Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 19STCV33844, Date: 2023-06-22 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 19STCV33844 Hearing Date: June 22, 2023 Dept: 28
Having considered the moving, opposing and reply papers, the Court rules as follows.
BACKGROUND
On September 20, 2019, Plaintiffs Victor Tsai, Alice Tsai, and Rose Tsai filed this action against Defendants Alhambra Hospital (“Alhambra”), Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian (“Hoag”), Pinegrove Healthcare & Wellness Center, LP (“Pinegrove”), San Gabriel Valley Medical Center (“SGV”) and Tag-2 Medical Investment Group, LLC dba Sunny View Care Center (“Sunny”) for medical malpractice and wrongful death.
On August 19, 2021, Plaintiffs filed the First Amended Complaint.
On
November 24, 2021, Plaintiffs filed the Second Amended Complaint for medical
malpractice (wrongful death) and medical malpractice (survival action).
On December 6, 2021, SGV
filed an answer. On December 7, 2021, Pinegrove filed an answer. On December
15, 2021, Hoag filed an answer. On February 10, 2022, Alhambra filed an answer.
On May 18, 2022, Sunny filed an answer. On November 22, 2022, Sunny was
dismissed with prejudice at Plaintiff’s request.
On March 2, 2023, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Leave to File the Third Amended Complaint to be heard on May 10, 2023. The Court continued the hearing on the motion to June 22, 2023. On April 26, 2023, Alhambra and Pinegrove filed oppositions. On May 3, 2023, Plaintiffs filed replies. On June 2, 2023, Plaintiffs filed a supplemental declaration. On June 13, 2023, Pinegrove filed a response.
Trial is currently scheduled for October 10, 2023.
PARTIES’ REQUESTS
Plaintiffs request leave to file and serve the proposed Third Amended Complaint, which adds a cause of action for elder abuse.
Alhambra and Pinegrove (“Opposing Defendants”) request that the Court deny the motion.
LEGAL STANDARD
“(a) (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.”
(Code Civ. Proc., § 473, subd. (a).)
“Any judge, at any time before or after commencement of trial, in the furtherance of justice, and upon such terms as may be proper, may allow the amendment of any pleading or pretrial conference order.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 576.)
California Rules of Court, rule 3.1324, 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.
“(c) Form of amendment
“The
court may deem a motion to file an amendment to a pleading to be a motion to
file an amended pleading and require the filing of the entire previous pleading
with the approved amendments incorporated into it.
“(d) Requirements for amendment to a pleading
“An amendment to a pleading must not be made by alterations on the face of a pleading except by permission of the court. All alterations must be initialed by the court or the clerk.”
“ ‘Generally, “the trial court has wide discretion in determining whether to allow the amendment, but the appropriate exercise of that discretion requires the trial court to consider a number of factors: ‘including the conduct of the moving party and the belated presentation of the amendment.... ’ ” ’ ” (Duchrow v. Forrest (2013) 215 Cal.App.4th 1359, 1377 (Duchrow), quoting Emerald Bay Community Assn. v. Golden Eagle Ins. Corp. (2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 1078, 1097, citations & italics omitted.)
“ ‘Courts must apply a policy of liberality in permitting amendments at any stage of the proceeding, including during trial, when no prejudice to the opposing party is shown.... “However, ‘ “even if a good amendment is proposed in proper form, unwarranted delay in presenting it may—of itself—be a valid reason for denial.” ’ ” ’ ” (Duchrow, supra, 215 Cal.App.4th at p. 1377, quoting P & D Consultants, Inc. v. City of Carlsbad (2010) 190 Cal.App.4th 1332, 1345.) “‘Where the trial date is set, the jury [has been] impaneled, counsel, the parties, the trial court, and the witnesses have blocked the time, and the only way to avoid prejudice to the opposing party is to continue the trial date to allow further discovery, refusal of leave to amend cannot be an abuse of discretion.’ ” (Id. at pp. 1377-1378, quoting Magpali v. Farmers Group, Inc. (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 471, 488.)
“ ‘ “If new facts are being alleged, prejudice may easily result [from amending the pleadings during trial] because of the inability of the other party to investigate the validity of the factual allegations while engaged in trial or to call rebuttal witnesses. If the same set of facts supports merely a different theory . . . no prejudice can result.” ’ . . . “ ‘The basic rule applicable to amendments to conform to proof is that the amended pleading must be based upon the same general set of facts as those upon which the cause of action or defense as originally pleaded was grounded.” ’ ” (Duchrow, supra, 215 Cal.App.4th at p. 1378, quoting Garcia v. Roberts (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 900, 909–910, citations omitted, italics added & omitted.)
DISCUSSION
Plaintiffs’ current operative complaint alleges that Defendants negligently cared for decedent Mimi Kuo (“Decedent”) at multiple healthcare facilities. Plaintiffs’ proposed Third Amended Complaint adds a cause of action against Opposing Defendants for elder abuse. The proposed elder abuse cause of action alleges that Decedent was under the care, custody and responsibility of Opposing Defendants during certain times and that Opposing Defendants failed to provide proper care and communication. Other than an allegation regarding Decedent’s age, the proposed additions to the complaint stem from the allegations already present in the operative complaint.
Opposing Defendants argue the proposed elder abuse claim is designed to “blow the lid off of damages” because an elder abuse claim, unlike the previously asserted causes of action, is not subject to the MICRA cap on general damages. Opposing Defendants assert they would be prejudiced by having to defend against the increased exposure to liability created by inclusion of an elder abuse claim at this stage of the litigation. Citing Duchrow, supra, 215 Cal.App.4th at pages 1380-1382, Opposing Defendants contend that courts should not allow late amendments that greatly increase the amount and nature of damages, particularly based on a different theory of the case.
In Duchrow, an attorney sued his former client in November 2008, alleging the client breached the parties’ retainer agreement. (Duchrow, supra, 215 Cal.App.4th at p. 1363.) The complaint alleged the attorney “ha[d] been damaged in the sum of $44,082.22, plus interest.” (Ibid.) On March 8, 2011, the case was called for trial by jury. On March 9, 10, and 11, 2011, plaintiff presented evidence and then rested. (Ibid.) On March 11, based on a new theory of liability, the attorney moved to amend the complaint to conform to proof, seeking $312,260 in attorney fees and $16,851.95 in costs, for a total of $329,111.95. (Ibid.) Over the client’s objection, the trial court granted the motion to amend and the jury awarded plaintiff $140,056.95. (Id. at pp. 1363-1364.)
The Court of Appeal reversed, observing “[t]he amendment was made on the fourth day of a five-day trial without any reason for the delay.” (Duchrow, supra, 215 Cal.App.4th at p. 1364.) The attorney “could have easily included the appropriate allegations in the original complaint or moved to amend the complaint before trial.” (Ibid.)
As noted, the Court of Appeal also explained: “ ‘ “If the same set of facts supports merely a different theory [in the amended pleading] . . . no prejudice can result.” ’ . . . “ ‘The basic rule applicable to amendments to conform to proof is that the amended pleading must be based upon the same general set of facts as those upon which the cause of action or defense as originally pleaded was grounded.” ’ ” (Duchrow, supra, 215 Cal.App.4th at p. 1378, quoting Garcia v. Roberts (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 900, 909–910, citations omitted, italics added & omitted.)
Here, Plaintiffs have moved to amend before, not during, trial, and the new theory of liability – elder abuse – is based on the same set of facts alleged in the prior complaint. These factors weigh against a finding of prejudice to Opposing Defendants.
“ ‘ “ ‘[T]he conduct of the moving party and the belated presentation of the amendment’ ” ’ ” (Duchrow, supra, 215 Cal.App.4th at p. 1377) do not change the prejudice calculation. The Court has no evidence of bad faith conduct by Plaintiffs and, while the requested amendment comes more than three years after the original complaint, the policy of liberality in allowing amendments predominates where Opposing Defendants have shown no prejudice other than facing potentially greater liability than they faced before the amendment. The Court grants the motion.
CONCLUSION
The motion for leave to file the Third Amended Complaint of Plaintiffs Victor Tsai, Alice Tsai, and Rose Tsai is GRANTED. Plaintiffs are ordered to file and serve the Third Amended Complaint within five days of the hearing on the motion.
Moving parties are ordered to file the proof of service of this ruling with the Court within five days.