Judge Lee W. Tsao, Case Number: 22STCV06308, Date: 2023-09-13 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lee W. Tsao, Case: 22STCV06308, Date: 2023-09-13 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV06308 Hearing Date: September 13, 2023 Dept: C

gil v. kaiser, et al.

CASE NO.: 22STCV06308

HEARING: 9/13/23 @ 9:30 AM

Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend her Complaint is GRANTED. Plaintiff is ordered to file the Amended Answer as attached to this motion within 20 days of this order.

Moving Party to give NOTICE.

Plaintiff Kathrynne Campos Gil (Plaintiff) moves for leave to amend her Complaint.

Background

Plaintiff filed a Complaint against Defendant Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc., Kaiser Foundation Hospitals, and Southern California Permanente Medical Group (Kaiser Defendants) for Negligence and Violation of the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act, and against Chapman House, Inc., RRM Properties, LTD, Robertson’s Ready Mix, LTD, Sean Aufmuth, and Nancy Dickson for Negligence. The claim arises from the death of Plaintiff’s son Frank Campos during a transfer from a Kaiser’s inpatient psychiatric unit to Chapman House’s mental health facility.

Legal Standard

CRC, rule 3.1324(a) provides:

(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.

“While a motion to permit an amendment to a pleading to be filed is one addressed to the discretion of the court, the exercise of this discretion must be sound and reasonable and not arbitrary or capricious. (Citation.) And it is a rare case in which ‘a court will be justified in refusing a party leave to amend his pleadings so that he may properly present his case.’ (Citation.) If the motion to amend is timely made and the granting of the motion will not prejudice the opposing party, it is error to refuse permission to amend and where the refusal also results in a party being deprived of the right to assert a meritorious cause of action or a meritorious defense, it is not only error but an abuse of discretion.” Morgan v. Superior Court of Cal. In and For Los Angeles County (1959) 172 Cal.App.2d 527, 530.)

Discussion

Here, Plaintiff seeks to add causes of action for Wrongful Death against all Defendants and Dependent Adult Abuse against the Kaiser Defendants.

Plaintiff has fulfilled the procedural requirements of CRC, rule 3.1324. Plaintiff’s counsel’s declaration addresses the effects of the amendments, why the amendment is necessary and proper, when the facts giving rise to the amended allegations were discovered, and the reasons the amendments were not made earlier. More specifically, Plaintiff argues that newly discovered evidence reveals that Kaiser deliberately withheld vital information about Campos when shopping for a new placement for him. Evidence also shows a purposeful ignorance by Chapman House when agreeing to accept and transport Campos. Plaintiff now seeks to amend her complaint to add a request for punitive damages against both Kaiser and Chapman House

Kaiser Defendants fails to argue that they will be prejudiced by the granting of this motion, instead, they focus their argument on factual contentions regarding the statute of limitations not appropriate for determination at this stage. (See Quiroz v. Seventh Avenue Center (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 1256 [Ruling was made on appeal of motion for summary judgment.]

As to punitive damages, CCP § 425.13 does not apply to elder and dependent abuse causes of action. (Covenant Care, Inc. v. Superior Court (2004) 32 Cal.4th 771, 790.) Thus, Plaintiff does not need to satisfy the requirements of CCP § 425.13 prior to amending her Complaint.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend her Complaint is GRANTED. Plaintiff is ordered to file the Amended Answer as attached to this motion within 20 days of this order.