Case Number: BC716607 Hearing Date: September 19, 2019 Dept: 4B

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

Plaintiff Anne Titus seeks leave to file a Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) to add Torrance Health Association (“THA”) as a defendant and a cause of action against THA for general negligence. Plaintiff filed the Complaint on August 3, 2018 and the First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) on January 16, 2019 against defendants Palos Verdes Family and immediate Care Group (“PVFICG”), Christopher Traughber, Dirk Ruffin (“Ruffin”), and Nasim Golzar (“Golzar”) (collectively, “Defendants”). Plaintiff alleges in the FAC that the Defendants failed to provide a safe environment for her while she waited to see a physician, causing her to sustain a broken hip after fainting in the waiting room. (See FAC at ¶ 1.) The Complaint and FAC each alleged two causes of action against defendants for general and professional negligence, but upon demurrer, the cause of action for general negligence was dismissed and only a claim for professional negligence exists with respect to the Defendants.

The SAC alleges THA is a corporation that provides staffing services to PVFICG. Plaintiff contends she only recently discovered the identify of THA in discovery. On June 3, 2019, Defendants produced substantive responses to her discovery requests and Plaintiff discovered the name of the receptionist who spoke to Plaintiff and the receptionist’s employer, THA.

The court may, in its discretion and after notice to the adverse party, allow, upon any terms as may be just, an amendment to any pleading, including adding or striking out the name of any party, or correcting a mistake in the name of a party, or a mistake in any other respect. (Code Civ. Proc., § 473, subd. (a)(1).) “Public policy dictates that leave to amend be liberally granted.” (Centex Homes v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. (2015) 237 Cal.App.4th 23, 32.) “Although courts are bound to apply a policy of great liberality in permitting amendments to the complaint at any stage of the proceedings, up to and including trial . . . this policy should be applied only ‘where no prejudice is shown to the adverse party.’ [Citation]. A different result is indicated ‘where inexcusable delay and probable prejudice to the opposing party’ is shown. [Citation.]” (Magpali v. Farmers Group, Inc. (1996) 47 Cal.App.4th 1024, 487.)

The Motion is unopposed, and the Court finds the SAC will not prejudice Defendants as trial is set for February 3, 2020. Accordingly, the Motion is GRANTED.

Moving party to give notice.