Judge: Melvin D. Sandvig, Case: 23CHCV03648, Date: 2025-04-21 Tentative Ruling
Counsel wishing to submit on a tentative ruling may inform the clerk or courtroom assisant in North Valley Department F47, 9425 Penfield Ave., Chatsworth, CA 91311, at (818) 407-2247. Please be aware that unless all parties submit, the matter will still be called for hearing and may be argued by any appearing/non-submitting parties. If the matter is submitted on the court's tentative ruling by all parties, counsel for moving party shall give notice of ruling. This may be done by incorporating verbatim the court's tentative ruling. The tentative ruling may be extracted verbatim by copying and specially pasting, as unformatted text, from the Los Angeles Superior Court’s website, http://www.lasuperiorcourt.org. All hearings on law and motion and other calendar matters are generally NOT transcribed by a court reporter unless one is provided by the party(ies).
Case Number: 23CHCV03648 Hearing Date: April 21, 2025 Dept: F47
Dept. F47
Date: 4/21/25
TRIAL DATE: 3/2/26
Case #23CHCV03648
MOTION FOR
LEAVE TO FILE A FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Motion filed on 11/25/24.
MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Dara Jaslin
Meza Garcia, a minor by and through her Guardian Ad Litem, Jennifer Garcia
Sanchez
RESPONDING PARTY #1: Defendants Njdeh
Nick Ghazaryan, D.D.S., Njdeh Nick Dental Corp., and Njdeh Nick Dental Corp.
dba ABC Kids Dental Group
RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant Mary
K. Senstad, DMD (Defendant Senstad also joins in the opposition of the
other defendants)
NOTICE: ok
RULING: The motion is denied.
SUMMARY OF FACTS & PROCEDURAL HISTORY
This action arises out of dental treatment received by minor
Plaintiff Dara Jaslin Meza Garcia on 8/1/23 when she was 3 years old. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Dr. Senstad
failed to properly secure the dental bur to the drill’s power supply unit
causing the bur to come loose while in the minor’s mouth resulting in the minor
swallowing it. Plaintiff alleges that
the minor’s mother, GAL and proposed
plaintiff, Jennifer Garcia Sanchez asked what happened and Dr. Senstad told her
there wasn’t a problem. However, later
that day, Dr. Senstad and/or her staff called Sanchez and told her to take Dara
to the hospital as she may have swallowed a small object. Thereafter, Sanchez took Dara to the hospital
where she was hospitalized and transported by ambulance to another hospital the
next day. Thereafter, Plaintiff alleges
that she was hospitalized twice as a result of the incident.
On 11/29/23, Plaintiff Dara Jaslin Meza Garcia, a minor
by and through her Guardian Ad Litem, Jennifer Garcia Sanchez (Plaintiff) filed
her original Judicial Council form complaint against Defendants Njdeh Nick
Ghazaryan, D.D.S., Njdeh Nick Dental Corp., Njdeh Nick Dental Corp. dba ABC
Kids Dental Group and Mary K. Senstad, DMD alleging one cause of action for general
negligence. Defendants filed answers to
the complaint in January of 2024.
Plaintiff’s counsel claims that after filing the original
complaint, he learned that the minor plaintiff’s mother, Jennifer Garcia
Sanchez (Sanchez), has viable claims for damages which should have been
included in the lawsuit. (Williams Decl.
¶4). Therefore, Plaintiff’s counsel
requested that counsel for the respective defendants stipulate to the filing of
a First Amended Complaint and both counsel refused. (Id. ¶5).
Therefore, on 11/25/24, Plaintiff filed and served the
instant motion which requests an order granting Plaintiff leave to file a First
Amended Complaint which reformats the First Amended Complaint from a Judicial
Council Form Complaint and adds Jennifer Garcia Sanchez as a plaintiff in a new
2nd cause of action for Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress. On 3/27/25, Defendants Njdeh Nick Ghazaryan,
D.D.S., Njdeh Nick Dental Corp., and Njdeh Nick Dental Corp. dba ABC Kids Dental
Group filed and served an opposition to the motion. On 4/8/25, Defendant Mary K. Senstad, DMD filed
an opposition to the motion and a joinder in the opposition of the other
defendants. Plaintiff has not filed a
reply to the oppositions.
ANALYSIS
Generally, leave to amend to amend is to be liberally
granted at any stage of the proceedings where the opposing party was not misled
or prejudiced by the amendment. See
CCP 473(a)(1); Mesler (1985) 39 C3d 290, 296-297; Atkinson (2003)
109 CA4th 739, 761; Higgins (1981) 123 CA3d 558, 564; Kittredge
Sports Co. 213 CA3d 1048.
However, the court has discretion to deny leave to amend
where a proposed amendment fails to state a valid cause of action or defense. See California Casualty General
Insurance Co. (Gorgei) (1985) 173 CA3d 274, 280-281(disapproved on
other grounds by Kransco (2000) 23 C4th 390, 407. Denial of leave to amend on such basis is
appropriate where the proposed amended pleading is deficient as a matter of law
and the defect could not be cured by further amendment. Gorgei, supra at 281; Foxborough
(1994) 26 CA4th 217, 230 (proposed amendment barred by statute of limitations
and no basis for “relation back”). Leave
to amend was found to be properly denied where proposed amendments were
untimely and subject to being barred by res judicata and statute of
limitations. Yee (1998) 62 CA4th
1409, 1429; Aroa Marketing, Inc. (2011) 198 CA4th 781, 789.
CCP 340.5 provides in relevant part:
“In an action for injury or death
against a health care provider based upon such person’s alleged professional
negligence, the time for the commencement of action shall be three years after
the date of injury or one year after the plaintiff discovers, or through the
use of reasonable diligence should have discovered, the injury, whichever
occurs first.”
The one-year limitations period applies to claims based
on professional negligence of healthcare providers regardless of the title of
the claim. See Larson
(2014) 230 CA4th 336, 352; So (2013) 212 CA4th 652, 666-667. Here, the proposed new claim of negligent
infliction of emotional distress by proposed new plaintiff Sanchez arises from
the alleged negligent treatment of Plaintiff on 8/1/23. Additionally, the facts alleged in the
proposed First Amended Complaint indicate that Sanchez was aware of the facts
giving rise to the claim on the same day of the treatment when she was notified
by Dr. Senstad and/or Dr. Senstad’s staff that her daughter may have swallowed a
small object, or minimally a few days later, after the last hospitalization of
the minor. (See Williams Decl.,
Ex.B – proposed FAC ¶¶8-12). As such,
the negligent infliction of emotional distress claim is subject to the one year
statute of limitations set forth in CCP 340.5 rather than the two year statute
of limitations set forth in CCP 335.1.
A claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress
made by Sanchez also does not relate back to the filing of the original
complaint. In order for the relation-back
doctrine to apply, the amended complaint must: (1) be based on the same general
set of facts, (2) involve the same injury, and (3) refer to the same
instrumentality as the original complaint.
Quiroz (2006) 140 CA4th 1256, 1278 citing Norgart (1999)
21 C4th 383, 408-409. A new plaintiff
cannot be added after the statute of limitations has run where he/she seeks to
enforce an independent right or to impose greater liability on the
defendant. Id. In this case, Sanchez’s proposed negligent
infliction of emotional distress cause of action is a separate and distinct claim
from the original negligence claim filed by Plaintiff on 11/29/23 as it pleads
a different injury.
In the motion, Plaintiff states “it would be inefficient
for the court to force Plaintiffs to file a new separate action (which would
not be time-barred) against Defendants based on the same conduct.” (See Motion, p.4:15-17). Plaintiff provides no authority or further
argument in the motion as to why the new claim would not be time-barred and has
failed to file a reply addressing the statute of limitations issue raised on
Dr. Senstad’s opposition.
But for the statute of limitations bar to the proposed
new claim of the proposed new plaintiff, the Court would agree that, despite
the other arguments made in the oppositions, it would be in the interests of
justice and judicial economy to allow the amendment in this action rather than
have Plaintiff file a separate action which would likely be related to and
consolidated with this action. However,
because the new claim would be time-barred, the Court finds that it is
appropriate to deny leave to amend.
CONCLUSION
The motion is denied.