Judge: Elaine W. Mandel, Case: 24SMCV02093, Date: 2025-01-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24SMCV02093    Hearing Date: January 6, 2025    Dept: P

Tentative Ruling

Gong v. Pincus, Case no. 24SMCV02093

Hearing date January 6, 2025

Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint

Plaintiff Melanie Gong, in pro per, sues defendants Stephen Pincus, M.D. Glenn Vallecillos, M.D. and Hussam Antoin, Integrative Operating Theaters, Inc., alleging 13 causes of action, including fraud, misrepresentation, assault and battery and medical malpractice. Plaintiff sought corrective and cosmetic surgery following an automobile accident and alleges defendants induced to receive procedures. Plaintiff alleges defendants misrepresented their abilities, the potential risks, outcomes and details of the procedures, depriving plaintiff of informed consent. Plaintiff filed the initial complaint 5/3/24 and first amended 9/30/24. Plaintiff moves for leave to file a second amended complaint and moves to stay consideration of defendants’ pending demurrer with motion to strike to the FAC. Defendants do not oppose granting leave but oppose staying the demurrer as procedurally unnecessary.

CCP §473(a)(1) states: “The court may, in furtherance of justice, and on any terms as may be proper, allow a party to amend any pleading.” Courts have held “there is a strong policy in favor of liberal allowance of amendments.” Mesler v. Bragg Mgmt. Co. (1985) 39 Cal.3d 290, 296-97; see also Ventura v. ABM Industries, Inc. (2013) 212 Cal.App.4th 258, 268) (“Trial courts are bound to apply a policy of great liberality in permitting amendments to the complaint at any stage of the proceedings, up to and including trial where the adverse party will not be prejudiced.”)

Pursuant to CRC 3.1324(a), a motion to amend must: (1) include a copy of the proposed amended pleading; and (2) state what allegations are proposed to be deleted from or added to the previous pleading. CRC 3.1324(b) requires a declaration stating: (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 reason why the request for amendment was not made earlier.

Plaintiff filed her proposed SAC on 12/2/24. Decl. Gong para. 2. Plaintiff complied with CRC 3.1324 via her SAC and 12/9/24 declaration. Defendants do not oppose granting leave. Leave is proper and granted.

Regarding plaintiff’s request to stay defendants’ pending demurrer, if the court adopts its tentative, and the SAC is filed, the demurrer to the FAC is moot.