Judge: Mel Red Recana, Case: 21STCV46931, Date: 2024-04-15 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 21STCV46931 Hearing Date: April 15, 2024 Dept: 45
Hearing
date: April 15, 2024
Moving
Party: Plaintiff Eliana Arciniega, a
minor individual by and through her Guardian Ad Litem, Joel Arciniega
(“Plaintiff”)
Responding
Party: County of Los Angeles; LAC + USC
Medical Center; University of Southern California, Keck School of Medicine
(collectively, “Defendants”)
Motion
for Leave to File a First Amended Complaint
The Court
considered the moving papers, opposition, and reply.
The
motion is GRANTED.
Background
On
December 23, 2021, Plaintiff Eliana Arciniega, a minor individual by and
through her Guardian Ad Litem, Joel Arciniega (“Plaintiff”) filed the original
complaint alleging medical malpractice against Defendants Los Angeles County, a
municipal governmental entity; LAC + USC Medical Center, a public entity,
business form unknown; University of Southern California, Keck School of
Medicine, a non-profit corporation; Emily Johnson, M.D., an individual; Dana
Rodney Sajed, M.D., an individual; Kayla S. Jagoda, M.D., an individual; Taylor
W. Burkholder, M.D., an individual; Sylvia Hsin-Hue Yeh, M.D., an individual;
Michael Leeson, M.D., an individual; Annie Le, R.N., an individual; Casey
Rodriguez, R.N., an individual; Tracy Harada, R.N., an individual; Stephanie
Luong, R.N., an individual; and Does 1 to 100.
Plaintiff
now requests leave to file a First Amended Complaint to (a) address
inconsistencies and clarify claims; (b) formally add defendants whose true
names have been discovered (specifically Does 1 and 2: Ms. Brenda Carolina
Hernandez Mazariego, and Mr. Jose E. Esquilin Birriel [“Drivers”]); and (c) add
new claims against all defendants. Plaintiff attempts to add the following
causes of action: (1) violations of the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active
Labor Act (“EMTALA”) pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1395d against Defendants Los
Angeles County; LAC+ USC Medical Center; and University of Southern California,
Keck School of Medicine; (2) failure to provide emergency services and care
pursuant to Health and Safety Code §§ 1317, et seq., against Defendants Los
Angeles County; LAC+ USC Medical Center; and University of Southern California,
Keck School of Medicine; and (3) negligence against defendants whose identities
have been recently discovered, Ms. Hernandez Mazariego and Mr. Esquilin Birriel.
On October 5,
2023, Plaintiff filed the instant motion. On April 2, 2024, Defendants County of
Los Angeles; LAC + USC Medical Center; University of Southern California, Keck
School of Medicine filed their opposition. On April 8, 2024, Plaintiff filed a
reply.
In
opposition, Defendants concede that they are not opposed to Plaintiff amending
the complaint to add the Drivers and a claim against the Drivers. (Opp’n p.3.) However, Defendants argue that they are
opposed to the addition of the two new causes of action against them. (Id.)
Defendants
request that the Court strike the third and fourth causes of action from the
proposed amended complaint and the request for punitive damages against the
government entities and for a medical negligence claim. (Id.) Defendants
further argue that Plaintiff’s proposed amendment should not be permitted
because the motion was filed and served after about a two-year delay and as a
result of lack of diligence. (Id. at pp.4-5.) Further, Defendants argue
that they will be severely prejudiced as a result of Plaintiff’s untimely
amendment to the Complaint because Plaintiff and Defendants have been actively
conducting discovery, including written discovery and depositions. (Id.
at p. 4.)
In
reply, Plaintiff argues that Defendants are not unduly prejudiced or suffer
unfair surprise by the instant motion because Defendants have been on notice of
the alleged wrongful acts. (Reply p. 3.) Plaintiff further argues that
Defendants will not be prejudiced because substantial discovery still has to be
conducted and the newly added third and fourth causes of action of the proposed
first amended complaint contain nearly the exact same language and facts
alleged in the operative complaint. (Id. at p.4.) Plaintiff also argues
that the delay was not due to lack of diligence because Plaintiff waited for the
resolution and findings of the underlying criminal matter and investigation
involving the Defendant Drivers, The People of the State of California v.
Hernandez-Mazariego, Case No.: VA160039, and now
that Defendant Mazariego has been convicted under Vehicle Code Section
20001(b)(2), the parties can continue to conduct active, substantive discovery
as to the pertinent facts and circumstances at issue in this matter. (Id.
at pp. 4-5.) Lastly, Plaintiff clarifies that the punitive damages sought are
only against the Defendant Drivers, and not the Defendants. (Id.)
Legal Standard
Under CCP 473(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.
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. (See Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1324(a),
(b).)
The court may, in furtherance of justice,
and on such terms as may be proper, allow a party to amend any pleading. (CCP
§473 and §576.) The policy favoring amendment 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.) Notwithstanding the “policy of
great liberality in permitting amendments to the complaint at any stage of the
proceedings, up to and including trial [citations], this policy should be
applied only ‘where no prejudice is shown to the adverse party . . . .’
[citation]. A different result is indicated ‘where inexcusable delay and
probable prejudice to the opposing party’ is shown. [Citation].” (Magpali
v. Farmers Group (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 471, 487.)
Discussion
Plaintiff moves for leave to file a First
Amended Complaint on the grounds of Cal. Civ. Proc. Code. § 473(a)(1).
Plaintiff has shown sufficient compliance with CRC Rule 3.1324(a). (See Decl.
Minsal ¶¶2-3.)
Plaintiff did not unreasonably delay
before seeking leave to amend. Here,
there was a two-year delay in filing the instant motion. However, Plaintiff
contends that the delay was not due to lack of
diligence because Plaintiff waited for the resolution and findings of the
underlying criminal matter and investigation involving the Defendant Drivers, The
People of the State of California v. Hernandez-Mazariego, Case No.:
VA160039, and now that Defendant Mazariego has been
convicted under Vehicle Code Section 20001(b)(2), the parties can continue to
conduct active, substantive discovery as to the pertinent facts and
circumstances at issue in this matter. (Id. at pp. 4-5.) Therefore, the
delay was excusable.
Defendants failed to provide any evidence
showing that they would be prejudiced. Defendants were put on notice of the
same facts alleged in the new causes of action and only make conclusory
arguments that they will be prejudiced. Prejudice exists where the amendment
would require delaying the trial, resulting in loss of critical evidence, or
added costs of preparation such as an increased burden of discovery. (Magpali v. Farmers Group, Inc. (1996)
48 Cal. App. 4th 471, 486-488.) Here, no trial date has been set and no substantial
discovery has been conducted. For instance, none of the relevant doctors,
medical personnel and/or otherwise Defendants’ pertinent employees involved in
the treatment of Plaintiff have been deposed. (Minsal Decl. ¶¶ 2-3.)
Conclusion
Accordingly, the motion is GRANTED in its
entirety. The Court notes that Plaintiff clarified that
the punitive damages sought are only against the Defendant Drivers, and not the
Defendants who are public entities.
It is so ordered.
Dated:
April 15, 2024
_______________________
ROLF M. TREU
Judge of the
Superior Court