Judge: Marcella O. Mclaughlin, Case: 37-2023-00004303-CU-NP-CTL, Date: 2024-05-10 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - May 09, 2024

05/10/2024  09:00:00 AM  C-72 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Marcella O McLaughlin

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  Non-PI/PD/WD tort - Other Motion Hearing (Civil) 37-2023-00004303-CU-NP-CTL CATHY DALEY BY AND THROUGH HER SUCCESSOR-IN-INTEREST MEGAN FLOWER VS HABILITATIVE HOMES RESIDENTIAL CARE FACILITY LLC [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Motion - Other, 04/16/2024

A. Plaintiff's motion for leave to amend is GRANTED.

Defendant has failed to make a sufficient showing that it will be prejudiced by the amendment. '[A]bsent a showing of prejudice to the adverse party, the rule of great liberality in allowing amendment of pleadings will prevail.' Board of Trustees v. Superior Court (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 1154, 1163.

Moreover, whether plaintiff was 'ignorant' of De La Torre's identity is irrelevant because there is no suggestion that the statute of limitations has run against De La Torre. See Davis v. Marin (2000) 80 Cal.App.4th 380, 387.

Plaintiff must file and serve the first amended complaint by May 20, 2024.

B. Plaintiff's motion to appoint a discovery referee is GRANTED.

The court concludes that immediate action is necessary to prevent discovery disputes from becoming the focal point of the case instead of the means to an end. In ordering the appointment of a discovery referee under Code of Civil Procedure section 639(a)(5), the court makes the following findings pursuant to CRC 3.922 and orders as follows: 1. It is clear from the number and content of the motions brought and likely to be brought that little progress can be made in this case without continuous oversight. See Taggares v. Superior Court (1998) 62 Cal. App. 4th 94, 105. The court has already ruled on four discovery motions. ROA 129, 179. Ten more are scheduled over the next several months. ROA 99, 105, 111, 122-124, 156, 182-184. Informal discovery conferences have proven ineffective and have themselves been a source of disagreement among the parties. See ROA 34, 48, 181.

2. The superior courts of California have in recent years faced unprecedented budget pressures which have already forced curtailments in hiring and business office hours, furloughs, as well as courtroom closures. Judicial caseloads increased, even in the few months since the undersigned was assigned to Dept. 72, from just over 1,100 to well over 1,300. This phenomenon, which has been exacerbated by

the backlog created by the COVID-19 pandemic, translates into a situation in which the court is simply not in a position to provide the kind of intensive oversight and particularized review necessary in this case and still pay appropriate attention to the other cases assigned to Dept. 72.

3. Since taking over Dept. 72 in October 2023, this is the only matter in which the court has appointed a discovery referee. This case is therefore not similar to the situation described in Jovine v. FHP, Inc.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3095090  4 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  CATHY DALEY BY AND THROUGH HER SUCCESSOR-IN-INTEREST  37-2023-00004303-CU-NP-CTL (1998) 64 Cal.App.4th 1506, 1532. In fact, the court is making detailed discovery rulings on other cases on the same calendar as this one (and does so most weeks), so it is not accurate to say that the court is getting out of the discovery business.

4. Under the circumstances, it is appropriate to order that the parties equally bear the cost of the discovery referee. This order will apply unless and until the referee recommends, and the court orders, a different allocation. Based on its review of the papers, the court finds that the parties have the ability to pay.

5. The court finds that the circumstances exceptional and orders that all current and future discovery disputes shall be determined by the discovery referee in the first instance. See Code Civ. Proc. § 639(a)(5); see also CRC 3.922.

Plaintiff's counsel must submit Judicial Council form ADR-110, setting forth either the name of the Referee agreed upon by the parties or with the name left blank. If the latter, the form shall be submitted at the same time as the six names of the discovery referees proposed by the parties (three per side).

The 7 discovery motions calendared for June 21 and the 3 discovery motions calendared for August 2 are hereby ordered off calendar, as they will be resolved by the discovery referee.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3095090  4