2012-00130238-CU-WT

Donna Robberecht vs. Permanente Medical Group Inc.

Nature of Proceeding:      Motion to File Amended Complaint

Filed By:   Telfer, Jill P.

Plaintiff’s Motion to File a Second Amended Complaint is granted.

Joinder by Defendant BHC Sierra Vista Hospital to the opposition of The Permanente
Medical Group, Inc. and Moira Sharma Psy.D is granted.

Plaintiff seeks to file a Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) to conform to evidence
obtained during recent discovery. Plaintiff seeks to add two new defendants, Kaiser
Foundation Hospital and Kaiser Foundation Health Plan.  Plaintiff contends she has
discovered in recent depositions that these entities are joint employers of plaintiff and
participated in her termination which she contends is “preemptively retaliatory” to cover
up alleged wrongdoing related to a rape of a patient at Sierra Vista Hospital.

The Trial Date is October 7, 2014.

Defendants oppose the motion contending that the amendment includes allegations
unrelated to the subject matter of the instant lawsuit.  However, the Court does not
ordinarily consider the substance of the amendment unless it is clear that no cause of
action can be stated.  The ruling on this motion is, of course, without prejudice to
defendants’ ability to file a motion to strike any alleged improper or irrelevant
allegations.

Defendants also contend that if new defendants are added to the SAC and moving
parties’ motion for summary judgment is granted, the “litigation will continue
unnecessarily against the new defendants as to identical issues.”  Defendants contend
that the new defendants will incur the time and expense in conducting their own
discovery and  filing their own separate motions for summary judgment/summary
adjudication.  Defendants contend that the trial date in October of 2014 is too soon to
allow the new defendants sufficient time to prepare for trial.
The trial court has wide discretion in allowing the amendment of any pleading, and  as
a matter of policy the ruling of the trial court in such matters will be upheld unless a
manifest or gross abuse of discretion is shown. (Record v. Reason (1999) 73
Cal.App.4th 472, 486.) Courts generally should permit amendment to the complaint at
any stage of the proceedings, up to and including trial. (Atkinson v. Elk Corp . (2003)
109 Cal.App.4th 739, 761; Magpali v. Farmers Group, Inc. (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 471,
487.) Judicial policy favors resolution of all disputed matters between the parties in the
same lawsuit. Thus, the court’s discretion will usually be exercised liberally to permit
amendment of the pleadings. See Nestle v. Santa Monica (1972) 6 Cal.3d 920,939;
Mabie V. Hyatt (1998) 61 Cal. App.4th 581, 596 (citing text). Howard v. County of San
Diego (2010)184 Cal.App.4th 1422, 1428.” California Civil Procedure Before Trial
(2012, Rutter) § 6:638 – 6:339.

If Plaintiff is the party seeking amendment, proximity to the trial date is not a ground for
denial, as long as no prejudice to defendant is shown.  Mesler v Bragg Mgmt. Co.
(1985) 39 Cal.3d 290, 297.    The Court is not persuaded that the need to conduct
discovery by the new parties and to file their own motion for summary judgment is
sufficient “prejudice” within the meaning of CCP 473 to warrant denial of the
amendment.  If necessary, a continuance of the trial date will allow the newly added
parties sufficient time to conduct discovery.

It does not appear that the failure to amend sooner was the result of unnecessary
delay on plaintiff’s part, since she has stated that the newly discovered deposition
testimony revealed the role of the newly added defendants in plaintiff’s termination.

Plaintiff shall to file and serve the 2nd amended complaint on or before February 24,
2014.

The minute order is effective immediately.  No formal order pursuant to CRC Rule
3.1312 or further notice is required.