Judge: Virginia Keeny, Case: 23STCV20057, Date: 2025-02-25 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV20057    Hearing Date: February 25, 2025    Dept: 45

CHRISTOPHER T. MANSHARDT V. JAMES JABER M.D., ET AL.

MOTION FOR LEAVE to amend

Date of Hearing:          02/25/2025                             Trial Date:       11/03/2025    

Department:               45                                            Case No.:         23STCV20057

Moving Party:             Plaintiff Christopher T. Manshardt

Responding Party:       Defendants James Jaber, M.D. and L.A. Downtown Medical Center, LLC (“LADMC”)

BACKGROUND

On August 22, 2023, Plaintiff Christopher T. Mashardt filed the complaint against Defendants James Jaber M.D, L.A. Downtown Medical Center, LLC, Preferred IPA of California, and Does 1 through 10. The complaint alleged seven causes of action for (1) negligence; (2) battery; (3) breach of fiduciary duty; (4) fraud; (5) negligent misrepresentation; (6) intentional infliction of emotional distress; and (7) negligent supervision/retention.

On December 4, 2023, Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint alleging six causes of action by eliminating the breach of fiduciary duty cause of action. 

On September 17, 2024, Plaintiff filed his Second Amended Complaint alleging the following causes of action: (1) negligence; (2)battery/breach of fiduciary duty; (3) fraud; (4) negligent misrepresentation; (5)intentional infliction of emotional distress; (6) negligent supervision/retention.

On September 30, 2024, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint to add punitive damages.

[Tentative] Ruling

The Court DENIES the Motion for Leave to Amend.

LEGAL STANDARD

Code of Civ. Proc.¿§¿425.13 provides that:¿¿ 

¿ 

The Court may allow the filing of an amended pleading claiming punitive damages on a motion by the party seeking the amended pleading and based on 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.  (Code of Civ. Proc. § 425.13(a).

A plaintiff must make a sufficient prima facie showing of facts to sustain the punitive damage claim,¿taking into account¿the higher “clear and convincing” standard of proof required for such claims under Code of Civil Procedure section 3294.¿¿(Looney v. Superior Court¿(1993)¿16 Cal.App.4th 521, 538–540.)¿¿The Court may not assess credibility or weigh conflicting evidence.¿¿(Id. at 539.)  The Court must not reject a well-pled and factually supported punitive damages claim simply because the Court believes the evidence is not strong enough for probable success before a jury.¿¿(College Hospital Inc. v. Superior Court¿(1994) 8 Cal.4th 704, 709; see also¿Pomona Valley Hospital Medical Center v. Superior Court¿(2013)¿213 Cal.App.4th 828, 837 [“Section¿425.13(a) does not contemplate a minitrial in which witness testimony is introduced—like a motion for summary judgment, is decided entirely on an ‘affidavit’ showing.”].)  The Court will deny the Motion only when the facts asserted in the proposed amended Complaint are legally insufficient to support a punitive damages claim or when the evidence provided in the supporting and opposing declarations either negates or fails to reveal the actual existence of a triable claim.  (Ibid.)¿¿ 

ANALYSIS

Evidentiary Objections

Dr. Jaber objects to the Declaration of Christopher Manshardt in its entirety and the Declaration of his brother, Patrick Manshardt, in its entirety. Plaintiff submits an opposition to the objections and states that the evidentiary objections are not properly formatted and that the declarations are not inadmissible hearsay or an attempt to provide expert opinions.

The Court notes that Plaintiff cites to California Rules of Court Rule 3.1354 which sets the format of objections for motions for summary judgment and summary adjudication, not for the instant motion.

            Declaration of Christopher Manshardt: The Court overrules the objections. 

            Declaration of Patrick Manshardt: The Court sustains the objections to the entire declaration as Plaintiff’s brother, Patrick Manshardt attempts to provide expert opinion.

Defendant LADMC objects to both declarations. The Court rules as follows:

            Declaration of Christopher Manshardt: Overruled – 1-5

            Declaration of Patrick Manshardt: Overruled – 0; Sustained: 6-18

Leave to Amend to Add Punitive Damages

Plaintiff Christopher T. Manshardt moves the Court for an order permitting him to file an amended complaint under Code of Civil Procedure § 425.13 (a) to allege punitive damages against Defendants James Jaber M.D. (“Dr. Jaber”) and L.A. Downtown Medical Center, LLC (“LADMC”).

Here, Plaintiffs contend Defendants acted with oppression, fraud, malice, and conscious disregard of Plaintiffs’ rights because Dr. Jaber allegedly withheld Plaintiff’s cancer diagnosis and committed a battery on Plaintiff by telling him his surgery was to rebuild his septum but instead excised a malignant tumor that had metastasized to his lymph nodes.  (Motion, p. 6.) Plaintiff contends that Defendant deceived Plaintiff thus and so did not obtain valid and informed consent to perform the excision of the tumor. (Ibid.)

In support of the Motion, Plaintiff submitted his own declaration, and his brother’s declaration. (See Christopher T. Manshardt’s Declaration and Patrick Manshardt’s Declaration.) ¿Therefore, Plaintiff failed to provide substantial evidence showing that he is likely to prevail on his claim that the defendants’ conduct was done with malice, fraud or oppression.  As such, the burden does not shift to Defendants.

Nevertheless, assuming Plaintiff offered substantial evidence and the burden shifts, the Court will analyze Defendants’ evidence.

Here, Defendants met their burden in showing Plaintiff would be unsuccessful in establishing punitive damages. In support, Dr. Jaber provides the Declaration of Benjamin Saltman, M.D. (“Dr. Saltman”) who attests that “[p]er my education, training, and professional experience, and per my assessment of medical records . . . to a reasonable degree of medical probability, Dr. Jaber’s treatment and alleged omissions did not cause or substantially contribute to Mr. Manshardt’s alleged injuries.” (Saltman Decl. ¶ 31.) Moreover, Defendant LADMC submitted the Declaration of Debbie Ortiz, its Credentials Coordinator, who states “The practitioners who have been granted clinical privileges to provide patient care services at LADMC are independent contractors and not employees of LADMC. The relevant requirements and procedures associated therewith have been in place and unchanged prior to October 2019. . . At all times relevant, hereto, Dr. Jaber has always been an independent contractor of LADMC. He has never been an employee or agent of LADMC.” (Ortiz Decl. ¶¶ 10,20.) Defendants also submitted the medical records showing when Dr. Jaber became aware of the tumor. Thus, Defendants have met their burden.

CONCLUSION

The Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend.