Claudia Dysard v. Kenneth Ikemiya, M.D.

(48) Tentative Ruling

Re: Claudia Dysard v. Kenneth Ikemiya, M.D. Superior Court Case No. 25CECG00485

Hearing Date: September 9, 2026 (Dept. 501)

Motion: By Plaintiff for Leave to File a First Amended Complaint

Tentative Ruling:

To grant plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a first amended complaint. (Code Civ. Proc., § 473.) Plaintiff shall file the proposed first amended complaint within 10 days of the date of service of this order. All new allegations shall be in boldface.

Explanation:

Motions for leave to amend the pleadings are directed to the sound discretion of the court. “The court may, in furtherance of justice, and on any terms as may be proper, allow a party to amend any pleading . . . .” (Code Civ. Proc. § 473, subd. (a)(1); see also Code Civ. Proc. § 576.) Judicial policy favors resolution of cases on the merits, and thus the court’s discretion as to allowing amendments will usually be exercised in favor of permitting amendments. This policy is so strong, that denial of a request to amend is rarely justified, particularly where “the motion to amend is timely made and the granting of the motion will not prejudice the opposing party.” (Morgan v.

Superior Court (1959) 172 Cal.App.2d 527, 530.) The validity of the proposed amended pleading is not considered in deciding whether to grant leave to amend. (Kittredge Sports Co. v. Superior Court (1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 1045, 1048.) Absent prejudice, it is an abuse of discretion to deny leave to amend. (Higgins v. DelFaro (1981) 123 Cal.App.3d 558, 564-65.)

Here, plaintiff Claudia Dysard (“Plaintiff”) seeks leave to file a first amended complaint to assert additional factual allegations against defendants Saint Agnes Medical Center (“Saint Agnes”) and Kenneth A. Ikemiya, M.D. (“Dr. Ikemiya”). The original Complaint alleges that Plaintiff’s injuries were the result of “improper placement of the arterial line during surgery” in her left arm. Plaintiff now seeks to include allegations that Dr. Ikemiya had placed “a left subclavian central venous catheter” in the left side of her chest, and that one or both of the vascular access devices caused her injuries.

Defendants each oppose Plaintiff’s motion. Dr. Ikemiya and Saint Agnes submit that Plaintiff has not been diligent with the knowable allegations to such a degree as to constitute unwarranted delay. It is also argued that Plaintiff’s counsel failed to include the circumstances of discovering the alleged facts pursuant to Rules of Court, rule 3.1324(b). Defendants argue that Plaintiff had knowledge of the proposed allegations because Plaintiff received the medical records in December 2024, over a month before filing the Complaint. Also, defendants argue Plaintiff’s written discovery response served in June 2025 and deposition in October 2025 indicated Plaintiff had knowledge of the placement of the left subclavian central venous catheter. However, Plaintiff’s counsel’s declaration states that although discovery was received and reviewed, it was not 9

understood that the left subclavian central venous catheter was also within the restricted area of use. Plaintiff’s counsel then declares that reviewing Dr. Ikemiya’s motion for summary judgement, filed on June 17, 2026, caused him to retain an expert anesthesiologist to review the medical records. The anesthesiologist’s declaration was then provided in August 2026, which opined that the placement of the left subclavian central venous catheter was below the standard of care. Plaintiff then filed the instant motion on August 18, 2026.

Here, Plaintiff’s counsel sufficiently declares when the facts giving rise to the amended allegations were discovered and the reason why the request for amendment was not made sooner in conformance with rule 3.1324(b). Plaintiff’s circumstances are distinguishable from cases where there was no explanation for an extreme delay in seeking leave to amend. (Melican v. Regents of University of California (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 168, 176 [Denial of leave to amend upheld where plaintiffs proffered no explanation for the five year delay in seeking leave to amend at the summary judgement hearing].)

As such, leave to amend must be granted absent prejudice to defendants.

Defendants Dr. Ikemiya and Saint Agnes argue that they would be prejudiced if the proposed allegations were included because additional discovery would become necessary and additional costs would be incurred. Prejudice exists where the amendment would require delay on the eve of trial, result in loss or inability to obtain critical evidence, added costs of preparation, increase of the burden of discovery on the eve of trial, etc. (See Magpali v. Farmers Group, Inc. (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 471, 486- 488; see Eng v. Brown (2018) 21 Cal.App.5th 675, 700.) Neither defendant has identified witnesses or evidence that has become unavailable or declared an inability to fully litigate their case due to the proposed amendments. As such, the effect of the amendment is not so prejudicial to defendants to deny Plaintiff’s request to amend to conform to facts.

The court declines to address whether the amendment is permitted under the applicable statute of limitations on the instant motion. “[T]he 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.” (Kittredge Sports Co. v. Superior Court (1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 1045, 1048.)

Therefore, the court grants Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file the proposed first amended complaint filed on August 18, 2026.

Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312(a), and Code of Civil Procedure section 1019.5, subdivision (a), no further written order is necessary. The minute order adopting this tentative ruling will serve as the order of the court and service by the clerk will constitute notice of the order.

Tentative Ruling

Issued By: KCK on 09/08/26. (Judge’s initials) (Date)

10