KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN, ET AL VS. ALEJANDRO IBARRA

June 3, 2026 Law and Motion Calendar Judge Nicole S. Healy Department 28 ________________________________________________________________________

02:00 PM LINE 2 23-CIV-053102 KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN, ET AL VS. ALEJANDRO IBARRA

KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN JASON J. CURLIANO ALEJANDRO IBARRA PRO SE

Kaiser’s Motion to Strike Response to first Amended Complaint

TENTATIVE RULING:

Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc.’s (KFHP) unopposed Motion to Strike in Response to First Amended Complaint (Motion) filed by Alejandro Ibarra is GRANTED, as set forth below.

If Ibarra seeks to plead punitive damages, he must file a properly noticed motion pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure, section 425.13. Ibarra is reminded that opening memoranda in support of written motions are limited to 15 pages except for motions for summary judgment. (Id., rule 3.1113(d).)

A.

Background

This case began when Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc. (KFHP); Kaiser Permanente Insurance Corporation; and The Permanente Medical Group (collectively, Kaiser) filed a petition pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure, section 1281.6 asking the court to appoint a neutral arbitrator. Kaiser and Alejandro Ibarra had attempted but were unable to select a mutually agreeable arbitrator because the agreed-upon method for doing so had failed. Beginning on May 24, 2024 and continuing through March 19, 2025, the court issued five orders appointing five individuals as neutral arbitrators. Each declined to accept the appointment or recused themselves.

The court thereafter recommended that the case proceed as a civil lawsuit. At a case management conference on July 30, 2025, the court authorized Ibarra to file a complaint within 60 days. Kaiser objected to the addition of any new causes of action or claims because the alleged acts of professional negligence had occurred in on about May 2022. Kaiser agreed not to raise statute of limitations defenses in connection with the filing of a complaint based on the claims alleged in the demand for arbitration but otherwise reserved its rights. The court therefore directed Ibarra not to add new claims or parties.

Following the court’s approval of his request for an extension of time, Ibarra filed his initial complaint on November 14, 2025 asserting a cause of action for fraud against KFHP and Does 1-6. That same day, he filed a MOTION / PETITION / COMPLAINT FOR LEAVE TO AMEND ARBITRATION PETITION / COMPLAINT (MOTION/PETITION/COMPLAINT) asserting eleven causes of action against “Kaiser Foundation Healthplan, Inc.; Kaiser

June 3, 2026 Law and Motion Calendar Judge Nicole S. Healy Department 28 ________________________________________________________________________ Permanente Insurance Corporation; The Permanente Medical Group, et al.,” for “(1) medical malpractice; (2) intentional & negligent infliction of emotional distress; (3) unfair business practice; (4) ADA civil rights violation; (5) harassment; (6) defamation; (7) fraud; (8) professional negligence; (9) insurance negligence; (10) writ; (11) writ, and request for monetary damages, punitive damages, court costs, declaratory relief, and mandatory injunction.”

The tenth cause of action seeks a “Writ of Mandate for Department of Managed Health Care (DMHC) for “Declaratory Relief and Mandatory Injunction against Kaiser Permanente, and due to DMHC faulty decision.” The eleventh cause of action seeks a “Writ of Mandate for State Hearings Division (SHD)” for “Declaratory Relief and Mandatory Injunction against Kaiser Permanente, and due to SHD faulty decision.” Neither the DMHC nor the SHD are otherwise named as parties in the MOTION/PETITION/COMPLAINT. According to Ibarra’s memorandum of points and authorities in support of the MOTION/PETITION/COMPLAINT, the DMHC and SHD are state agencies. (MPA iso Mot. to Amend, at p. 28.)

Ibarra also filed a petition for a writ of mandate that did not name Kaiser as a respondent. The court advised Ibarra that it was striking the filing from the instant lawsuit and that he was directed to file that writ petition as a separate case. To date, Ibarra has not filed a separate writ proceeding in this court.

Ibarra filed an “amended complaint” on November 19, 2025 (referred to herein as the first amended complaint or FAC), again asserting a cause of action for fraud against KFHP and Does 1-6. Kaiser responded to the November 19, 2025 amended complaint by filing the instant motion to strike.

B. Kaiser’s Motion to Strike

KFHP has moved to strike the prayer for punitive damages from the FAC, as well as the citation to punitive damages in the remedies section of the civil cover sheet, and any other references to a prayer for punitive damages in any other filing, all pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure, section 435, on the basis that Ibarra did not seek or obtain an order permitting him to seek such damages under Code of Civil Procedure, section 425.13, and that the FAC does not plead specific grounds to support punitive damages under Civil Code, section 3294.

Further, KFHP moves to strike the following phrases from the FAC:

• “Said despucabe [sic] practices.” (Citing FAC, at p. 4 of 5.)

• “all despicably done...” (Citing FAC, at p. 4 of 5.)

• To the extent Mr. Ibarra maintains his “motion/petition/complaint” listed as an attached cause of action in section 8. (Citing FAC, at p. 2 of 2.)

June 3, 2026 Law and Motion Calendar Judge Nicole S. Healy Department 28 ________________________________________________________________________ • “Motion/petition/complaint” listed as an attached cause of action in section 9. (Citing FAC, at p. 2 of 2.)

• The FAC lists KFHP as the only named Defendant in section 1. To the extent Mr. Ibarra maintains any entity or person besides the entities that were named in his Amended Demand for Arbitration (see Ex. B to the Declaration of Eric Bass in support of this motion) are Defendants in this action, KFHP moves to strike such additional entities or persons.

(Notice of Motion, at p. 2.)

KFHP also moves to strike the MOTION/PETITION/COMPLAINT, filed on November 14, 2025, as improper matter pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure, section 436, subdivisions (a) and (b).

C. Legal Standard for Motions to Strike

The court may, upon a motion made pursuant to Section 435, or at any time in its discretion, and upon terms it deems proper:

(a) Strike out any irrelevant, false, or improper matter inserted in any pleading.

(b) Strike out all or any part of any pleading not drawn or filed in conformity with the laws of this state, a court rule, or an order of the court.

(Code Civ. Proc., § 436.)

D. Ibarra’s Demands for Punitive Damages Are Ordered Stricken

Code of Civil Procedure, section 425.13, subdivision (a) provides that “[i]n 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.” Subdivision (b) defines “health care provider” to include “any clinic, health dispensary, or health facility, licensed pursuant to Division 2 (commencing with Section 1200) of the Health and Safety Code” and includes their “legal representatives.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 425.13, subd. (b).)

The FAC essentially alleges that KFHP negligently rendered medical services to Ibarra including by allegedly changing a diagnosis; changing a request for a second opinion to “consultation and evaluation;” not providing him with his medical records; and that unnamed doctors stated that Ibarra needed electroshock therapy. (See FAC, at p. 3.)

June 3, 2026 Law and Motion Calendar Judge Nicole S. Healy Department 28 ________________________________________________________________________ Ibarra has not supplied the predicate factual allegations necessary to plead a request for punitive damages.

Employers are not liable for punitive damages based upon acts of their employees “unless the employer had advance knowledge of the unfitness of the employee and employed him or her with a conscious disregard of the rights or safety of others or authorized or ratified the wrongful conduct for which the damages are awarded or was personally guilty of oppression.” (Civ. Code, § 3294, subd, (b).) Ibarra has not alleged that any doctor or other medical professional, nor any other individual referenced in any way in the FAC was an employee of KFHP.

Moreover, where a plaintiff seeks punitive damages against a corporate entity, the complaint must plead facts showing 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.” (Civ. Code, § 3294, subd, (b).) The FAC does not plead any facts indicating that any officer, director, or managing agent of KFHP, or any other Kaiser entity was involved in any way in providing medical services to Ibarra or had any interaction with him.

Accordingly, the claims for and allegations regarding punitive damages are ORDERED stricken.

E. Any Motions or Requests to Amend the FAC Must be Properly Noticed and Set for Hearing

KFHP argues that if the MOTION/PETITION/COMPLAINT is intended to operate as part of the FAC, it should be stricken.

Code of Civil Procedure, section 436, subdivision (b) provides that the court may “[s]trike out all or any part of any pleading not drawn or filed in conformity with the laws of this state, a court rule, or an order of the court.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 472, subd. (a); Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1324.) Code of Civil Procedure, section 435 “expressly provides for the filing of a notice of motion to strike a complaint in whole or in part. Thus an amended complaint filed without permission may be stricken upon motion.” (Stafford v. Ballinger (1962) 199 Cal.App.2d 289, 297.)

It is helpful here to begin with basic principles. “The pleadings are the formal allegations by the parties of their respective claims and defenses, for the judgment of the Court.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 420.) “The pleadings allowed in civil actions are complaints, demurrers, answers, and cross-complaints.” (Id., § 422.10.) “In the complaint, the title of the action shall include the names of all the parties; . . .” (Id., § 422.10.) Further, “(a) A complaint or cross-complaint shall contain both of the following: (1) A statement of the facts constituting the cause of action, in ordinary and concise language. (2) A demand for judgment for the relief to which the pleader claims to be entitled. If the recovery of money or damages is demanded, the amount demanded shall be stated.” (Id., § 425.10.)

June 3, 2026 Law and Motion Calendar Judge Nicole S. Healy Department 28 ________________________________________________________________________ It is unclear what Ibarra intended by filing the MOTION/PETITION/COMPLAINT at the same time as the complaint. Because the MOTION/PETITION/COMPLAINT seeks “LEAVE TO AMEND ARBITRATION PETITION/COMPLAINT,” it appears that Ibarra filed this document to amend a petition for arbitration.

However, Ibarra also filed a memorandum of points and authorities in support of the MOTION/PETITION/COMPLAINT which suggests that he intended this document to be a proposed further amendment to the FAC. (See MPA iso Mot. to Amend, at p. 3.) “A party may amend its pleading once without leave of the court at any time before the answer, demurrer, or motion to strike is filed, or after a demurrer or motion to strike is filed but before the demurrer or motion to strike is heard if the amended pleading is filed and served no later than the date for filing an opposition to the demurrer or motion to strike.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 472, subd. (a).) Ibarra has already amended his complaint, and KFHP has filed the instant motion to strike. Accordingly, Ibarra may not amend the FAC except by stipulation of the parties or leave of court.

Further, if the MOTION/PETITION/COMPLAINT is a proposed amendment to the FAC, no motion to amend has been properly noticed nor set for a hearing. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1112(a) [“Unless otherwise provided by the rules in this division, the papers filed in support of a motion must consist of at least the following: (1) A notice of hearing on the motion; (2) The motion itself; and (3) A memorandum in support of the motion.”]; see also id., subd. (d) [A motion must: (1) Identify the party or parties bringing the motion; (2) Name the parties to whom it is addressed; (3) Briefly state the basis for the motion and the relief sought; . . .”].) Ibarra is reminded that opening memoranda in support of written motions are limited to 15 pages except for motions for summary judgment. (Id., rule 3.1113(d).)

Accordingly, if the MOTION/PETITION/COMPLAINT is intended to amend the FAC, it is ORDERED STRICKEN. If Ibarra intends to amend the FAC, he must do so by stipulation or seek leave of court and do so by filing a properly noticed motion attaching any proposed amended complaint.

If Ibarra is seeking to amend a petition for arbitration, he must first identify such petition, and file a properly noticed motion attaching any proposed amended petition for arbitation.

If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the court. Thereafter, KFHP’s counsel shall prepare a written order consistent with the court’s ruling for the court’s signature, pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1312 and Local Rule 3.403(b)(iv), and provide written notice of the ruling to all parties who have appeared in this action. The order should be e-filed only, do not email or mail a hard copy to the court.