Judge: James L. Crandall, Case: 20-1167338, Date: 2022-08-04 Tentative Ruling

Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint

Plaintiff Deanna Despot’s Unopposed Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint is GRANTED.

The court may, in the furtherance of justice, and on such terms as may be proper, allow amendment of a complaint at any time before or after commencement of trial. (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 473(a)(1), 576.)

“There is a policy of great liberality in permitting amendments to the pleadings at any stage of the proceeding.” (Sullivan v. City of Sacramento (1987) 190 Cal.App.3d 1070, 1081.)

California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1324 states in part:

“(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.”

Here, Plaintiff moves for leave to file a FAC which changes the following:

(1) Rename the erroneously named Defendant in the Complaint from “UCI MEDICAL CENTER” to: “THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA,” and

(2) Add a separate cause of action for Medical Battery.

According to Plaintiff, the proposed amendments are proper because it was discovered during discovery that none of the Defendants obtained Plaintiff’s consent to an exploratory procedure that was different from the initial procedure Plaintiff consented to. (See Motion, 5-7.)

Plaintiff filed a copy of the proposed FAC as Exhibit 1 to the Declaration of Jonathan Kwan.

The Kwan Declaration complies with California Rules of Court, rule 3.1324, subdivision (b).

Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED.

Plaintiff is to file the proposed FAC within 10 days of the date of this ruling.

Plaintiff is to give notice.

Future hearing events

11/4/22 – MSC

12/12/22 – Jury Trial