Judge Wesley L. Hsu, Case 22PSCV03044 2023-05-08 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Wesley L. Hsu, Case: 22PSCV03044, Date: 2023-05-08 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22PSCV03044 Hearing Date: May 8, 2023 Dept: L

Plaintiff Thomas Weeber’s Motion to File Second Amended Complaint is DENIED without prejudice.

Background

Plaintiff Thomas Weeber (“Plaintiff”) alleges as follows: On July 15, 2021, Plaintiff fell while attempting to get up from a wheelchair while leaving the hospital and sustained injury.

On March 15, 2023, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint, asserting causes of action against Defendants Emanate Health Inter-Community Hospital, Emanate Health Medical Care Foundation and Does 1-100 for:

1. Negligence—Medical Malpractice

2. General Negligence

A Case Management Conference and an Order to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service are set for May 23, 2023.

Legal Standard

“The 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); and see § 576 [“Any judge, at any time before or after commencement of trial, in the furtherance of justice, and upon such terms as may be proper, may allow the amendment of any pleading or pretrial conference order”].)

“[T]he trial court has wide discretion in allowing the amendment of any pleading.” (Bedolla v. Logan & Frazer (1975) 52 Cal.App.3d 118, 135.) “[I]t is irrelevant that new legal theories are introduced as long as the proposed amendments relate to the same general set of facts.” (Kittredge Sports Co. v. Superior Court (1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 1045, 1048 [quotation marks and citation omitted].) “[E]ven 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.” (Id. [quotation marks and citation omitted].) With that said, “the failure of a proposed amendment to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action or defense may support an order denying a motion to amend.” (California Casualty Gen. Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1985) 173 Cal.App.3d 274, 280, disapproved of on other grounds in Kransco v. American Empire Surplus Lines Ins. Co. (2000) 23 Cal.4^th 390)

Courts must apply a policy of great liberality in permitting amendments to the complaint at any stage of the proceedings, up to and including trial, when no prejudice is shown to the adverse party. (Atkinson v. Elk Corp. (2003) 109 Cal.App.4^th 739, 761.) However, “even if a good amendment is proposed in proper form, unwarranted delay in presenting it may—of itself—be a valid reason for denial. . . denial may rest upon the element of lack of diligence in offering the amendment after knowledge of the facts, or the effect of the delay on the adverse party.” (Roemer v. Retail Credit Co. (1975) 44 Cal.App.3d 926, 940.)

Also, “[a] motion to amend a pleading before trial must: (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.” (California Rules of Court (“CRC”) Rule 3.1324(a).) Additionally, “[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.” (CRC Rule 3.1324, subd. (b).)

Discussion

Plaintiff moves the court for leave to file his proposed Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”).

Plaintiff represents that the proposed SAC removes the general negligence cause of action, adds more facts as it relates to the first visit Plaintiff made to the emergency room, adds the physician’s assistant that saw Plaintiff on the date of the incident and adds an elder abuse cause of action.

Plaintiff’s motion reflects non-compliance with CRC Rule 3.1324, subdivisions (a)(2) and (a)(3). Additionally, Plaintiff’s counsel’s declaration reflects non-compliance with subdivision (b).

The court denies Plaintiff’s motion without prejudice on this basis.