Judge Olivia Rosales, Case 19STCV15911 2022-08-25 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Olivia Rosales, Case: 19STCV15911, Date: 2022-08-25 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19STCV15911 Hearing Date: August 25, 2022 Dept: SEC

JANE DOE v. COLLEGE HOSPITAL

CASE NO.: 19STCV15911

HEARING: 08/25/22

JUDGE: OLIVIA ROSALES

TENTATIVE ORDER

Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to file an Amended Complaint is GRANTED.

The Proposed Amended Complaint attached as Exhibit 1 to the Declaration of Kasonni Scales is not deemed filed as of the date of this hearing. Plaintiff is ORDERED to FILE the Amended Complaint by no later than 5 days from the Court’s issuance of this Order.

The Court will also grant Defendant’s request for a continuance of trial and withdrawal of its motion for summary judgment, to possibly refile another motion for summary judgment.

Moving Party to give Notice.

This action was filed on May 7, 2019. Plaintiff’s Motion requests leave to file an Amended Complaint to clarify Plaintiff’s mental incapacity following her release from College Hospital Cerritos and to allege that the Statute of Limitations as to her claims was tolled due to her mental incapacity until June 1, 2018. Plaintiff alleges that this amendment is due to recently discovered facts including the deposition of referee Steven Lawrence on August 1, 2022. (Motion 3-4.)

In Opposition, Defendant recognizes the liberality associated with motion for leave to amend the pleadings but requests a trial continuance to conduct discovery relating to the amendments, and requests to withdraw its motion for summary judgment.

California recognizes “a general rule of…liberal allowance of amendments…” (Nestle v. City of Santa Monica (1972) 6 Cal.3d 920, 939.) It has also long been recognized that “even if the proposed legal theory is a novel one, ‘the preferable practice would be to permit the amendment and allow the parties to test its legal sufficiency by demurrer, motion for judgment on the pleadings or other appropriate proceedings.” (Kittredge Sports Co. v. Superior Court (1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 1045, 1048.) In light of great liberality employed when ruling on a motion for leave to amend, the court will not normally consider the validity of the proposed amended pleading since grounds for demurrer or motion to strike are premature. Thus, absent prejudice to the opposing party, courts are bound to apply a policy of great liberality in permitting amendments to the complaint “at any stage of the proceedings, up to and including trial.” (Atkinson v. Elk Corp. (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 739, 761.)

Although this action was filed on May 7, 2019, the Court finds that the interests of justice would best be served by allowing Plaintiff the opportunity to adjudicate its claims on the merits. Considering the liberality associated with granting motions for leave to amend, the Court finds that Plaintiff should be afforded the opportunity to make the proposed amendments.

Defendant maintains its right to demur, move to strike, or move for summary judgment. In light of the amendment, the Court finds good cause for a continuance of trial as well as withdrawal of the motion for summary judgment. The court will hear from the parties regarding the scheduling of the trial.

Plaintiff’s Motion is GRANTED.