Judge: H. Jay Ford, III, Case: 20STCV39659, Date: 2023-09-12 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV39659    Hearing Date: September 12, 2023    Dept: O

Case Name:  Prado v. Southern California Healthcare System, Inc., et al. 

SUBJECT:                 MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT  

MOVING PARTY:   Defendants Southern California Healthcare System, Inc. and Prospect Medical Holdings, Inc.

RESP. PARTY:         Plaintiff Gilbert Tomas Prado

TENTATIVE RULING

            Defendants Southern California Healthcare System, Inc. and Prospect Medical Holdings, Inc’s Motion for Summary Judgment directed to Plaintiff’s first amended complaint is DENIED as moot by Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint.

            Plaintiff asserts Defendant’s motion was rendered moot by the filing of Plaintiff’s second amended complaint (FAC).  Plaintiff is correct. “On summary judgment motions, the pleadings always define the issues.” Hejmadi v. Amfac, Inc. (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 525, 536. “It is well established that an amendatory pleading supersedes the original one, which ceases to perform any function as a pleading.” Foreman & lark Corp. v. Fallon (1971) 3 Cal.3d 875, 884. “[T]here is but one complaint in a civil action…the filing of an amended complaint moots a motion directed to a prior complaint….Thus, once an amended complaint is filed, it is error to grant summary adjudication on a cause of action contained in a previous complaint.” State Compensaton Insurance Fund v. Superior Court (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 1124, 1131

            Defendant’s motion was filed on November 5, 2022 challenging Plaintiff’s claims alleged in the first amended complaint. On November 21, 2022 the court granted Plaintiff leave to file a second amended complaint and ordered the hearing on Defendant’s motion for summary judgment continued. In opposing the motion for leave to amend, Defendants acknowledged that allowing the amended complaint “would render their expensive summary judgment effectively moot.” (Defendants’ opposition, pg. 9, filed November 7, 2023). “‘[A] court granting plaintiff leave to amend a cause of action should not at the same time attempt to summarily adjudicate material issues which underlie that same cause of action. After a cause of action is amended, the court may rule in favor of the defendant if, upon subsequent motion, or perhaps renewal of the earlier motion if appropriately framed, it is shown ... there are no triable material issues of fact which would permit recovery on that theory.’” State Compensation Fund, supra.)

            On reply, in his request for judicial notice, the Defendant requests the Court take judicial notice of the prior court’s minute order sustaining the Defendant’s demurrer to three of the four causes of action alleged in the second amended complaint. Defendant argues the prior court “ruled that the Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint was essentially identical to the First Amended Complaint.” And “Plaintiff’s argument that because the Moving Defendants’ Motion references the Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint rather than Plaintiffs Second Amended Complaint is of no moment regarding the substantive arguments made by the Moving Defendants Motion.” Preliminarily, the Court notes the prior court’s ruling on Defendant’s demurrer did not address Plaintiff’s sole surviving cause of action for premises liability, or otherwise address the allegations supporting that claim. Regardless, the Court declines to take judicial notice of contested factual findings made by the prior court. (See, Sosinsky v. Grant (1992) 6 Cal. App. 4th 1548, 1561–1570; Simons California Evidence Manual § 7:12 Permissive notice—Of court records (2023) (addressing the split of authority regarding the court’s discretion to take judicial notice of the truth of other court’s factual findings.) More important, Defendants do not cite any authority that would allow this Court to disregard the controlling authority of State Compensation Fund that prohibits a court from ruling on a summary judgment motion directed to a superseded complaint.