Notice Of Motion To Quash Plaintiffs Amendment To Complaint
Matter on the Law & Motion and Discovery Calendar for Monday, August 3, 2026, Line 2, 3- DEFENDANTS PAMELA SHEPHERD, ABRAN SARABIA, TOSHIFUMI KOBAYASHI's Motion To Quash Plaintiffs' Amendment To Complaint.
Defendants Pamela Shepherd, Abran Sarabia, and Toshifui Koboyashi's motion to quash service of summons on them and/or dismiss for non-compliance with CCP 474 is denied. Plaintiffs properly named movants as Doe defendants per CCP 474. A plaintiff can avail him or herself of section 474, which is liberally interpreted, if the plaintiff is ignorant of facts that give rise to a cause of action against a person who is otherwise known to the plaintiff. (McOwen v. Grossman (2007) 153 Cal.App.4th 937, 943.) "The phrase 'ignorant of the name of a defendant' is broadly interpreted to mean not only ignorant of the defendant's identity, but also ignorant of the facts giving rise to a cause of action against that defendant." (Fuller v.
Tucker (2000) 84 Cal.App.4th 1163, 1170.) "[T]he plaintiff is not barred from invoking section 474 merely because she suspected the person of wrongdoing based on an incomplete set of facts." (Hahn v. New York Air Brake LLC (2022) 77 Cal.App.5th 895, 899-900.) Section 474 does not impose a "should have known" standard. (Id. at 900.)
Plaintiffs' evidence demonstrates that they are not medical professionals and the medical records did not clearly show which nurses were responsible for ensuring the decedent's wound care. (Smit Decl, pars. 5, 11; White Decl., pars. 2, 5-6.) In addition, the defendants' sole moving evidence (Racic Decl.) merely recounts this case's procedural history and fails to demonstrate a lack of genuine ignorance. Defendants' claim of prejudice also rings hollow since the counsel that represents the hospital (CPMC), who has been part of this case since 2024, also represents them.
For the 9:00 a.m. calendar, all attorneys and parties may appear in Department 301 remotely or in person. Remote hearings will be conducted by videoconference using Zoom. (Dept. 301 Zoom ID 161 502 4290; Passcode 700956.) To appear remotely at the hearing, go to the court's website at sfsuperiorcourt.org under "Online Services," navigate to "Tentative Rulings," and click on the appropriate link, or dial the corresponding phone number.
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
Counsel for the prevailing party is required to prepare a proposed order which repeats verbatim the substantive portion of the tentative ruling and must email it to contestdept301tr@sftc.org prior to the hearing even if the tentative ruling is not contested.
The court no longer provides a court reporter in the Law & Motion or Discovery Department. Parties may retain their own reporter, who may appear in the courtroom or remotely. A retained reporter must be a California certified court reporter (CSR), for only a CSR's transcript may be used in California courts. If a CSR is being retained, include in your email all of the following: their name, CSR and telephone numbers, and their individual work email address. =(301/HEK) | |