Judge: Salvatore Sirna, Case: 22STCV19883, Date: 2025-03-06 Tentative Ruling

The Court may change tentative rulings at any time. Therefore, counsel are advised to check this website periodically to determine whether any changes or updates have been made to the tentative ruling. Counsel may submit on a tentative ruling by calling the clerk in Department G at (909) 802-1104 prior to 8:30 a.m. the morning of the hearing.

Case Number: 22STCV19883    Hearing Date: March 6, 2025    Dept: G

Plaintiff Jacob Rodriguez’s Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint

Respondent: Defendants Aurora Charter Oak – Los Angeles, LLC; Jovan Thompson; Marc Torres; and Roberto Sotelo

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiff Jacob Rodriguez’s Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint is DENIED.

BACKGROUND

This is a personal injury action arising from an alleged attack that occurred in a psychiatric hospital. In July 2019, Plaintiff Jacob Rodriguez was an in-patient at Aurora Charter Oak Hospital which was under the control of Defendants Aurora Charter Oak – Los Angeles, LLC (Aurora) and Signature Healthcare Services, LLC (Signature). On July 25, Rodriguez was participating in a group counseling session at Aurora Charter Oak Hospital when hospital staff asked Rodriguez to leave after Rodriguez allegedly used offensive language. After Rodriguez left the session, Rodriguez alleges three hospital staff members including Defendants Jovan Thompson, Marc Torres, and Roberto Sotelo took Rodriguez back to Rodriguez’s room where they attacked Rodriguez. When Rodriguez’s mother learned of Rodriguez’s injuries, Rodriguez alleges hospital staff told Rodriguez’s mother that the injuries were self-inflicted. Rodriguez’s mother then got law enforcement involved which resulted in Thompson being charged with child abuse and battery. In July 2021, Thompson pled guilty to the battery charge.

On June 17, 2022, Rodriguez, by and through guardian ad litem Sabrina Rodriguez, filed a complaint against Aurora, Signature, Thompson, Torres, Sotelo, and Does 1-30, alleging the following causes of action: (1) assault and battery, (2) negligence, (3) negligent hiring, training, supervision, and/or retention of unfit employees, (4) negligence per se, (5) negligent infliction of emotional distress (NIED), (6) intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED), and (7) false imprisonment. On November 8, 2023, the court granted Aurora and Signature’s motion to strike punitive damages from the Complaint.

On April 5, 2024, Rodriguez stipulated to the dismissal of punitive damages against Thompson. Rodriguez also stipulated to the dismissal of punitive damages against Sotelo on April 17, 2024, and Torres on May 10, 2024.

On June 14, 2024, Rodriguez filed the present motion. The parties stipulated to a continuance of the motion on August 6, 2024, after which the court set the motion for hearing on January 30, 2025.  On January 1, 2025, the court, on its own motion , set the present motion for hearing on March 6, 2025, along with a CMC/discovery plan.

REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE

Rodriguez’s requests for judicial notice of court records are GRANTED pursuant to Evidence Code section 452, subdivision (d).

EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS

Aurora’s evidentiary objections are SUSTAINED as to objections 1, 2, 3, and 4 and OVERRULED as to objections 5 and 6.

Sotelo’s evidentiary objections are SUSTAINED as to objections 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 16, and 19 and OVERRULED as to objections 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, and 18.

Torres’s evidentiary objections are SUSTAINED as to objections 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 and OVERRULED as to objections 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, and 17.

Thompson’s evidentiary objections to the declaration of Emily Tejani, M.D. are SUSTAINED as to objections 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 and OVERRULED as to objections 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15. Thompson’s evidentiary objections to Rodriguez’s request for judicial notice are also OVERRULED.

Rodriguez’s evidentiary objections are OVERRULED as to objections 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15.

ANALYSIS

Rodriguez seeks leave to file a First Amended Complaint (FAC) that alleges punitive damages against each defendant. For the following reasons, the court DENIES Rodriguez’s motion.

Legal Standard

Leave to Amend

“A court may, in furtherance of justice, and on any terms as may be proper, allow a party to amend any pleading.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 473, subd. (a)(1).) The court’s discretion will usually be exercised liberally to permit amendments of the pleadings. (Nestle v. City of Santa Monica (1972) 6 Cal.3d 920, 939.) “A motion to amend a pleading before trial must . . . [s]tate 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 [s]tate 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).)  The declaration must also specify the amendment’s effect, why it is necessary and proper, when the facts supporting the amended allegations were discovered, and why the request was not made earlier.  (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1324(b).) If the party seeking the amendment has needlessly delayed, and the delay has prejudiced the opposing party, the court has the discretion to deny leave to amend.  (See Hirsa v. Superior Court (1981) 118 Cal.App.3d 486, 490.)  Prejudice exists where the amendment would require delaying the trial, resulting in loss of critical evidence, or added costs of preparation.  (Solit v. Tokai Bank, Ltd. New York Branch (1999) 68 Cal.App.4th 1435, 1448.)

Punitive Damages

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 425.13, subdivision (a):

“In any action for damages arising out of the professional negligence of a health care provider, no claim for punitive damages shall be included in a complaint or other pleading unless the court enters an order allowing an amended pleading that includes a claim for punitive damages to be filed. The court may allow the filing of an amended pleading claiming punitive damages on a motion by the party seeking the amended pleading and on the basis of the supporting and opposing affidavits presented that the plaintiff has established that there is a substantial probability that the plaintiff will prevail on the claim pursuant to Section 3294 of the Civil Code. The court shall not grant a motion allowing the filing of an amended pleading that includes a claim for punitive damages if the motion for such an order is not filed within two years after the complaint or initial pleading is filed or not less than nine months before the date the matter is first set for trial, whichever is earlier.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 425.13, subd. (a).)

Civil Code section 3294 allows punitive damages when a plaintiff establishes by clear and convincing evidence that a defendant is guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice. (Civ. Code, § 3294, subd. (a).) For the purposes of determining punitive damages, malice is defined as “conduct which is intended by the defendant to cause injury to the plaintiff or despicable conduct which is carried on by the defendant with a willful and conscious disregard of the rights or safety of others.” (Civ. Code, § 3294, subd. (c)(1).) Oppression is defined as “despicable conduct that subjects a person to cruel and unjust hardship in conscious disregard of that person’s rights.” (Civ. Code, § 3294, subd. (c)(2).) Lastly, fraud is defined as “an intentional misrepresentation, deceit, or concealment of a material fact known to the defendant with the intention on the part of the defendant of thereby depriving a person of property or legal rights or otherwise causing injury.” (Civ. Code, § 3294, subd. (c)(3).)

In ruling on a motion pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 425.13, subdivision (a), the court must determine whether the plaintiff has adequately established a prima facie claim for punitive damages. (College Hospital Inc. v. Superior Court (1994) 8 Cal.4th 704, 719 (College Hospital).) Although this statutory provision requires plaintiff to demonstrate “a substantial probability” of success, the court is not authorized to weigh the evidence. (Ibid.) Instead, the court determines whether the claim has been adequately pled and whether the claim has been substantiated by supporting evidence. (Ibid.) “[S]ubstantiation of a proposed punitive damages claim occurs only where the factual recitals are made under penalty of perjury and set forth competent admissible evidence within the personal knowledge of the declarant.” (Id., at p. 719-720.)

Discussion

In this case, Rodriguez’s proposed FAC alleges Rodriguez is entitled to punitive damages because Thompson, Torres, and Sotelo engaged in malicious or oppressive conduct when they used force against Rodriguez at Aurora’s facility. (Motion, Ex. G, ¶ 14-17, 33, 53, 64, 71.) The specific allegations of the proposed FAC are as follows. On July 25, 2019, Rodriguez was told to leave a group counseling session at Aurora after using language that hospital staff found offensive. (Motion, Ex. G, ¶ 12.) Rodriguez then left and was waiting in a hallway outside of the counseling room when Rodriguez was approached by a female staff member who inquired about Rodriguez’s absence from the therapy session. (Motion, Ex. G, ¶ 12.) After Rodriguez stated he did not know, the staff member then told Thompson, an Aurora employee, that Rodriguez “needed to be taught a lesson.” (Motion, Ex. G, ¶ 9, 12-13.)

Thompson then approached Rodriguez and asked why Rodriguez had been removed from the therapy session. (Motion, Ex. G, ¶ 14.) After Rodriguez twice denied knowing why, Thompson became upset and ordered Rodriguez to return to Rodriguez’s room. (Motion, Ex. G, ¶ 14.) While Rodriguez began walking back to Rodriguez’s room, Thompson allegedly kicked Rodriguez in the ankles twice, grabbed Rodriguez by the arms, and pinned Rodriguez against the wall. (Motion, Ex. G, ¶ 14.) Thompson and Torres, another Aurora employee and staff member, then grabbed Rodriguez’s arms and “dragged [Rodriguez] to his room.” (Motion, Ex. G, ¶ 9, 14.) Thompson and Torres were joined in Rodriguez’s room by Sotelo, another Aurora employee. (Motion, Ex. G, ¶ 9, 16.) Thompson, Torres, and Sotelo then had Rodriguez’s roommate leave the room and close the door in violation of hospital protocol. (Motion, Ex. G, ¶ 16.) They then “viciously attacked [Rodriguez] causing him to suffer great physical harm.” (Motion, Ex. G, ¶ 17.) Following the incident, Thompson was charged with child abuse and battery in violation of Penal Code sections 273 and 242. (Motion, Ex. G, ¶ 22.) On July 16, 2021, Thompson pled guilty to the charges of battery. (Motion, Ex. G, ¶ 24.)

In the present motion, Rodriguez fails to substantiate these claims with supporting affidavits as required by Code of Civil Procedure section 425.13, subdivision (a). In fact, the only affidavits provided come from Rodriguez’s counsel and Rodriguez’s expert witness, neither of whom have personal knowledge of the incident between Rodriguez, Thompson, Torres, and Sotelo. (Id., at p. 719-720 [“[I]n light of the ‘affidavit’ requirement and by analogy to summary judgment practice, substantiation of a proposed punitive damages claim occurs only where the factual recitals are made under penalty of perjury and set forth competent admissible evidence within the personal knowledge of the declarant.”].) Instead, the only evidence cited to substantiate the claims against Thompson, Torres, and Sotelo are a police report (Motion, Ex B.), court records from criminal proceedings against Thompson (RJN, Ex. 1-4, 6-7), medical records (Motion, Ex. E), and purported photographs of Rodriguez’s injuries (Motion, Ex. F). (Motion, p. 2:27-4:5, 6:22-7:2.)

As to the police report, it is well established that such reports are inadmissible hearsay and Rodriguez fails to establish otherwise here. (See People v. McVey (2018) 24 Cal.App.5th 405, 415.) With regards to the criminal proceedings against Thompson, the court may take judicial notice of the fact that Thompson has pled nolo contendere to the charge of battery in violation of Penal Code section 242. Penal Code section 1016, subdivision (3) states a plea of nolo contendere “and any admissions required by the court during any inquiry it makes as to the voluntariness of, and factual basis for, the plea may not be used against the defendant as an admission in any civil suit based upon or growing out of the act upon which the criminal prosecution is based” unless the plea involves a felony. Here, the criminal charges against Thompson that resulted in Thompson’s nolo contendere plea involved misdemeanors charges of battery and child abuse. (RJN, Ex. 1, 4.) Thus, Rodriguez cannot rely on Thompson’s plea or any of the findings made by the judicial officer during Thompson’s sentencing to substantiate Rodriguez’s claims in the present action.

Excluding inadmissible evidence, all that remains are copies of Rodriguez’s medical records and photographs of Rodriguez’s injuries, neither of which substantiate who caused Rodriguez’s injuries. The only reference to the cause of Rodriguez’s injuries in these records is a statement from Rodriguez in which Rodriguez claims Rodriguez was assaulted outside of Aurora’s facility by unknown assailants. (Motion, Ex. E, p. 72.)

As a result, the court finds Rodriguez failed to substantiate Rodriguez’s punitive damages claims against Thompson, Torres, and Sotelo with supporting evidence. Further, Rodriguez’s claims for punitive damages against Aurora fail on the same grounds as they are based on allegations that Aurora allegedly engaged in, ratified, or authorized Thompson, Torres, and Sotelo’s alleged use of force against Rodriguez. (Motion, Ex. G, ¶ 34, 54, 65, 72.)

Accordingly, the court DENIES Rodriguez’s motion.

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, Rodriguez’s motion for leave to amend is DENIED.