Jeffery Scott Stephens vs. Sutter Valley Hospitals

34-2020-00289599-CU-PO-GDS: Jeffery Scott Stephens vs. Sutter Valley Hospitals 08/27/2025 Hearing on Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint in Department 53

Tentative Ruling

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that pursuant to “Public Notice – Civil Division – Wednesday Law and Motion Calendar” any oral arguments regarding this tentative ruling will be heard in Department 25, located at 720 9th Street, Sacramento, CA, the Hon. Julie G. Yap presiding. Should argument be requested by either party, the requesting party 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, request the hearing, and notify the opposing party of the location and time of hearing pursuant to Local Rule 1.06.

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.

The Court encourages parties to appear remotely for the hearing on the tentative ruling through the Court’s Zoom Application. But, any party wishing to appear in person may do so, provided that party notifies the Court by 4:00 the Court day before the hearing. The parties may join the Zoom session for hearing on the tentative ruling by audio and/or video through the following link: https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/my/sscdept25 SIP Address: 16113421868@sip.zoomgov.com (833) 568-8864 ID: 16113421868 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/court-reporters/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

34-2020-00289599-CU-PO-GDS: Jeffery Scott Stephens vs. Sutter Valley Hospitals 08/27/2025 Hearing on Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint in Department 53

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. ___________________________________________________________________________

The Court rules upon the Motion to File a First Amended Complaint, filed by Plaintiffs Jeffery Scott Stephens and Cindy Ann Stephens (“Plaintiffs”), as follows.

This lawsuit, filed in 2020, is a work-related premises liability case. The initial complaint alleged causes of action for negligence and loss of consortium against Sutter Valley Hospitals, dba Sutter Roseville Medical Center, as owner of the location where Plaintiff Jeffery Stephens sustained the alleged injury. On June 27, 2022, Plaintiffs dismissed their second cause of action for loss of consortium.

Plaintiffs now seek to file a First Amended Complaint. According to Plaintiffs, discovery has revealed that Defendant Sutter does not, in fact, own the premises where Mr. Stephens claims he was injured and therefore Sutter should be dismissed as a Defendant. Plaintiffs further allege that the premises owner is now known to be Roseville Medical Building Office Associates, which Plaintiffs want to include as a defendant. Plaintiffs also seek to add as defendants the property managers, The Three Tower Corporation, Inc. and Separovich and Domich Real Estate Development, and property maintenance entity Old Village Landscaping. Plaintiffs intend to allege separate causes of action for negligence against each proposed defendant. Plaintiffs aver that “discovery is now essentially complete” (Mot. at p. 5) and therefore it is proper to amend the complaint to include the “correct” defendants.

“Trial courts are vested with the discretion to allow amendments in the furtherance of justice. That trial courts are to liberally permit such amendments, at any stage of the proceedings has been established policy in this state resting on the fundamental policy that cases should be decided on the merits.” (Hirsa v. Superior Court (1981) 118 Cal.App.3d 486, 488-489.) Judicial policy favors resolution of all disputed matters between the parties in the same lawsuit. Thus, the court’s discretion usually will be exercised liberally to permit amendment of the pleadings. (Nestle v. Santa Monica

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2020-00289599-CU-PO-GDS: Jeffery Scott Stephens vs. Sutter Valley Hospitals 08/27/2025 Hearing on Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint in Department 53

(1972) 6 Cal.3d 920, 939; Mabie v. Hyatt (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 581, 596.)

“Even if [a party ‘unreasonably delayed moving to amend’], it is an abuse of discretion to deny leave to amend where the opposing party was not misled or prejudiced by the amendment.” (Kittredge Sports Co. v. Superior Court (1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 1045, 1048.) A trial court has discretion to deny a motion for leave to amend where both “inexcusable delay and probable prejudice” is shown. (Magpali v. Farmers Group (1998) 48 Cal.App.4th 471 487-488.)

The Court notes that the “new” defendants were previously added to the litigation through “Doe” Amendments and recently filed an opposition to Plaintiff’s ex parte application for an order shortening time to hear this motion. Despite opposing the request to shorten time, no opposition has been filed to the pending motion. The Court construes Plaintiff’s failure to oppose the demurrer as a concession on the merits. (D.I. Chadbourne, Inc. v. Superior Court (1964) 60 Cal.2d 723, 728, fn. 4 [where nonmoving party fails to oppose a ground for a motion “it is assumed that [nonmoving party] concedes” that ground].)

The motion is unopposed and the Court remains mindful that “the liberal rule of allowance prevails If plaintiff has a good cause of action, which by accident or mistake he has failed to set out in his complaint, the court, should, on his application so to do, permit him to amend. [Failing to grant leave to amend] would in many cases be an absolute denial of justice and is directly opposed to the policy of the law that cases should be tried and decided on the merits.” (Higgins v. Del Faro (1981) 123 Cal.App.3d 558, 564-565.)

Further, as noted above, the Court has discretion to grand motions to amend pleadings even during trial or post-trial. (See Eng v. Brown (2018) 21 Cal.App.5th 675, 700 [citing City of Stanton v. Cox (1989) 207 Cal.App.3d 1557, 1563]; see also Flood v. Simpson (1975) 45 Cal.App.3d 644, 647.)

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs’ motion to file a First Amended Complaint is GRANTED.

The Court will not deem filed the proposed First Amended Complaint. Plaintiffs shall file and serve the proposed First Amended Complaint no later than September 8, 2025. Though not required by statute or the Rules of Court, Plaintiff shall include a copy of this Minute Order with the filing and service of the First Amended Complaint.

This Minute Order is effective immediately. No further order shall be required. (CRC Rule 3.1310.)

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2020-00289599-CU-PO-GDS: Jeffery Scott Stephens vs. Sutter Valley Hospitals 08/27/2025 Hearing on Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint in Department 53