Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 23SMCV03800, Date: 2023-12-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23SMCV03800    Hearing Date: March 14, 2024    Dept: 207

TENTATIVE RULING

MOTION

            Plaintiff Angela Shalome Streat Wilson (“Plaintiff”) filed the original complaint, alleging causes of action for elder abuse and negligence against Defendant The Regents of the University of California (“Defendant.”)  The Court sustained Defendant’s demurrer to the elder abuse cause of action on the basis that Plaintiff failed to allege (1) that Defendant knowingly, chronically understaffed its hospital below the minimum nurse-to-patient ratios or (2) that Plaintiff suffered any harm or damage as a result of Defendant’s alleged neglect.  (December 15, 2023 Minute Order.)

Plaintiff now moves for leave to amend the complaint to add a cause of action for dependent adult abuse (pursuant to the Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult Civil Prosecution Act) of Welfare and Institutions Code sections 15600, et seq., and requests for punitive and exemplary damages, treble damages, and attorneys’ fees and costs. 

Defendant opposes the motion and Plaintiff replies.    

LEGAL STANDARD

Amendments to Pleadings: General Provisions

            Under Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (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.”

            To wit, without notice to the other party the Court has wide discretion to allow either party (i) to add or strike the name of a party or (ii) to correct a mistake in the name of a party or a mistake in any other respect “in furtherance of justice” and “on any terms as may be proper.” (See Code Civ. Proc., § 473, subd. (a)(1); see also Marriage of Liss (1992) 10 Cal.App.4th 1426, 1429.) Alternatively, after notice to the other party, the Court has wide discretion to allow either party to amend pleadings “upon any terms as may be just.” (See Code Civ. Proc., § 473, subd. (a)(1). Similarly, Code of Civil Procedure section 576 states “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 conference order.”

            Judicial policy favors resolution of all disputed matters between the parties and, therefore, leave to amend is liberally granted. (Berman vs. Bromberg (1986) 56 Cal.App.4th 936, 945; Hirsa v. Superior Court (1981) 118 Cal.App.3d 486, 488-489 [this has been an established policy in California since 1901] (citing Frost v. Whitter (1901) 132 Cal. 421, 424; Thomas v. Bruza (1957) 151 Cal.App.2d 150, 155).) The Court of Appeal in Morgan v. Superior Court held “If the motion to amend is timely made and the granting of the motion will not prejudice the opposing party, it is error to refuse permission to amend and where the refusal also results in a party being deprived of the right to assert a meritorious cause of action or a meritorious defense, it is not only error but an abuse of discretion.” (Morgan v. Superior Court (1959) 172 Cal.App.2d 527, 530, citations omitted.) Moreover, “it is an abuse of discretion for the court to deny leave to amend where the opposing party was not misled or prejudiced by the amendment.” (Kittredge Sports Co. v. Superior Court (1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 1045, 1048 [opposing party did not establish harm by the delay in moving to amend the complaint].)

            “The court may grant leave to amend the pleadings at any stage of the action.” (Weil & Brown, Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2023) ¶ 6:636 (hereafter Weil & Brown).) Denial of a motion to amend is rarely justified if the motion is timely made and granting the motion will not prejudice the opposing party. (Id. at ¶ 6:639, citations omitted.) However, if the party seeking the amendment has been dilatory, and the delay has prejudiced the opposing party, the judge has discretion to deny leave to amend. (Id. at ¶ 6:655, citations omitted. Absent prejudice, any claimed delay alone is not grounds for denial. “If the delay in seeking the amendment has not misled or prejudiced the other side, the liberal policy of allowing amendments prevails. Indeed, it is an abuse of discretion to deny leave in such a case even if sought as late as the time of trial. (Id. at ¶ 6:653 (citing Higgins v. Del Faro (1981) 123 Cal.App.3d 558, 564-565).) “Prejudice exists where the amendment would result in a delay of trial, along with loss of critical evidence, added costs of preparation, increased burden of discovery, etc. . . . But the fact that the amendment involves a change in legal theory which would make admissible evidence damaging to the opposing party is not the kind of prejudice the court will consider.” (Weil & Brown, supra, at ¶ 6:656, citations omitted.)

            “Even if some prejudice is shown, the judge may still permit the amendment but impose conditions, as the Court is authorized to grant leave ‘on such terms as may be proper.’” (Weil & Brown, supra, at ¶ 6:663, citation omitted.) For example, the court may cause the party seeking the amendment to pay the costs and fees incurred in preparing for trial. (Id. at ¶ 6:664 (citing Fuller v. Vista Del Arroyo Hotel, 42 Cal.App.2d 400, 404).)

California Rules of Court, rule 3.1324: Procedural Requirements

            Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1324(a), a motion to amend a pleading before trial must:

“(1) Include a copy of the proposed amendment or amended pleadings, which must be serially numbered to differentiate it from previous pleadings or amendments;

(2) state what allegations in the previous pleading are proposed to be deleted, if any, and where, by page, paragraph, and line number, the deleted allegations are located; and

(3) State what allegations are proposed to be added to the previous pleading, if any, and where, by page, paragraph, and line number, the additional allegations are located.”

            In addition, under Rule 3.1324(b), a motion to amend a pleading before trial must be accompanied by a separate declaration that specifies the following:

“(1) the effect of the amendment;

(2) why the amendment is necessary and proper;

(3) when the facts giving rise to the amended allegations were discovered; and

(4) the reasons why the request for amendment was not made earlier.”

DISCUSSION

            Plaintiff has provided a copy of the proposed amended complaint, with the new allegations bolded to differentiate them from existing allegations.  Moreover, Plaintiff has provided an attorney declaration indicating “the purpose of the proposed amendment is to add a cause of action for Dependent Adult Abuse (pursuant to the Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult Civil Prosecution Act – Welfare and Institutions Code §§ 15600, et seq.) to the Negligence Complaint.”  (Garcia Decl. ¶ 5.)

            The declaration further explains that Plaintiff did not receive any of Plaintiff’s hospital records until November 20, 2023, one hundred and one days after propounding the request, and that Defendant’s deposition, which was originally noticed on October 18, 2023, finally took place on December 15, 2023.            (Garcia Decl. ¶¶ 7, 10.)  Plaintiff has been otherwise unsuccessful in obtaining documents that were requested in connection with the deposition or supplemental responses to written discovery, despite an Informal Discovery Conference being held on February 7, 2024.  (Garcia Decl. ¶¶ 8, 9, 11.)  Thus, although Plaintiff’s declaration does not state why the amendment was not made sooner, it paints a picture that Plaintiff has been and continues actively attempting to obtain discovery.

            However, the declaration does not specify what new facts were discovered, when those new facts were discovered, or why the amendment is necessary and proper.  Instead, Plaintiff focuses much of the motion and declaration on discovery Plaintiff has not obtained, rather than what new facts were discovered that support the proposed amendments.  (See Garcia Decl. ¶¶ 8-10.) 

For example, although Plaintiff has included segments of Defendant’s deposition testimony concerning staffing protocols, it appears the provided testimony undermines, rather than supports Plaintiff’s allegations of understaffing.  (See Ex. 6 at pp. 13:14-15:6; 16:18-25; 17:7-10 [demonstrating the hospital has written nursing policies to ensure adequate patient care]; pp. 22:10-25; 23:23-25; 24:25-26:2; 28:16-29:3; 33:17-25:17; 27:3-15; 44:9-45:5; 46:1-23; [the hospital has numerous timekeeping, staffing, and patient assignment systems]; pp. 33:2-34:25 [the hospital has more nurse hours staffed than its target goal]; pp. 52:2-55:19 [the hospital considers prospective nurses’ education, experience and training and conducts license and background checks when hiring and documents work through written performance reviews and a formal disciplinary system].)  

Furthermore, although Plaintiff explains Plaintiff’s medical records were not received until November 20, 2023, it is unclear what facts were learned from these medical records that either support Plaintiff’s assertion that Defendant chronically understaffed its hospital or otherwise demonstrate Defendant’s intent to harm Plaintiff to support Plaintiff’s proposed elder abuse claim and requests for punitive and exemplary damages and attorneys’ fees.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

            Therefore, the Court denies without prejudice Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend for failure to comply with the procedural requirements of Rule 3.1324(b).

            The Court orders Plaintiff to provide notice of the Court’s ruling and file a proof of service of such.

DATED:  March 14, 2024                              ___________________________

                                                                  Michael E. Whitaker

                                                                  Judge of the Superior Court