Judge: Upinder S. Kalra, Case: 22STCV15408, Date: 2024-12-10 Tentative Ruling
1. If you wish to submit on the tentative ruling, please email the clerk at SMCdept51@lacourt.org (and “cc” all other parties in the same email) and notify all other parties in advance that you will not be appearing at the hearing. Include the word "SUBMISSION" in all caps in the subject line and include your name, contact information, the case number, and the party you represent in the body of the email. If you do not have access to the internet, you may call the clerk at (213) 633-0351.
If you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear and argue the motion, and the Court may decide not to adopt the tentative ruling. Please note that the tentative ruling is not an invitation, nor an opportunity, to file any further documents relative to the hearing in question which are not authorized by statute or Rule of Court.
2. For any motion where no parties submit to the tentative ruling in advance, and no parties appear at the motion hearing, the Court may elect to either adopt the tentative ruling or take the motion off calendar, in its discretion.
3. DO NOT USE THE ABOVE EMAIL FOR ANY PURPOSE OTHER THAN TO SUBMIT TO A TENTATIVE RULING. The Court will not read or respond to emails sent to this address for any other purpose.
Case Number: 22STCV15408 Hearing Date: December 10, 2024 Dept: 51
Tentative Ruling
Judge Upinder S.
Kalra, Department 51
HEARING DATE: December
10, 2024
CASE NAME: Irene
Przebinda v. Windsor Gardens Convalescent Hospital, Inc., et al.
CASE NO.: 22STCV15408 [consolidated with
Case No. 22STCV15487]
MOTION
FOR LEAVE TO FILE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff
Irene Przebinda
RESPONDING PARTY(S): Defendants
S&F Management Company, LLC, Jameel Hourani, D.O.
REQUESTED RELIEF:
1. An
Order granting leave to file the proposed Second Amended Complaint.
TENTATIVE RULING:
1. Motion
for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint is DENIED without prejudice.
STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:
On May 9, 2022, Plaintiff Irene Przebinda (“Plaintiff”)
filed a complaint against Defendants Windsor Gardens Convalescent Hospital,
Inc., S & F Management Company, LLC, Doe Management Company 1-10, John T.
Liu, M.D., Doe Physicians 1-50, SNP Pharmacy, LLC dba Skilled Nursing Pharmacy,
Doe Pharmacy 1-50, and Doe Pharmacists 1-50 (“Defendants.”) The complaint
alleges one cause of action for general negligence. The complaint alleges that
Defendants caused the death of Plaintiff’s Mother, Sophia Gross, by abusing and
neglecting her.¿¿
On May 10, 2022 Plaintiff Sophia Gross, deceased, by and
through her Successor in Interest, Irene Przebinda (“Decedent”) filed a
Complaint against the same defendants with six causes of action for: (1) Elder
Abuse/Neglect Against Windsor Gardens, (2) Elder Abuse/Neglect Against Dr. Liu,
(3) Elder Abuse/Neglect Against SNP, (4) Negligence, (5) Violation of
Resident’s Rights, and (6) Elder Abuse/Financial (Wrongful Advantage).
¿¿
On August 11, 2022, Defendants filed a Notice of Related
Case as to Case No. 22STCV15487.¿
¿
On August 19, 2022, Plaintiff filed a First Amended
Complaint.¿¿¿
On September 8, 2022, Defendant Windsor Gardens
Convalescent Hospital, Inc., S & F Management Company, LLC, filed an
Answer.¿¿
¿
On September 12, 2022, Defendant Liu filed an Answer.¿¿
¿
On September 16, 2022, Defendant SNP Pharmacy filed an
Answer.¿¿
¿
On December 6, 2022, Defendant SNP Pharmacy filed a Motion
for Determination of Good Faith Settlement.¿
¿
On January 23, 2023 Plaintiff filed a request for dismissal
as to defendant SNP Pharmacy, LLC dba Skilled Nursing Pharmacy only.
On February 16, 2023, Defendant Windsor Gardens
Convalescent Hospital, Inc. and S&F Management Company, LLC filed an
Answer.
On March 14, 2023, Defendant Liu filed an Answer.
On April 14, 2023, Plaintiff filed a request for dismissal
as to Greystone Monticello Commercial Capital, LLC and Greystone Monticello
Funding SH063, LLC only.
On May 9, 2023, Defendant Jameel M. Jourani filed an
Answer.
On August 25, 2023, Defendant Windsor Gardens Convalescent
Hospital, Inc. filed Notice of Bankruptcy.
On October 4, 2023, the court lifted the bankruptcy stay as
to all defendants except Windsor Gardens Convalescent Hospital, Inc.
On October 31, 2023, Defendant Liu (Liu) filed a motion for
summary adjudication which the court GRANTED.
On April 16, 2024, Plaintiff filed DOE Amendments naming
DOE 5 as Lee Samsom and DOE 6 as Newgen LLC.
On July 15, 2024, Defendant Liu filed a Notice of
Settlement.
On August 15, 2024, Plaintiff filed an Application for
Determination of Good Faith Settlement with Defendant Lui which the court
GRANTED.
On September 13, 2024, Plaintiff filed a Request for
Dismissal as to Defendant Liu only.
On September 30, 2024, Plaintiff filed a DOE Amendment
naming Antelope Holdings III, LLC as DOE 8.
On October 7, 2024, Plaintiff filed a DOE Amendment naming
Antelope Holdings II, LLC as DOE 7.
On October 22, 2024, Plaintiff filed a Request for
Dismissal as to Defendant Windsor Gardens Convalescent Hospital, Inc. only.
On November 8, 2024, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion for
Leave to File Second Amended Complaint. On November 25, 2024, Defendants
S&F Management Company, LLC, Jameel Hourani, D.O. (S&F) filed an
opposition. On December 2, 2024, Plaintiff filed a Reply.
LEGAL STANDARD:
Request for
Judicial Notice
The court GRANTS S&F’s request for judicial notice.
Leave to Amend
California Code of Civil Procedure (CCP) section 473,
subdivision (a)(1) provides, in relevant part: “The court may, in furtherance
of justice, and on any terms as may be proper, allow a party to amend any
pleading or proceeding by adding or striking out the name of any party, or by
correcting a mistake in the name of a party, or a mistake in any other respect;
and may, upon like terms, enlarge the time for answer or demurrer.¿ The court
may likewise, in its discretion, 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.”¿¿¿
¿¿
“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.
Superior Court¿(1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 1045, 1047.)¿ Ordinarily, the court
will not consider the validity of the proposed amended pleading in ruling on a
motion for leave since grounds for a demurrer or motion to strike are
premature.¿ The court, however, does have discretion to deny leave to amend
where a proposed amendment fails to state a valid cause of action as a matter
of law and the defect cannot be cured by further amendment.¿ (See¿California Casualty General Ins. Co. v.
Superior Court¿(1985) 173 Cal.App.3d 274, 281 (overruled on other grounds
by¿Kransco¿v. American Empire Surplus
Lines Ins. Co.¿(2000) 23 Cal.4th 390).)¿¿¿
¿¿
Under California Rules of Court Rule (CRC), rule 3.1324,
subdivision (a), a motion to amend a pleading shall (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.¿¿
Under
California Rule of Court, rule 3.1324, subdivision (b), a separate declaration
must accompany the motion and must specify (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 reasons why the request
for amendment was not made earlier.
ANALYSIS:
Plaintiff contends leave to amend is warranted because
Plaintiff discovered specific facts supporting alter ego liability against
current and new defendants as well as supporting new theories of liability and
causes of action. Plaintiff further contends that there will be no prejudice to
Defendants. S&F argue Plaintiff’s request is flawed for several reasons,
including, it is an attempt to combine the two complaints from this and the
consolidated action and Plaintiff failed to explain why they delayed in requesting
this amendment.
Here, leave to amend is not warranted. First, the motion does
not include a redlined copy of the proposed amended pleading indicating the new
allegations and any deleted allegations. (CRC, Rule 3.1324(a)(2)-(3).) Second,
the attorney declaration in support is incomplete. (CRC, Rule 3.1324(b).) It
does not include the effect of the proposed amendment or reasons why the
amendment was not sought sooner. The court declines to analyze prejudice to
Defendants at this time.
Accordingly, the court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for
leave to file a Second Amended Complaint without prejudice.
CONCLUSION:
For
the foregoing reasons, the Court decides the pending motion as follows:
1. Motion
for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint is DENIED without prejudice.
Moving party is to give notice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: December 10, 2024 __________________________________ Upinder
S. Kalra
Judge
of the Superior Court