Looney

Looney v. SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES CTY.

Good Law
16 Cal. App. 4th 521·1993 Cal. App. LEXIS 611·20 Cal. Rptr. 2d 182·93 Daily Journal DAR 7400·93 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 4384
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJune 10, 1993B073886California7,656 words

Opinion

Opinion

Croskey, J.

In this proceeding, petitioners seek a writ of mandate to compel the trial court to consider and rule on the merits of their motion, made pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 425.13, subdivision (a),* for leave to amend their complaints to allege claims for punitive damages against the Medical Center of North Hollywood, Valentine Birds, M.D., and Stephen Herman, M.D. (hereinafter collectively the defendants). Petitioners allege claims for both medical negligence and fraud in the treatment of their conditions. The trial court denied their motion because it was not made within nine months of the date when the case was “first set for trial”; such date had previously been set on a preference basis pursuant to petitioners’ motion under section 36, subdivisions (d) and (e).

Because we conclude that the time limitations set out in section 425.13 cannot be applied so as to unreasonably deprive a plaintiff of a fair opportunity to comply with the requirements of that section, we shall grant the writ.

Factual and Procedural Background

The issues raised by the instant petition are entirely procedural and are based upon the voluminous pleading and law and motion record…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.