Judge: Marcella O. Mclaughlin, Case: 37-2023-00017750-CU-PL-CTL, Date: 2024-05-03 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - May 02, 2024

05/03/2024  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  Product Liability Motion Hearing (Civil) 37-2023-00017750-CU-PL-CTL RUBALCAVA VS MEDLINE INDUSTRIES LP [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Motion for Leave to Amend, 01/09/2024

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

Medline has failed to make a sufficient showing of prejudice. Trial has not been set and no dispositive motions are pending. The mere fact that the amendment will require further discovery and costs to defend this lawsuit does not justify denying leave to amend. '[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, issues surrounding the merits of the punitive damages claim can be addressed via an appropriate pleadings challenge, an evidentiary-based motion, or at trial. See Kittredge Sports Co. v. Superior Court (1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 1045, 1048.

Medline's objections to the Lopez declaration (ROA 61) are sustained.

Plaintiff must file and serve the first amended complaint by May 13, 2024.

B. Plaintiff's unopposed motion for trial setting preference is GRANTED. Code Civ. Proc. § 36(a).

The court deems the lack of opposition to the motion to be a concession as to the merits of the motion.

SDSC Local Rule 2.1.19(B). Moreover, plaintiff has made a sufficient showing that he is over 70 years of age and that his health is such that a preference is necessary to prevent prejudicing his substantial interest in the litigation. (See Farris Decl., ¶¶ 3-6.) Counsel should attend the hearing prepared to discuss the setting of trial within the 120-day period, as well as the scheduling of other litigation benchmarks. See Code Civ. Proc. § 36(f).

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3104667  5