Judge: Melissa R. Mccormick, Case: Williams v. Sebag, Date: 2022-12-08 Tentative Ruling
Plaintiffs Greg Williams and Jamie Williams’s Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint
Plaintiffs Greg Williams and Jamie Williams move for leave to file a second amended complaint to allege punitive damages against defendants Jerry Sebag, M.D. and the VMR Institute, and to add two fraud causes of action against defendants Jerry Sebag, M.D. and the VMR Institute. For the following reasons, plaintiffs’ motion is granted.
California Civil Procedure Code § 425.13 states that in any action for damages arising out of the professional negligence of a health care provider, the court may allow the filing of an amended complaint claiming punitive damages on a motion by the party seeking the amended pleading, and “on the basis of the supporting and opposing affidavits presented that the plaintiff has established that there is a substantial probability that the plaintiff will prevail on the claim pursuant to Section 3294 of the Civil Code.” Id. § 425.13(a). A motion under section 425.13 operates like a demurrer or summary judgment motion in reverse. College Hosp., Inc. v. Superior Ct. (1994) 8 Cal.4th 704, 719. Rather than requiring the defendant to defeat the plaintiff’s claim for punitive damages by showing that it is legally or factually without merit, the statute requires the plaintiff to demonstrate a legally sufficient claim that is “substantiated,” i.e., supported by competent, admissible evidence. Id. A trial court may not make any factual determination or become involved in any weighing process beyond that necessarily involved in deciding whether a prima facie case for punitive damages exists. Looney v. Superior Ct. (1993) 16 Cal.App.4th 521, 539.
As the California Supreme Court explained in College Hospital:
“[T]he gravamen of section 425.13(a) is that the plaintiff may not amend the complaint to include a punitive damages claim unless he both states and substantiates a legally sufficient claim. In other words, the court must deny the section 425.13(a) motion where the facts asserted in the proposed amended complaint are legally insufficient to support a punitive damages claim. (See §§ 430.10, 436-437.) The court also must deny the motion where the evidence provided in the ‘supporting and opposing affidavits’ either negates or fails to reveal the actual existence of a triable claim. (See § 437c, subd. (c).) The section 425.13(a) motion may be granted only where the plaintiff demonstrates that both requirements are met.”
College Hosp., 8 Cal.4th at 719. As College Hospital states, the first requirement for a section 425.13(a) motion is that the facts asserted in the proposed amended complaint must be legally sufficient to support a punitive damages claim. See also Looney, 16 Cal.App.4th at 539 (“Once the court concludes that such a case can be presented at trial it must permit the proposed amended pleading to be filed. If it concludes that no such case exists, then it properly rejects the proposed pleading amendment.”) (emphasis added).
Punitive damages may be awarded when a plaintiff proves by clear and convincing evidence that a defendant “has been guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice.” Cal. Civ. Code § 3294(a). “Malice” means conduct intended by the defendant to cause injury to the plaintiff or despicable conduct carried on by the defendant with the willful and conscious disregard of the rights or safety of others. Id. § 3294(c)(1). “Oppression” means despicable conduct that subjects a person to cruel and unjust hardship in conscious disregard of that person’s rights. Id. § 3294(c)(2). “Fraud” means an intentional misrepresentation, deceit, or concealment of a material fact known to the defendant with the intention on the part of the defendant of thereby depriving a person of property or legal rights or otherwise causing injury. Id. § 3294(c)(3).
Plaintiffs have demonstrated that both requirements for granting the section 425.13(a) motion are met. Plaintiffs’ proposed second amended complaint states facts sufficient to support a punitive damages claim and to state the two proposed fraud causes of action. Johnson Decl. Ex. 1 (Proposed Second Amended Complaint ¶¶ 19, 32-47, 49-61). In addition, the evidence set forth in the affidavits filed in support of plaintiffs’ motion shows a substantial probability plaintiffs will prevail on the punitive damages claim. See Looney, 16 Cal.App.4th at 539 (trial court may not make any factual determination or become involved in any weighing process beyond that necessarily involved in deciding whether a prima facie case for punitive damages exists). To the extent necessary, plaintiffs have also demonstrated that leave to amend to add the two proposed fraud causes of action should be granted pursuant to Civil Procedure Code § 473(a)(1) (“[t]he court may . . . in its discretion, after notice to the adverse party, allow, upon any terms as may be just, an amendment to any pleading . . . ”); see also Howard v. County of San Diego (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 1422, 1428 (court’s discretion will usually be exercised liberally to permit amendment of the pleadings).
Plaintiffs shall file and serve the second amended complaint attached as Exhibit 1 to the Johnson Declaration by December 22, 2022.
Plaintiffs’ evidentiary objections are overruled. Defendants’ evidentiary objections, which are not set forth in a separate document, are overruled.
Plaintiffs to give notice.