Judge: Ronald F. Frank, Case: 23TRCV01422, Date: 2023-10-24 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23TRCV01422    Hearing Date: October 24, 2023    Dept: 8

Tentative Ruling¿¿ 

¿¿¿ 

HEARING DATE:                 October 24, 2023¿¿ 

¿¿¿ 

CASE NUMBER:                  23TRCV01422

¿¿¿ 

CASE NAME:                        Rosemary Pineau v. Centinela Hospital Medical Center, et al.

¿¿¿ 

MOVING PARTY:                Plaintiff, Rosemary Pineau

¿¿¿ 

RESPONDING PARTY:       Defendant, Centinela Hospital Medical Center (No Opposition)

¿¿¿ 

TRIAL DATE:                        None Set.¿

¿¿¿ 

MOTION:¿                              (1) Motion for Leave of Court to File First Amended Complaint

¿

Tentative Rulings:                  (1) GRANTED.  Plaintiff is ordered to file the FAC as a stand-alone document within 5 court days.

                                                (2) CMC set for 11/2/23 is continued on the Court’s own motion to February 6, 2024 at 8:30 a.m.

¿¿ 

¿¿ 

I. BACKGROUND¿¿¿ 

¿¿¿ 

A. Factual¿¿¿ 

¿¿¿ 

On May 4, 2023, Plaintiff, Rosemary Pineau (“Plaintiff”) filed a Complaint against Defendants, Centinela Hospital Medical Center, Wai Tan Di, M.D.., Steven L. Scott, PA.C. and DOES 1 through 20. The Complaint alleges causes of action for: (1) Negligence; (2) Negligence per se; and (3) Medical Malpractice.

Plaintiff now files a Motion for Leave to file First Amended Complaint.

B. Procedural¿¿¿ 

¿¿ 

On September 19, 2023, Plaintiff filed this Motion Leave of Court to File First Amended Complaint. To date, no opposition has been filed.

II. ANALYSIS¿¿ 

¿¿ 

A.    Legal Standard

Leave to amend is permitted under Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (a) and section 576. The policy favoring amendment and resolving all matters in the same dispute is “so strong that it is a rare case in which denial of leave to amend can be justified. . ..” “Although 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 [citations], this policy should be applied only ‘where no prejudice is shown to the adverse party . . .. [citation].  A different result is indicated ‘where inexcusable delay and probable prejudice to the opposing party’ is shown. [Citation].” (Magpali v. Farmers Group (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 471, 487.)  

A motion for leave to amend a pleading must also comply with the procedural requirements of California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1324, which requires a supporting declaration to set forth explicitly what allegations are to be added and where, and explicitly stating what new evidence was discovered warranting the amendment and why the amendment was not made earlier. The motion must also include (1) a copy of the proposed and numbered amendment, (2) specifications by reference to pages and lines the allegations that would be deleted and added, and (3) a declaration specifying the effect, necessity and propriety of the amendments, date of discovery and reasons for delay. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1324, subds. (a), (b).) 

B.     Discussion

Plaintiff alleges bodily injuries sustained while she worked as a nurse at Defendant hospital.  She claims she was injured by a patient, but that Defendant’s negligence created conditions that could have been avoided or prevented.  Plaintiff’s moves to amend her Complaint and file a First Amended Complaint (FAC) which removes one cause of action for medical negligence and also removes defendants Wai Tan Di, M.D., and Steven L. Scott, PA.C.. Further, Plaintiff asserts that given the stage of this case, no party will be prejudiced by Plaintiff’s amendment to her complaint.

Here, although the Court agrees that Plaintiff’s motion could be granted without prejudice to the Defendant, Plaintiff’s motion fails to meet the requirements of California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1324.  While Plaintiff’s motion attaches her Proposed First Amended Complaint, there are no specifications by reference to pages and lines the allegations that would be added and deleted, nor did Plaintiff attach a declaration specifying the effect, necessity and propriety of the amendments, date of discovery and reasons for delay. But because Defendant has no opposition to the amendment on procedural grounds, and because Defendant intends to demur to the FAC, the Court will take this as a teaching opportunity for future cases Plaintiff’s counsel may have as to Rule 3.1324’s requirements.  The Unopposed motion is therefore granted.