Judge: Mark A. Young, Case: 22SMCV01262, Date: 2023-02-02 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22SMCV01262    Hearing Date: February 2, 2023    Dept: M

CASE NAME:           Williams v. The Medical Office of Dr. Jamie S. Schwartz, et al.

CASE NO.:                22SMCV01262

MOTION:                  Motion for Leave to Add Punitive Damages

HEARING DATE:   2/2/2023

Legal Standard

In any action¿for professional negligence¿against a health care provider, no claim for punitive damages may be included in an original complaint.¿¿(CCP,¿§ 425.13 (a).)¿Rather, a¿plaintiff must file a motion¿for leave¿to amend the complaint and add a prayer for punitive damages. 

¿ 

A¿motion¿for leave to amend under Code of Civil Procedure section 425.13¿must be supported by declarations establishing facts sufficient to support a finding there is a “substantial probability” the¿plaintiff will prevail on the punitive damages claim. “Substantial probability” requires the plaintiff to show a legally sufficient claim substantiated by competent, admissible evidence.¿(College Hospital Inc. v. Superior Court (1994) 8 Cal.4th 704, 719.)¿ The plaintiff must make a sufficient prima facie showing of facts to sustain the punitive damage claim,¿taking into account¿the higher “clear and convincing” standard of proof required for such claims under Code of Civil Procedure section 3294.¿(Looney v. Superior Court¿(1993)¿16 Cal.App.4th 521, 538-540.)¿“Consistent with the legislative intent to protect health care defendants from the drastic effects of unwarranted punitive damage claims, the entire package of materials submitted in support of the¿section 425.13(a) motion should be carefully reviewed to ensure that a genuine contestable claim is indeed proposed.” (College Hospital, supra,¿8 Cal.4th at pp. 719–720.) 

Nevertheless, the court may not assess credibility or weigh conflicting evidence.¿(Id.¿at 539; see also Looney, supra, 16 Cal.App.4th at p. 539 [“In making this judgment, the trial court’s consideration of the defendant’s opposing affidavits does not permit a weighing of them against the plaintiff’s supporting evidence, but only a determination that they do or do not,¿as a matter of law,¿defeat that evidence”].)¿The¿court must not reject a well-pled and factually supported punitive damages claim simply because the court believes the evidence is not strong enough for probable success before a jury.¿(College Hospital, supra,¿8 Cal.4th¿at¿709.) 

The basic elements of a punitive damages claim are set out in section 3294 of the Civil Code.¿There must be proof of “oppression, fraud, or malice.” (Civ. Code § 3294 (a).) As defined in Civil Code section 3294(c), “the punishable acts which fall into these categories are strictly defined.¿ Each involves ‘intentional,’ ‘willful,’ or ‘conscious’ wrongdoing of a ‘despicable’ or ‘injur[ious]’ nature. [Citation].” (College Hospital Inc.,¿supra,¿8 Cal.4th at 721.)¿Punitive damages are only proper when the tortious conduct arises to the level of extreme indifference to the plaintiff’s rights, a level which decent citizens should not have to tolerate.¿(Tomaselli v. Transamerica Ins. Co.¿(1994) 25 Cal.App.4th 1269, 1287.)¿Despicable conduct has been characterized as conduct that is so vile, base, contemptible, miserable, wretched or loathsome that it would be looked down upon and despised by ordinary decent people.¿(Mock v. Michigan Millers Mutual Ins. Co.¿(1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 306, 331.) 

Analysis

Defendant notes that Plaintiff failed to present the proposed pleading (see Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1324). The Court agrees that, for leave to amend, Plaintiff would need to present at least the proposed pleading. Without the proposed pleading, the Court technically cannot determine whether Plaintiff has adequately pled her claim for punitive damages.   Moreover, Defendant notes that the motion was set on too short of notice. (See CCP §§ 1005, 1010.6(a)(3).)  Defendant is correct as to both procedural defects in this motion.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED without prejudice.