Judge: Michael Shultz, Case: 22CMCV00347, Date: 2023-03-09 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22CMCV00347 Hearing Date: March 9, 2023 Dept: A
22CMCV00347
Kimberly King v. Venice Family Clinic
[TENTATIVE] ORDER
GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
I.
Background
The First Amended Complaint alleges
that Defendant and its employees vaccinated Plaintiff’s minor daughter against COVID-19
without Plaintiff’s permission. The complaint alleges claims for negligence and
interference with Plaintiff’s parental rights causing Plaintiff emotional
distress as the vaccinations are against Plaintiff’s religious beliefs and
Defendant did not obtain Plaintiff’s consent.
II.
Arguments
Plaintiff
requests an order for leave to file a Second Amended Complaint to add as a
Plaintiff, Bella King-Harvey, Plaintiff’s daughter who was vaccinated and now
suffers recurring headaches as a result of the vaccine. Defendant will not
suffer any prejudice.
Defendant filed a
notice of non-opposition and reserves its right to challenge the pleading by
way of demurrer and motion to strike.
III.
Legal Standards
Leave to amend is permitted at the court’s
discretion upon any terms that may be just. (Code Civ. Proc., § 473 subd. (a)(1)).
The statute is liberally construed to permit amendment of the pleadings “unless
an attempt is made to present an entirely different set of facts by way of the
amendment.” (Atkinson v. Elk Corp. (2003)
109 Cal.App.4th 739, 760). The motion
must be supported by a declaration stating the effect of the amendment, why the
amendment is necessary and proper, when the facts giving rise to the amended
allegations were discovered; and the reasons why the request for amendment was
not made earlier." (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1324.)
If the motion is
timely made, and the granting of the motion will not result in prejudice to the
opposing party, it is error to refuse permission to amend. (Morgan v. Superior Court of Cal. In and For Los Angeles County (1959) 172 Cal.App.2d 527, 530.) Where denial of the motion will result in a party being
deprived of the right to assert a meritorious cause of action, “it is not only
error but an abuse of discretion.” Id. Amendments are permitted up to
the date of trial or during trial where no prejudice is shown to the adverse
party. (Atkinson v. Elk Corp. (2003)
109 Cal.App.4th 739, 761).
IV.
Conclusion
As
Defendant has not shown any prejudice resulting from an order permitting
amendment, the motion is GRANTED. Plaintiff is ordered to file the proposed
Second Amended Complaint within five days of this order.