FRANCIS vs ALL IN ONE DENTAL INNOVATIONS, et al.

24CV078045: FRANCIS vs ALL IN ONE DENTAL INNOVATIONS, et al. 07/23/2026 Hearing on Motion for Leave to Amend First amended Complaint CRS# 366854280588 in Department 15

Tentative Ruling - 07/17/2026 Peter Borkon

Plaintiffs filed this dental malpractice action on 6/3/2024. Plaintiff seeks leave to file a Second Amended Complaint. A jury trial is scheduled for 8/4/2026.

Leave to amend is liberally granted. “In the furtherance of justice, trial courts may allow amendments to pleadings and if necessary, postpone trial. (Code Civ. Proc. (“CCP”) § 473.) Motions to amend are appropriately granted as late as the first day of trial [citation] or even during trial [citation] if the defendant is alerted to the charges by the factual allegations, no matter how framed [citation] and the defendant will not be prejudiced.” (Honig v. Fin. Corp. of Am. (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 960, 965.

The proposed Second Amended Complaint asserts three new causes of action against Defendants for medical battery, fraudulent concealment, and intentional misrepresentation and a related request for punitive damages. Plaintiff contends that the proposed amendment is necessary, and could not have been made earlier, because Defendants produced records at Plaintiff’s 5/12/2026 deposition that were “materially different” from records obtained before litigation and in response to Plaintiff’s initial disclosure demand. Plaintiff asserts that the proposed amendments will not require a trial continuance because (1) the new medical battery cause of action arises from documents already produced in discovery and known to Defendants; (2) the new fraudulent concealment and intentional misrepresentation claims arise from Defendants’ own conduct and records. (Id. ¶ 7.)

Plaintiff anticipates limited supplemental discovery in the form of (1) confirming, through a pending third-party subpoena issued to dental implant supplier Hiossen, the date Defendants received the nonconforming dental implant, and (2) allowing Plaintiff’s expert a reasonable opportunity to supplement her opinions with respect to the new medical records. (Id.)

Plaintiff has substantially complied with the requirements of California Rule of Court 3.1324.

Defendants oppose this motion on the grounds that (1) Plaintiff’s request for punitive damages violates CCP section 425.13; (2) Plaintiff cannot state a medical battery claim as a matter of law based on the factual allegations because Plaintiff consented to a dental procedure; and (3) permitting Plaintiff to add new causes of action based on intentional conduct is prejudicial because it will necessitate discovery which is foreclosed by the impending trial.

The first argument in insufficient to deny leave to amend because Plaintiff has agreed to withdraw the punitive damages allegations and prayer and lodge a revised proposed pleading that excludes punitive damages. (See Pl.’s Reply ISO Ex Parte Appl. for Order Shortening Time at p. 2.) The second argument is unpersuasive because Defendants provide no legal authority for the assertion that the existence of a signed consent form forecloses Plaintiff’s proposed medical 24CV078045: FRANCIS vs ALL IN ONE DENTAL INNOVATIONS, et al. 07/23/2026 Hearing on Motion for Leave to Amend First amended Complaint CRS# 366854280588 in Department 15 battery claim, as alleged.

Defendants’ third point, while concerning, is insufficient to deny leave to amend because Defendants have not identified any necessary discovery concerning the new claims and, as Plaintiff points out, the new claims arise from facts and documents that were presumably within Defendants’ knowledge and possession.

Finding no evidence of prejudice, the Court GRANTS the motion.

Plaintiff is ORDERED to file and serve the proposed SAC, as amended to withdraw the punitive damages claim, by 5:00 p.m. on 7/24/2026.