Freddy Andrade v. Advanced Surgicare, LLC et al.

SUPERIOR COURT, STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA Department 10 Honorable Jeffrey B. El-Hajj Blanca Than, Courtroom Clerk 191 North First Street, San Jose, CA 95113

DATE: September 3, 2026 TIME: 9:00 A.M. / 9:01 A.M. To contest the ruling, you must call (408) 808-6856 before 4:00 P.M. You must also contact the other side before 4:00 P.M. to inform them that you plan to contest the ruling. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1308(a)(1); Local Rule 8.D.)

**Please specify the issue to be contested when calling the Court and counsel**

9:00 A.M. LINE # CASE # CASE TITLE RULING Line 1 24CV431328 Freddy Andrade Click LINE 1 or scroll down for ruling. v. Advanced Surgicare, LLC et al. Line 2 25CV472032 Jane Doe v. Parties to appear for confidential hearing. (Vesco v. Superior Court (2013) Nicholas Wang 221 Cal.App.4th 275.) et al. Line 3 25CV472032 Jane Doe v. Parties to appear for confidential hearing. (Vesco v. Superior Court (2013) Nicholas Wang 221 Cal.App.4th 275.) et al.

Calendar Line 1 Case Name: Freddy Andrade v. Advanced Surgicare, LLC et al. Case No.: 24CV431328

This is an action for medical negligence brought by plaintiff Freddy Andrade (Plaintiff) against defendants Advanced Surgicare, LLC (Surgicare); Aravind Rangaraj, M.D. (Rangaraj); and Huy Nguyen, D.O. (Nguyen). The original and still operative unverified complaint was filed in February 2024. It alleges two causes of action: (1) medical negligence and (2) medical battery. Both causes of action refer generally to “Defendants.” There are no exhibits attached to the complaint. The complaint’s prayer originally included a request for punitive damages. That request was stricken under a stipulation and order in April 2024. Nguyen was dismissed from the case in February 2026.

At issue is Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend to add a request for punitive damages under Code of Civil Procedure section 425.13, opposed by defendant Rangaraj. (Unspecified statutory references are to the Code of Civil Procedure.)

MOTIONS FOR LEAVE TO AMEND UNDER SECTION 425.13

“In 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.” (§ 425.13, subd. (a).) The plaintiff must show a “substantial probability that the plaintiff will prevail on the claim pursuant to Section 3294 of the Civil Code.” (§ 425.13, subd. (a).) “The court shall not grant a motion allowing the filing of an amended pleading that includes a claim for punitive damages if the motion for such an order is not filed within two years after the complaint or initial pleading is filed or not less than nine months before the date the matter is first set for trial, whichever is earlier.” (Ibid.)

Under section 425.13, a plaintiff “may not amend the complaint to include a punitive damages claim unless he both states and substantiates a legally sufficient claim.” (College Hospital, Inc. v. Superior Court (1994) 8 Cal.4th 704, 719-720 (College Hospital).) “[S]ubstantiation of a proposed punitive damages claim occurs only where the factual recitals are made under penalty of perjury and set forth competent admissible evidence within the personal knowledge of the declarant.” (Ibid.) “The motion must be decided ‘on the basis of the supporting and opposing affidavits presented.’ ” (Cooper v.

Superior Court (1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 744, 749.) The court must “apply the standard of clear and convincing evidence, since that is the standard plaintiffs would ultimately have to meet in proving entitlement to punitive damages.” A “prima facie case of entitlement to punitive damages must meet the standard that plaintiffs will be likely to prevail by showing malice, oppression, or fraud by clear and convincing evidence.” (Aquino v. Superior Court (1993) 21 Cal.App.4th 847, 854- 855; Looney v. Superior Court (1993) 16 Cal.App.4th 521, 537.)

The protections set forth in section 425.13 apply “whenever an injured party seeks punitive damages for an injury that is directly related to the professional services provided by a health care provider acting in its capacity as such.” (Central Pathology Service Medical Center, Inc. v. Super. Ct (1992) 3 Cal.4th 181, 191.) Thus, although section 425.13 on its face applies only to actions involving “negligence,” its procedures must be followed even if the plaintiff alleges an intentional wrong such as fraud. (Central Pathology, supra, at p. 192.) 5

The court “must deny the section 425.13[,subdivision] (a) motion where the facts asserted in the proposed amended complaint are legally insufficient to support a punitive damages claim.” (College Hospital, supra, 8 Cal.4th at p. 719.) “The court also must deny the motion where the evidence provided in the ‘supporting and opposing affidavits’ either negates or fails to reveal the actual existence of a triable claim.” (Ibid.) The motion “may be granted only where the plaintiff demonstrates that both requirements are met.” (Ibid.)

Arguments made for first time in reply briefs are not considered. (Tellez v. Rich Voss Trucking Inc. (2015) 240 Cal.App.4th 1052, 1066.)

DISCUSSION

The complaint was filed February 16, 2024. The instant motion was filed February 17, 2026. But because February 16, 2026, was a holiday, Plaintiff’s motion was timely. (Civ. Code, §§ 10, 11.)

Plaintiff’s motion is supported by two declarations. The first is from Plaintiff’s counsel Theodore Olsen, which authenticates attached exhibits A-C. These are copies of a declaration from a custodian of records (exh. A), a consent form (exh. B), and a surgical report (exh. C). Counsel declares he received the documents in September 2025, approximately five months before this motion was filed. The Olsen declaration does not comply with California Rules of Court, rule 3.1324(b)(4), because it does not explain “why the request for amendment was not made earlier.” The motion also does not attach a copy of the proposed amended complaint, which is required by California Rules of Court, rule 3.1324(a).

The second declaration is from Plaintiff. The declaration describes Plaintiff’s discussions with Rangaraj before and after the surgery, Plaintiff’s dissatisfaction with the results of the surgery, and his current medical condition. Attached as exhibit A is a photograph of Plaintiff’s abdomen taken after the surgery.

Plaintiff’s motion is fatally deficient for failure to lodge a proposed amended complaint. Even if the failure to lodge the proposed pleading is overlooked, neither declaration submitted in support of the motion establishes a substantial probability that Plaintiff could prevail on a punitive damages claim. Neither declaration provides clear and convincing evidence that Rangaraj acted with malice, fraud, or oppression.

The clear and convincing evidence standard requires a finding of high probability so clear as to leave no substantial doubt. It must be sufficiently strong to command the unhesitating assent of every reasonable mind. (Lackner v. North (2006) 135 Cal.App.4th 1188, 1211–1212.) “The key element of clear and convincing evidence is that it must establish a high probability of the existence of the disputed fact, greater than proof by a preponderance of the evidence.” (Nevarrez v. San Marino Skilled Nursing & Wellness Centre, LLC (2013) 221 Cal.App.4th 102, 113.)

“Malice” is defined in Civil Code section 3294, subdivision (c)(1), as “conduct which is intended by the defendant to cause injury to the plaintiff or despicable conduct which is carried on by the defendant with a willful and conscious disregard of the rights or safety of others.”

“Oppression” is defined as despicable conduct that subjects a person to cruel and unjust hardship in conscious disregard of that person’s rights. (Civ. Code, § 3294, subd. (c)(2).)

Where, as here, a complaint alleges conduct performed without intent to harm, a finding of “malice” for punitive damages purposes requires proof by clear and convincing evidence that a defendant’s tortious wrong amounted to “despicable conduct” and that such despicable conduct was carried on with a “willful and conscious disregard’” of the rights or safety of others. (Civ. Code, § 3294, subd. (c)(1); College Hospital, supra, 8 Cal.4th at p. 725.) “Despicable” conduct is conduct that is “so vile, base, contemptible, miserable, wretched, or loathsome that it would be looked down upon and despised by ordinary decent people.” (Scott v. Phoenix Schools, Inc. (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 702, 715.)

Because no proposed amended complaint was lodged, the court assumes the only causes of action alleged against Rangaraj are the medical negligence and medical battery causes of action alleged in the operative complaint. Those allegations do not describe despicable conduct by Rangaraj or otherwise provide sufficient support for a request for punitive damages. Neither declaration submitted with the motion demonstrates that Rangaraj acted with malice, fraud, or oppression in taking the actions alleged in the complaint. The excerpts from Rangaraj’s deposition testimony submitted with the opposition do not, as the reply argues, provide any support for a finding of malice, fraud, or oppression.

More fundamentally, before Plaintiff could show a probability of prevailing on a request for punitive damages, he would first have to show a probability of prevailing on at least one of the underlying claims. “The standard of care against which the acts of a physician are to be measured is a matter peculiarly within the knowledge of experts; it presents the basic issue in a malpractice action and can only be proved by their testimony.” (Hanson v. Grode (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 601, 606.) Plaintiff has not submitted any expert evidence suggesting that Rangaraj’s alleged actions fell below the applicable standard of care.

CONCLUSION

Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend the complaint under Code of Civil Procedure section 425.13 is denied.

The court will prepare the order.

- oo0oo -

7