Judge: Michael P. Linfield, Case: 21STCV29489, Date: 2023-03-21 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV29489    Hearing Date: March 21, 2023    Dept: 34

SUBJECT:         Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint

Moving Party:  Plaintiff Jane Doe L.C.

Resp. Party:    None

Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint is GRANTED.  The FAC is to be filed and served within 10 days.

BACKGROUND:

On August 10, 2021, Plaintiff Jane Doe L.C. filed her Complaint against Defendants PIH Health, Inc., Alliance Emergent Care Associates, and John Miguel M.D. on the following causes of action:

(1)       Negligence;

(2)       Negligent hiring, supervision, training, and retention;

(3)       Sexual harassment in violation of Civil Code §§ 51.9 and 52;

(4)       Sexual battery; and

(5)       Intentional infliction of emotional distress.

On December 1, 2021, Defendant PIH Health, Inc. filed its Answer.

On February 28, 2023, Plaintiff filed its Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint. Plaintiff concurrently filed: (1) Declaration of Thomas A. Cifarelli; (2) Notice of Lodging of Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint; and (3) Proposed Order.

No opposition or other response has been filed.

ANALYSIS:

I.           Legal Standard

The court may, in furtherance of justice and on any proper terms, allow a party to amend any pleading. (Code Civ. Proc., § 473, subd. (a)(1); Branick v. Downey Savings & Loan Association (2006) 39 Cal.4th 235, 242.)  

The court may also, in its discretion and 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. (Code Civ. Proc., § 473, subd. (a); Branick, supra, 39 Cal.4th at 242.)  

“This discretion should be exercised liberally in favor of amendments, for judicial policy favors resolution of all disputed matters in the same lawsuit.” (Kittredge Sports Co. v. Super. Ct. (1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 1045, 1047.) Leave to amend is thus liberally granted, provided there is no statute of limitations concern. (Kolani v. Gluska (1998) 64 Cal.App.4th 402, 411.) The Court may deny the plaintiff’s leave to amend if there is prejudice to the opposing party, such as delay in trial, loss of critical evidence, or added costs of preparation. (Id.)  

Under California Rules of Court, rule 3.1324, a motion to amend a pleading before trial must (1) include a copy of the proposed amendment or amended pleading, 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.  (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1324(a).)  A separate supporting declaration specifying (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 reason why the request for amendment was not made earlier must accompany the motion. (Id., rule 3.1324(b).) 

II.        Discussion

A.      Rules of Court

Plaintiff complied with California Rules of Court, rule 3.1324.  

First, Plaintiff submitted a copy of the proposed amended pleading (Declaration, Ex. 1).  

Second, the Motion discusses exactly all the items that would be deleted and added, as well as exactly where those deletions and additions are located. (Motion, pp. 2–3.)

Finally, Plaintiff submitted a separate supporting declaration from Thomas A. Cifarelli. While the Declaration itself does not include the items listed in California Rules of Court, rule 3.1324, the Motion describes the effect of the amendment (to add punitive damages remedies and correct mistakes in the original pleading), why the amendment is necessary and proper (to correct issues with the original pleading), when the facts giving rise to the amendments were discovered (the only new allegation is that Defendants had notice of a history of inappropriate conduct), and the reason why the request for amendment was not made earlier (because of Plaintiff’s Counsel’s error) (Motion, pp. 2:16–22, 4:28, 5:1–8, 6:10–11, 7:1–6.) 

B.      Prejudice

No Parties oppose the Motion. Plaintiff produces a Stipulation signed by some, but not all, Defendants. (Declaration, Ex. 2.)

Trial is scheduled for October, 2023; there appears to be minimal prejudice to Defendants if leave were granted. The Court finds good cause for allowing the amendment.  

C.  Conclusion

Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint is GRANTED.  The FAC is to be filed and served within 10 days.