D.B. vs. Doe Medical Center

34-2022-00331141-CU-PO-GDS: D.B. vs. Doe Medical Center 10/09/2024 Hearing on Motion to Strike Portions from Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint in Department 53

Tentative Ruling

NOTICE: Consistent with Local Rule 1.06(B), any party requesting oral argument on any matter on this calendar must comply with the following procedure: To request limited oral argument, on any matter on this calendar, you must call the Law and Motion Oral Argument Request Line at (916) 874-2615 by 4:00 p.m. the court day before the hearing and advise opposing counsel. At the time of requesting oral argument, the requesting party shall leave a voice mail message: a) identifying themselves as the party requesting oral argument; b) indicating the specific matter/motion for which they are requesting oral argument; and c) confirming that it has notified the opposing party of its intention to appear and that opposing party may appear via Zoom using the Zoom link and Meeting ID indicated below.

If no request for oral argument is made, the tentative ruling becomes the final order of the Court. Unless ordered to appear in person by the Court, parties may appear remotely either telephonically or by video conference via the Zoom video/audio conference platform with notice to the Court and all other parties in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure §367.75. Although remote participation is not required, the Court will presume all parties are appearing remotely for non-evidentiary civil hearings.

The Department 53/54 Zoom Link is https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/my/sscdept53.54 and the Zoom Meeting ID is 161 4650 6749. To appear on Zoom telephonically, call (833) 568-8864 and enter the Zoom Meeting ID referenced above. NO COURTCALL APPEARANCES WILL BE ACCEPTED. Parties requesting services of a court reporter will need to arrange for private court reporter services at their own expense, pursuant to Government code §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/courtreporters/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.

TENTATIVE RULING: Defendant Sutter Health’s motion to strike portions of the First Amended Complaint (“1AC”) filed by plaintiff D.B. was originally set for hearing on 8/21/2024 but was continued to this date to be heard concurrently with its demurrer to the 1AC. The Court now rules as follows.

The notice of motion does not comply with CRC Rule 3.1322(a), requiring the moving party’s notice to “quote in full the portions [of the pleading] sought to be stricken ” and also “be numbered consecutively.”

34-2022-00331141-CU-PO-GDS: D.B. vs. Doe Medical Center 10/09/2024 Hearing on Motion to Strike Portions from Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint in Department 53

Factual Background

This case arises from a childhood sexual assault against plaintiff while hospitalized. Plaintiff has sued the nurse who is alleged to have committed the assault as well as Sutter Health.

Although the notice of motion does not comply with CRC Rule 3.1322(a), the moving points & authorities indicate defendant Sutter Health is moving to strike from the 1AC plaintiff’s claim not only for punitive damages but also for attorney fees as against Sutter Health pursuant to Civil Code 52.1(b)(1). (See, 1AC, ¶151.) According to the moving papers, the claim for punitive damages is defective because: (1) Plaintiff has not pled facts showing that Sutter Health acted with the requisite malice, fraud or oppression within the meaning of Civil Code §3294(a); (2) Plaintiff has failed to allege that Sutter Health’s officers, directors and/or managing agents authorized or ratified any conduct constituting malice, fraud or oppression, as required by Civil Code §3294(b); and (3) Plaintiff failed to first obtain a court order permitting a claim for punitive damages based upon the professional negligence of a health care provider, as required by Code of Civil Procedure §425.13.

Plaintiff filed no opposition to this motion to strike and the Court construes this lack of opposition as a concession on the merits of Sutter Health’s motion. (See, e.g., D.I. Chadbourne, Inc. v. Superior Court (1964) 60 Cal.2d 723, 728, n.4.)

Discussion

As noted above, the Court finds that plaintiff did not file any opposition to the present motion to strike and pursuant to existing California appellate authority, this is construed as a concession on the merits of this motion. (See, e.g., D.I. Chadbourne, Inc., supra, 60 Cal.2d at 728, n.4.) Therefore, defendant Sutter Health’s motion to strike from the 1AC plaintiff’s claim for punitive damages and attorney fees as against Sutter Health shall be GRANTED.

However, as this is the first challenge to plaintiff’s pleading on which the Court has opportunity to rule, leave to amend is also GRANTED. Plaintiff may file and serve a second amended complaint no later than 10/23/2024. Although not required by Court rule or statute, plaintiff is directed to present a copy of this order when the amended complaint is presented for filing.

To the extent plaintiff may desire to add one or more entirely new causes of action, he

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2022-00331141-CU-PO-GDS: D.B. vs. Doe Medical Center 10/09/2024 Hearing on Motion to Strike Portions from Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint in Department 53

remains free to file a noticed motion to amend in conformity with Code of Civil Procedure §473 and CRC Rule 3.1324.

Defendant Sutter Health to respond within 30 days if the amended complaint is personally served, 35 days if served by mail.

This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order or other notice is required. (Code Civ. Proc. § 1019.5; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1312.)