Quintero v. Kadakia CA4/3
Filed 6/24/25 Quintero v. Kadakia CA4/3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION THREE
DEBORAH QUINTERO et al.,
Plaintiffs and Appellants, G063413
v. (Super. Ct. No. 30-2020- 01174475) NIMISH KADAKIA, OPINION Defendant and Respondent.
Appeal from a summary judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Randell L. Wilkinson, Judge (Retired Judge of the Orange Sup. Ct. assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to art. VI, § 6 of the Cal. Const.) and Richard J. Oberholzer, Judge (Retired Judge of the Kern Sup. Ct. assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to art. VI, § 6 of the Cal. Const.). Reversed and remanded. Steven B. Stevens, Steven B. Stevens; Blumberg Law Corporation and John P. Blumberg for Plaintiffs and Appellants. La Follette, Johnson, DeHaas, Fesler & Ames, Dennis K. Ames, Robert J. Iacopino and Danielle M. VandenBos for Defendant and Respondent.
Plaintiffs Deborah and Edward Quintero challenge the trial court’s summary judgment dismissal of their medical malpractice claims against Nimish Kadakia.1 The court found plaintiffs’ claims against Kadakia time barred because they substituted Kadakia for a Doe defendant after the limitations period had run. It concluded that Code of Civil Procedure section 474 (section 474) did not allow their claims to relate back to their original complaint because they had not shown new facts justifying the late amendment. We agree with plaintiffs that a triable issue exists as to whether their claims related back to their original complaint because newly discovered facts satisfied the statute’s requirements. We therefore reverse the judgment. FACTS
Deborah was hospitalized in early December 2019 with severe pain in her right leg and numbness in her foot. Over the next several days, she was examined and treated by numerous medical personnel. After doctors saw signs of various neurological issues, Deborah underwent spinal surgery. Despite the surgery, Deborah continued to experience leg pain and displayed foot drop, leading one doctor to suspect compartment syndrome.2 Kadakia, an orthopedic surgeon, examined Deborah next. He observed that though she reported pain in her calf muscle, there was no swelling, she had full range of motion, and all compartments were soft. Based
More from California Court of Appeal
- People v. Hill (1998)
- In Re Autumn H. (1994)
- Nwosu v. Uba (2004)
- In Re Casey D. (1999)
- Santisas v. Goodin (1998)
- Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011)
- People v. Rivera (2015)
- People v. Barnett (1998)
- People v. Serrano (2012)
- Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007)