Case Number: SC113977    Hearing Date: July 30, 2014    Dept: P

TENTATIVE RULING – DEPT. P

JULY 30, 2014 CALENDAR No: 1

SC113977 — WEISS v. WANG, et al.

PLAINTIFFS’ AMENDED MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT

At “first blush” this motion seems ill-timed as it relies on facts learned as long as nine months ago, in October and November 2013. However, the Court notes that the earlier version of this motion was filed on March 12, 2014 — not an inordinate delay from the discovery of the new facts — and could not be heard earlier due to the severe congestion on the courts. (Typically, such motions filed then would not be heard until the fall of this year — just a few weeks prior to trial in this case). So, the timing of this hearing must not be used as a factor in decision.

It is also most unfortunate that granting leave to amend will delay the trial of this case. However, justice delayed is not always justice denied. That is particularly true in this case where key documents did not “turn up” until last October, documents which apparently had been omitted from a prior document production.

The substantive opposition is that of the doctor and hospital defendants. The punitive damages objection is without merit due to the unusual circumstance in which the allegation is now raised. These defendants cannot justifiably rely on this statute when it is alleged (and is apparently undisputed) that key documents were not revealed by these same defendants to plaintiffs until last October, years after the first document production. Defendants are estopped from making this contention in these circumstances.

The battery claims are sufficiently alleged. Defendants can defend against them by summary judgment, or other motion, or at trial, as they desire.

The rest of these defendants’ contentions in opposition are amply refuted in the well- written Reply.

Medtronic’s opposition (which the Court will consider notwithstanding plaintiffs’ timeliness objection) alleges prejudice only insofar as Medtronics notes that it will be required to revise its motion for summary judgment and re-set it for hearing. That type of prejudice is remedied by taking that motion off calendar without prejudice to allow it time to prepare and file a motion based on the new iteration of the complaint once answers have been filed. Accordingly, Medtronic’s Motion for Summary Judgment, etc. is taken off-calendar without prejudice. (See the note below on re-setting.)

OTHER MATTERS; NEW FINAL STATUS CONFERENCE AND TRIAL DATES

Because of the continuing congestion in the courts, it is suggested that counsel for any party wishing to file a motion reserve an appropriate date in the recently implemented on-line reservation system. (Summary judgment dates are already being reserved for late fall 2015. The renewed motion will need to be heard in the summer of 2014. Counsel should discuss any proposed date today.)

Although no answers are now on file for obvious reasons, due to the fact that this case is already years old and the Court is already setting cases for the fall of 2015, the Court now sets the final status conference in this case for September 9, 2015 at 8:45 a.m. and the trial for September 21, 2015 at 9:30 a.m. In the event the parties believe the case can be tried sooner, after giving consideration to the timing of summary judgment motions that may be filed, they should raise that possibility with the Court today.

NOTICE

______ shall give notice of today’s rulings and timely file proof of service thereof, pursuant to CCP 1019.5 and CRC 3.1312