CONGI, et al. vs DIGNITY HEALTH

24CV015815: CONGI, et al. vs DIGNITY HEALTH 04/09/2026 Hearing on Motion for Leave to Amend 3rd Complaint in Department 23

Discussion

Requests for Judicial Notice

Plaintiffs request judicial notice of complaints and pleadings filed in other actions. The request is unopposed and granted in its entirety pursuant to Evidence Code section 452(d).

Dignity Health requests judicial notice of documents retrieved from the California Department of Public Health’s website showing Dignity Health’s and Mercy San Juan Medical Center’s license status pursuant to Evidence Code section 452(c). The request is unopposed and granted in its entirety.

Mortuary Support Services requests judicial notice of the second amended complaint in this action and various pleadings filed in other actions. The request is unopposed and granted in its entirety pursuant to Evidence Code section 452(d).

Requested Amendment as to Dignity Health

One dispute in this motion is whether the Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act of 1975 ("MICRA") applies to all of Plaintiffs’ claims against Dignity Health, thus requiring Plaintiffs to meet the standards set forth in Code of Civil Procedure section 425.13. However, as will be discussed in more detail below, the Court need not resolve this dispute because even if MICRA applies to all claims, Plaintiffs have satisfied the standard to allege a claim of punitive damages against Dignity Health.

Section 425.13 provides, in relevant part:

In any action for damages arising out of the professional negligence of a health care provider, no claim for punitive damages shall be included in a complaint or other pleading unless the court enters an order allowing an amended pleading that includes a claim for punitive damages to be filed. The court may allow the filing of an amended pleading claiming punitive damages on a motion by the party seeking the amended pleading and on the basis of the supporting and opposing affidavits presented that the plaintiff has established that there is a substantial probability that the plaintiff will prevail on the claim pursuant to Section 3294 of the Civil Code.

The “substantial probability” requirement “imposes only a burden to demonstrate the existence of a prima facie case. Such a construction of the statute is necessary in order to avoid the conclusion that it unconstitutionally invades the right to a jury trial.” (Looney v. Superior Court (16 Cal.App.4th 521, 537.) Plaintiffs must meet their burden by clear and convincing evidence. (Ibid.)

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV015815: CONGI, et al. vs DIGNITY HEALTH 04/09/2026 Hearing on Motion for Leave to Amend 3rd Complaint in Department 23

Civil Code section 3294(c) sets forth the following definitions:

(1) “Malice” means conduct which is intended by the defendant to cause injury to the plaintiff or despicable conduct which is carried on by the defendant with a willful and conscious disregard of the rights or safety of others.

(2) “Oppression” means despicable conduct that subjects a person to cruel and unjust hardship in conscious disregard of that person's rights.

(3) “Fraud” means an intentional misrepresentation, deceit, or concealment of a material fact known to the defendant with the intention on the part of the defendant of thereby depriving a person of property or legal rights or otherwise causing injury.

“With respect to a corporate employer, the advance knowledge and conscious disregard, authorization, ratification or act of oppression, fraud, or malice must be on the part of an officer, director or managing agent of the corporation.” (Civ. Code, § 3294(b).) “Even ‘nonintentional torts’ may form the basis for punitive damages when the conduct constitutes conscious disregard of the rights or safety of others.” (SKF Farms v. Superior Court (1984) 153 Cal.App.3d 902, 907.)

As to Dignity Health, Plaintiffs contend they have established a prima facie case for punitive damages based on its conscious disregard of deficiency notices related to its failure to notify families of deaths and complete death certifications. In 2022, the California Department of Public Health (“CDPH”) investigated Mercy San Juan Medical Center’s protocol regarding deceased patients and issued a formal state of deficiency to the hospital president Michael Korpiel finding that the hospital “failed to ensure a physician implemented a policy and procedure for notifying next of kin of a patient’s death.” (Greenberg Decl. Ex. 17.) There is no record of corrective measures after the 2022 investigation. (Greenberg Decl. Exs. 4-5.) Contemporaneously, Dignity Health was sued for not notifying a mother of her son’s death. (RJN Ex. 1.)

Plaintiffs also contend that what happened to Ms. Peterson was “part of the established pattern of the Hospital’s tossing bodies in storage . . . rather than spending the time and money to notify families and complete end-of-life administrative duties.” (MPA 11:21-24.) Mortuary Support Services regularly issued inventories to Dignity Health listing all of the people on shelves. (Greenberg Decl. Ex. 25 at SNC000039-58, SNC001009-1011, and SNC 001019-1155.)

In 2023, a subsequent CDPH investigation resulted in another deficiency notice stating that Dignity Health “failed to follow their morgue policy . . . when ‘Patient 1’ expired and documentation of the location of the body was unknown. This failure resulted in Patient 1’s son being unaware of his mother’s body whereabouts and caused family emotional distress.” (Greenberg Decl. Ex. 18.) There is no evidence of corrective action taken after this deficiency

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV015815: CONGI, et al. vs DIGNITY HEALTH 04/09/2026 Hearing on Motion for Leave to Amend 3rd Complaint in Department 23

notice. (Id. at Exs. 4-5.)

Dignity Health opposes Plaintiffs' motion to amend, arguing that Plaintiffs have not produced sufficient evidence to establish malice, oppression or fraud committed by a Dignity Health officer, director, or managing agent. Dignity Health contends that the history of deficiency notices and pattern and practice evidence is only potentially relevant to the reprehensibility of the conduct and hence to the permissible size of a punitive damage award. (Opp. 11:9-14:24.)

The Court has considered all of the arguments and evidence submitted with this motion. The Court finds, based on Plaintiffs’ showing described above, that Plaintiffs have met their burden to show, by clear and convincing evidence, a substantial probability of success on their claim for punitive damages. The evidence states a prima facie claim that Dignity Health was aware of the failures to notify families of deaths and to complete death certificates, knew that highly probable harm would result from those failures, and continued its practices with conscious disregard for rights or safety of others.

As the California Supreme Court observed in Johnson v. Ford Motor Co. (2005) 35 Cal.4th 1191, 1203, “tortious conduct toward others could be relevant to the reprehensibility of an individual tort . . . .” The Court is not persuaded by Dignity Health’s effort to distinguish the facts underlying the 2022 and 2023 CDPH investigations.

Moreover, Plaintiffs met their burden with respect to the requirement that “the advance knowledge and conscious disregard, authorization, ratification or act of oppression, fraud, or malice must be on the part of an officer, director or managing agent of the corporation” by establishing that the Mercy San Juan Medical Center’s President, Michael Korpiel, had notice of the statements of deficiency and no records of corrective actions exist. (Proposed third amended complaint, Footnote 2, paragraphs 78, and 84; Greenberg Decl.

Exs. 4-5 & 17). Additionally, Plaintiffs allege that Laura Lukin is CommonSpirit's Regional Laboratory Support Supervisor for Pathology Services and Supervisor of Decedent Affairs for all the Dignity Health Hospitals since March 2022. Plaintiffs allege that Ms. Lukin was aware that Dignity Health was not timely notifying next of kin and was not issuing death certificates in compliance with the law. (Proposed third amended complaint paragraphs 91-102; Greenberg Decl. Exs. 16 & 24.). For these reasons, the Court grants Plaintiff leave to file the proposed third amended complaint that alleges a claim for punitive damages against Dignity Health.

Requested Amendment as to Mortuary Support Services

Mortuary Support Services does not dispute Plaintiffs’ argument that MICRA and the requirements of Code of Civil Procedure section 425.13 do not apply to Mortuary Support Services in this case – which the Court construes as a concession on the issue. (MPA 15:15- 16:8.) Accordingly, the traditional standards regarding leave to amend apply as to Plaintiffs’ proposed amendment against Mortuary Support Services. Judicial policy strongly favors allowing amendments of pleadings so long as the authorization does not prejudice the other parties. (Board of Trustees v. Superior Court (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 1154, 1163 [“[A]bsent a

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV015815: CONGI, et al. vs DIGNITY HEALTH 04/09/2026 Hearing on Motion for Leave to Amend 3rd Complaint in Department 23

showing of prejudice to the adverse party, the rule of great liberality in allowing amendment of pleadings to prevail.”].) “If the motion to amend is timely made and the granting of the motion will not prejudice the opposing party, it is error to refuse permission to amend and where the refusal also results in a party being deprived of the right to assert a meritorious cause of action or a meritorious defense, it is not only error but an abuse of discretion.” (Morgan v. Superior Court (1959) 172 Cal.App.2d 527, 530.) Even where the moving party has unreasonably delayed, “it is an abuse of discretion to amend where the opposing party was not misled or prejudiced by the amendment.” (Kittredge Sports Co. v. Superior Court (1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 1045, 1048.)

Mortuary Support Services puts forth three grounds in Opposition to Plaintiffs’ requested amendment: (1) the motion does not comply with California Rules of Court, rule 3.1324; (2) Plaintiffs cannot recover punitive damages for negligent conduct; and (3) Plaintiffs’ proposed amendment fails to set forth a sufficient basis for punitive damages against Defendant. Plaintiffs respond that their motion complies with rule 3.1324 (Reply 3:3-5:23); punitive damages are recoverable against Mortuary Support Services; and – under the liberal standard applicable to the amendment as to Mortuary Support Services – leave to amend should be granted.

The Court agrees that the requested amendment is proper as to Mortuary Support Services under the applicable standard. The Court further agrees with the reasons stated in Plaintiffs’ reply that Plaintiffs’ motion complies with rule 3.1324. As to the second and third grounds raised by Mortuary Support Services, the challenges to the sufficiency of Plaintiffs’ punitive damages allegations against Mortuary Support Services are better reserved for a motion to strike. (See Kittredge Sports Co., supra, 213 Cal.App.3d at 1048 [observing the preferred practice of granting leave to amend and allowing the parties to test the amendment’s legal sufficiency by a pleadings challenge or other appropriate proceedings.].)

Plaintiffs have timely brought this motion to amend, and Mortuary Support Services does not identify any prejudice that will result. For these reasons, the Court grants Plaintiff leave to file the proposed third amended complaint that alleges a claim for punitive damages against Mortuary Support Services.

Disposition

Plaintiffs motion for leave to a file a third amended complaint seeking punitive damages is GRANTED. Plaintiffs may file a non-redline version of the third amended complaint attached to the Greenberg Declaration as Exhibit 2 by April 24, 2026. As discussed above, the third amended complaint does not allege a claim for punitive damages against Dr. Mukhtar.

To request oral argument on this matter, you must call Department 23 at 916-874-5754 by 4:00 p.m., the court day before this hearing and notification of oral argument must be made to the opposing party/counsel. If no call is made, the tentative ruling becomes the order of the court. (Local Rule 1.06.)

Please check your tentative ruling prior to the next Court date at www.saccourt.ca.gov

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV015815: CONGI, et al. vs DIGNITY HEALTH 04/09/2026 Hearing on Motion for Leave to Amend 3rd Complaint in Department 23

prior to the above referenced hearing date.

If oral argument is requested, the parties may and are encouraged to appear by Zoom with the links below:

To join by Zoom Link - https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/my/sscdept23 To join by phone dial (833) 568-8864 ID 16108301121

Parties requesting services of a court reporter will need to arrange for private court reporter services at their own expense, pursuant to Government code section 68086 and California Rules of Court, Rule 2.956. Requirements for requesting a court reporter are listed in the Policy for Official Reporter Pro Tempore available on the Sacramento Superior Court website at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp-6a.pdf. Parties may contact Court- Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore by utilizing the list of Court Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore available at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp- 13.Pdf

A Stipulation and Appointment of Official Reporter Pro Tempore (CV/E-206) is required to be signed by each party, the private court reporter, and the Judge prior to the hearing, if not using a reporter from the Court’s Approved Official Reporter Pro Tempore list. Once the form is signed it must be filed with the clerk.

If a litigant has been granted a fee waiver and requests a court reporter, the party must submit a Request for Court Reporter by a Party with a Fee Waiver (CV/E-211) and it must be filed with the clerk at least 10 days prior to the hearing or at the time the proceeding is scheduled if less than 10 days away. Once approved, the clerk will be forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided.

This minute order is effective immediately. Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312(a), no further written order or further notice is necessary.