group, Inc. (“USC Medical”), Vaughn Starnes, M.D. (“Starnes”), Richard Wookyum Kim, M.D. (“Kim”), Jaye Alexander Weston, M.D. (“Weston”), Laura Ann Hastings, M.D. (“Hastings”), Janet Zhu, D.O. (“Zhu”), Lillian Lai, M.D. (“Lai”) and Eugenia Ho, M.D. (“Ho”) for medical negligence and negligence hiring and supervision. Plaintiff later amended the complaint to include Defendant Paul Porter (“Porter”), Scope Anesthesia of North Carolina, PLLC (“Scope”) University of Southern California, Inc. (“USC Inc.”), and University of Southern California (“USC”).

On September 17, 2020, Hastings filed her answer. On September 22, 2020, CHLA and Weston filed their answer. On October 1, 2020, Ho, Lai, and USC Medical filed their individual answers. On October 27, 2020, Porter, Kim, and Starnes filed their individual answers. On December 1, 2021, USC Inc. filed its answer. On February 18, 2022, USC filed its answer.

On September 29, 2021, the Court granted Lai’s Motion for Summary Judgment. On October 18, 2021, the Court dismissed Weston, with prejudice, pursuant to Plaintiffs’ request. On December 17, 2021, the Court dismissed Ho, with prejudice, pursuant to Plaintiffs’ request.

On July 15, 2022, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Leave to File the First Amended Complaint to be heard on October 26, 2022. On October 13, 2022, USC and CHLA filed oppositions. On October 18, 2022, Yanez filed a reply.

Trial is currently scheduled for October 31, 2022.

PARTY’S REQUESTS

Plaintiff requests leave to file and serve the proposed First Amended Complaint, which has four causes of action: medical negligence, negligent hiring and supervision, medical battery and fraud. Plaintiff also requests that after the motion is granted, Plaintiff’s proposed FAC be deemed filed and served as of the date of the granting of this motion.

CHLA and USC request the Court deny Plaintiff’s motion on the basis that punitive damages are improper, and the Court has already litigated this issue.

LEGAL STANDARD

CCP §473(a) states “(1) The court may, in furtherance of justice, and on any terms as may be proper, allow a party to amend any pleading or proceeding by adding or striking out the name of any party, or by correcting a mistake in the name of a party, or a mistake in any other respect; and may, upon like terms, enlarge the time for answer or demurrer. The court may likewise, in its discretion, after notice to the adverse party, allow, upon any terms as may be just, an amendment to any pleading or proceeding in other particulars; and may upon like terms allow an answer to be made after the time limited by this code.

(2) When it appears to the satisfaction of the court that the amendment renders it necessary, the court may postpone the trial, and may, when the postponement will by the amendment be rendered necessary, require, as a condition to the amendment, the payment to the adverse party of any costs as may be just.”

Amendments alleging a new theory of liability against a defendant are allowed, so long as the new cause of action is based on the same set of facts previously alleged within the complaint. (Amaral v. Cintas Corp. No. 2 (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 1157, 1199-1200.) “[E]ven if the proposed legal theory is a novel one, ‘the preferable practice would be to permit the amendment and allow the parties to test its legal sufficiency by demurrer, motion for judgment on the pleadings or other appropriate proceedings.’” (Kittredge Sports Co. v. Superior Court (1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 1045, 1048.)

CCP § 425.13(a) provides “[i]n any action for damages arising out of the professional negligence of a health care provider, no claim for punitive damages shall be included in a complaint or other pleading unless the court enters an order allowing an amended pleading that includes a claim for punitive damages to be filed. The court may allow the filing of an amended pleading claiming punitive damages on a motion by the party seeking the amended pleading and on the basis of the supporting and opposing affidavits presented that the plaintiff has established that there is a substantial probability that the plaintiff will prevail on the claim pursuant to Section 3294 of the Civil Code. The court shall not grant a motion allowing the filing of an amended pleading that includes a claim for punitive damages if the motion for such an order is not filed within two years after the complaint or initial pleading is filed or not less than nine months before the date the matter is first set for trial, whichever is earlier.” This encompasses all actions related to the professional services provided by a healthcare provider, acting in their capacity as such. (Central Pathology Service Medical Clinic v. Superior Court (1992) 3 Cal.4th 181, 181-82, 191.)

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff’s proposed FAC requests leave to add causes of action for medical battery and fraud, as well as supplementary facts. It also requests leave to request punitive damages stemming from the fourth cause of action for fraud. As the Court has previously stated when denying Plaintiff’s original motion, there are certain requirements in order to amend an action for damages arising out of the professional negligence of a health care provider. Plaintiff seeks to bypass these limitations by adding on a fourth cause of action for fraud. However, from the text of the proposed FAC, it is clear that the cause of action for fraud is still bound by the rules of CCP §425.13(a): “[i]n any action for damages arising out of the professional negligence of a health care provider....the court shall not grant a motion allowing the filing of an amended pleading that includes a claim for punitive damages if the motion for such an order is not filed within two years after the complaint or initial pleading is filed or not less than nine months before the date the matter is first set for trial, whichever is earlier.” Although the cause of action is labeled “fraud”, it clearly is focused on the alleged professional negligence of the identified health care providers. A request for punitive damages for an action for medical negligence must be filed at least 9 months before the date the matter is first set for trial; trial was originally set for February 7, 2022, and was continued to October 31, 2022. Plaintiff did not file 9 months prior to either trial date. As Plaintiff has failed to meet the statutory requirements, the Court cannot grant leave to amend in regard to a claim for punitive damages.

CONCLUSION

Plaintiff Xadrian Yanez’s Motion for Leave to File the First Amended Complaint is DENIED.

Moving Party is ordered to file the proof of service of this ruling with the Court within five days.

The parties are directed to the header of this tentative ruling for further instructions.