Judge: Mark E. Windham, Case: 22STLC03404, Date: 2023-05-16 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STLC03404    Hearing Date: May 16, 2023    Dept: 26

Nissanoff v. Cigna Healthcare of Cal., Inc., et al.

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT

(CCP §§ 473(a), 576; CRC Rule 3.1324)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff Jonathan Nissanoff’s Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint is DENIED.

ANALYSIS:

Plaintiff Jonathan Nissanoff (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant action for quantum meruit and breach of implied contract against Defendant Cigna Healthcare of California, Inc. (“Defendant Cigna Healthcare”) on May 18, 2022. Plaintiff filed the first amended complaint on July 7, 2022, alleging the same causes of action against the same defendant. Defendant Cigna Healthcare filed an answer on July 19, 2022.

On February 14, 2023, Plaintiff filed the instant motion for leave to file a second amended complaint. Plaintiff later filed a doe amendment on March 22, 2023, adding Cigna Health and Life Insurance Company (“Defendant Cigna Health”) as a defendant. Defendants filed an opposition on May 3, 2023 and Plaintiff replied on May 8, 2023.

Legal Standard

Code of Civil Procedure section 473, provides that “[t]he court may, in furtherance of justice and on any terms as may be proper, allow a party to amend any pleading…” (Code Civ. Proc., § 473, subd. (a)(1).) “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 order.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 576.) 

The policy favoring amendments and resolving all matters in the same dispute is “so strong that it is a rare case in which denial of leave to amend can be justified. [Citation.]” (Howard v. County of San Diego (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 1422, 1428.) “[C]ourts generally should permit amendment to the complaint at any stage of the proceedings, up to and including trial. (Citations omitted.) But this policy applies “ ‘only “[w]here no prejudice is shown to the adverse party.” ’ ” (Citations omitted.) Moreover, “ ‘ “even if a good amendment is proposed in proper form, unwarranted delay in presenting it may—of itself—be a valid reason for denial.” ’ ” (Citations omitted.)” (Melican v. Regents of University of California (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 168, 175.)

A motion for leave to amend a pleading must also comply with the procedural requirements of California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1324, which requires a supporting declaration to set forth explicitly what allegations are to be added and where, and explicitly stating what new evidence was discovered warranting the amendment and why the amendment was not made earlier. The motion must also include (1) a copy of the proposed and numbered amendment, (2) specifications by reference to pages and lines the allegations that would be deleted and added, and (3) a declaration specifying the effect, necessity and propriety of the amendments, date of discovery and reasons for delay. (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1324, subds. (a), (b).)

Discussion

The action is brought with respect to Defendants’ alleged failure to pay all amounts owed under the law following Plaintiff’s provision of medical services. Plaintiff seeks leave to amend the first amended complaint by adding six new causes of action for breach of oral contract, breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, unjust enrichment, declaratory relief, recovery of payment for services rendered, and interference with prospective economic advantage. (Motion, Nissanoff Decl., Exh. 1.)

First, the supporting declaration, however, does not comply with the mandatory requirements of rule 3.1324. Neither the declaration, nor the motion itself, specify, by reference to pages and lines, the allegations that are to be deleted and added. (Id. at Nissanoff Decl., ¶¶2-3.) Nor do they specify the effect, necessity and propriety of the amendments, which appear to be considerable. (Ibid.) Instead, the motion vaguely states that the amendments are detailed facts that support the underlying theory of underpayment for medical services and the additional causes of action are alternative theories for relief from the underpayment. (Motion, p. 3:3-9.) This does not provide the specificity demanded by the Rules of Court. Nor does providing the Court with a redlined version of the proposed second amended complaint, which is a separate requirement, satisfy this burden. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1324(a).) Finally, the motion and supporting declaration do not provide any information about the date of discovery of the new facts Plaintiff seeks to add or the reason for delay in adding them to the original and first amended complaints. (Motion, Nisssanoff Decl., ¶¶2-3.) Without this information, is it not possible to determine from the motion whether Plaintiff inexcusably delayed in seeking leave to amend or whether Defendants will be prejudiced by the amendment.

Defendants’ opposition and Plaintiff’s reply, in fact, confirm that the proposed amendments were inexcusably delayed. Defendants point out that the discovery propounded by Defendant Cigna Healthcare only concerned the claims raised in the first amended complaint. (Opp., Dahlberg Decl., Exh. A.) Nor had Plaintiff been served with Defendant Cigna Healthcare’s discovery responses before this motion was filed. (Id. at ¶¶4, 6.) The proposed amendments, therefore, were not inspired by any newly discovered information and should have been pled in the first amended complaint or even the original complaint. Nor is it necessary for Plaintiff to amend the pleadings at this time to add Defendant Cigna Health, which has already been added via doe amendment. Defendants additionally argue they would suffer prejudice as a result of the proposed six additional causes of action based on the need for additional discovery into the six new causes of action.

Due to Plaintiff’s non-compliance with the mandatory Rules of Court and inexcusable delay in seeking to add six new causes of action, the request for leave to amend is denied.

Conclusion

Plaintiff Jonathan Nissanoff’s Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint is DENIED.

Court clerk to give notice.