Case Number: VC059950    Hearing Date: September 04, 2014    Dept: SEC

GOPAL v. CAREMORE HEALTH GROUP, INC.
CASE NO.: VC059950
HEARING: 09/04/14

#1
TENTATIVE ORDER

Plaintiffs SUKUM GOPAL and THE ESTATE OF SAISMORN GOPAL’s motion for leave to file an amended complaint is DENIED. C.C.P. § 473(a).

This action was filed in November 2011. Plaintiffs seek an order allowing them to file a Fourth Amended Complaint. Specifically, they seek to add defendants KAISER FOUNDATION HOSPITALS (“KFH”) and SOUTHERN CALIFORMIA PERMANENT MEDICAL GROUP (“SCPMG”) as defendants to the “HMO liability (non-MICRA) causes of action. Those claims were asserted against defendant KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN (“KFHP”) in the Third Amended Complaint and disposed of by way of defendant KFHP’s motion for summary judgment.

As set forth in the subject motion, plaintiffs intend to appeal the ruling on summary judgment. If leave to amend is granted, plaintiffs state that they will stipulate that the ruling on summary judgment in favor of KFHP also applies to the newly-added claims against the other defendants so that the appeal address the roles of KFH and SCPMG. They argue that defendants will not suffer any prejudice as a result of the change.

While amendments to pleadings are liberally allowed, plaintiffs here seek to add causes of action to which they will stipulate to an adverse judgment in order to procure a “more productive appeal.”

Contrary to defendants’ argument, the Court has issued no ruling with respect to “HMO liability” against KFH or SCPMG. Those claims were litigated against the health care service plan, not the providers. Any stipulation that the ruling applies to the other defendants constitutes a legal fiction. Moreover, plaintiffs have not proffered any authority that amending a pleading in order to change the scope of the appeal is proper.

Defendants argue that plaintiffs are improperly splitting a primary right by seeking to make a single cause of action the subject of multiple claims. See Wulfjen v. Dolton (1944) 24 Cal.2d 891. That does not serve as a bar to amendment, nor does collateral estoppel, as the parties are different.

At the very least, plaintiffs’ request appears prejudicial. They waited until defendant KFHP obtained a favorable ruling on the claims to seek leave to allege the same claims against co-defendants. Their pleadings raised the distinction between MICRA and non-MICRA causes of action, and they determined against whom the claims were pled. Plaintiffs have not established that they are seeking relief within a reasonable time and in light of the October 2014 trial date, the Court is not inclined to permit the amendment.