Catherine Moseley Jackson, in her individual capacity and as successor-in-interest to the Estate of Blair Moseley vs. BHC Sierra Vista Hospital, Inc.

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

34-2022-00331719-CU-PO-GDS: Catherine Moseley Jackson, in her individual capacity and as successor-in-interest to the Estate of Blair Moseley vs. BHC Sierra Vista Hospital, Inc. 12/04/2024 Hearing on Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint in Department 53

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 forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided.

TENTATIVE RULING: Plaintiffs Catherine Moseley Jackson (“Jackson”), Lester Burnette (“Burnette”), and Brandon Moseley Williams (“Williams”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) in their individual capacity and as successor-in-interest to the estate of Blair Moseley’s motion to file a fourth amended complaint is granted.

This action arises out of the circumstances of Blair Moseley’s (“Decedent”) death. Decedent was a young woman with a history of psychiatric issues. On July 25, 2024, and August 6, 2024, this Court issued orders on Defendants Xiet X. Le (“Le”), M.D.’s, Turning Point Community Programs (“Turning Point”, and BHC Sierra Vista Hospital, Inc.’s (“Sierra Vista”) demurrers. In the rulings the Court sustained the demurrers to the Fifth Cause of Action for Elder Abuse without leave to amend as Plaintiffs added that cause of action to the pleadings without leave of Court. The Court noted that Plaintiffs were free to seek leave to amend by way of a noticed motion to add a new cause of action. Plaintiffs now seek leave to amend to add a Fifth Cause of Action for Elder Abuse against all Defendants and make additional changes.

“Trial courts are vested with the discretion to allow amendments in the furtherance of justice That Trial courts are to liberally permit such amendments, at any stage of the proceeding, has been established policy in this state resting on the fundamental policy that cases should be decided on the merits.” (Hirsa v Superior Court (1981) 118 Cal.App.3d 486, 488-489.) Judicial policy favors resolution of all disputed matters between the parties in the same lawsuit. Thus, the court's discretion will usually be exercised liberally to permit amendment of the pleadings.

See Nestle v. Santa Monica (1972) 6 Cal.3d 920,939; Mabie v. Hyatt (1998) 61 Cal. App.4th 581, 596. A trial court has discretion to deny a motion for leave to amend where both “inexcusable delay and probable prejudice” is shown. (Magpali v. Farmers Group (1998) 48 Cal.App.4th 471, 487-488 [leave to amend made on the eve of trial properly denied in the trial court’s discretion where the new cause of action would have greatly expanded the case after the “trial date was set, the jury [was] about to be impaneled, counsel, the parties, the trial court, and the witnesses [had] blocked the time, and the only way to avoid prejudice to the opposing party is to continue the trial date to allow further discovery ”].)

Defendants Le, Turning Point, and Sierra Vista each filed oppositions to the motion. Defendants’ oppositions, while not identical, raise essentially the same arguments. For

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2022-00331719-CU-PO-GDS: Catherine Moseley Jackson, in her individual capacity and as successor-in-interest to the Estate of Blair Moseley vs. BHC Sierra Vista Hospital, Inc. 12/04/2024 Hearing on Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint in Department 53

example, Turning Point and Sierra Vista argue that the amendment is untimely and prejudicial. All Defendants argue that the proposed Fifth Cause of Action lacks merit. As explained below, none of these arguments constitute a basis to deny the motion.

To the extent that Turning Point and Sierra Vista argue that the proposed amendment is untimely and prejudicial, the Court rejects that argument. These Defendants argue that the original complaint was filed in December 2022, and that none of the facts set forth in the proposed Fifth Cause of Action are new. They argue that some of the allegations in the proposed cause of action are the same allegations which were set forth in the original complaint and that Plaintiffs have had the medical records necessary to assert this cause of action for some time.

However, Plaintiffs indicate that Defendants’ discovery responses in June and July 2023 support the requested amendment. The Court notes that in August 2023, it issued rulings on a demurrer to the first amended complaint which led to Plaintiffs filing a second amended complaint on August 14, 2023. The second amended complaint included the Fifth Cause of Action which Plaintiffs now seek leave to add. The parties stipulated to allow Plaintiffs to file the third amended complaint, which also included the Fifth Cause of Action.

It was not until July and August 2024, that the Court ruled that Plaintiffs were required to seek leave to amend to add the Fifth Cause of Action. The instant motion was filed on August 1, 2024, shortly after the Court sustained Le’s demurrer to the Fifth Cause of Action without leave to amend and indicated that Plaintiffs needed to seek leave to add that cause of action. Under the circumstances, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have not unreasonably delayed in seeking the amendment as they were not on notice that leave was needed until July 25, 2024, when the Court issued its ruling on Le’s demurrer.

In addition, while Defendants argue they will be unduly prejudiced because the case was filed in December 2022, and “[d]iscovery, witnesses and documents will be nearly three years old by the time Plaintiffs finally begin fact discovery into their claims,” the Court finds this argument to be unpersuasive. First, as set forth above, it is only where there is both “inexcusable delay and probable prejudice” when a Court may properly exercise its discretion and deny a motion for leave to amend. (Magpali, supra, 48 Cal.App.4th at 487-488.) Here, the Court has already found that Plaintiffs’ delay was not inexcusable. In any event, none of the arguments are supported by any factual showing. No trial has been set in this action and Defendants will have ample opportunity to conduct any necessary discovery and defend against the new allegations.

All of the Defendants challenge the sufficiency of the proposed Fifth Cause of Action. This challenge to the merits of the proposed pleading is no basis to deny the motion. Generally, the validity of a proposed amendment is not considered in deciding whether

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2022-00331719-CU-PO-GDS: Catherine Moseley Jackson, in her individual capacity and as successor-in-interest to the Estate of Blair Moseley vs. BHC Sierra Vista Hospital, Inc. 12/04/2024 Hearing on Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint in Department 53

to grant leave to amend. (California Casualty General Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1985) 173 Cal.App.3d 274, 280-281 [disapproved on other grounds in Kransco v. American Empire Surplus Lines Ins. Co. (2000) 23 Cal.4th 390, 407.]) Such challenges to the pleadings are more properly addressed in a demurrer or a motion to strike rather than in an opposition to a motion to amend. It is axiomatic that “the preferable practice would be to permit the amendment and allow the parties to test its legal sufficiency by demurrer, motion for judgment on the pleadings or other appropriate proceedings.” (California Casualty Gen. Ins. Co., supra, 173 Cal.App.3d at 281.) Defendants are free to file an appropriate motion challenging the proposed pleading.

The motion is granted.

Plaintiffs shall separately file and serve the proposed first amended complaint in the same form attached as Exhibit A to the motion no later than December 18, 2024.

Turning Point’s request for judicial notice is granted for the limited purposes permissible for judicial notice.

The minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to CRC Rule 3.1312 or other notice is required.