Goodstein

Goodstein v. Superior Court

Good Law
1996 Cal. App. LEXIS 189·42 Cal. App. 4th 1635·50 Cal. Rptr. 2d 459·96 Daily Journal DAR 2363·96 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1431
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaFebruary 29, 1996B092372California3,987 words

Opinion

Opinion

Croskey, J.

This request for writ of mandamus relief filed by petitioner Wallace Goodstein seeks to reverse the order of the trial court granting the motion of the plaintiff and real party in interest, Mary K. Pittman, to amend her complaint against Goodstein, a health care provider, to allege claims for punitive damages. This motion was made pursuant to the mandate of Code of Civil Procedure section 425.13. Goodstein objects to the trial court’s order granting Pittman’s motion because it was filed less than nine months prior to the first assigned trial date and therefore was not timely under section 425.13.

This case presents an example of a plaintiff who may not, due to circumstances beyond her control, be able to comply with the nine-month time limitation set out in section 425.13. As a result, it may be necessary in the interest of fairness and justice for the court to exercise its discretion to relieve the plaintiff from an impossible or impracticable time limitation. While we hold that a trial court does retain the discretionary flexibility to make such an order, we cannot determine from the record whether this case actually presents sufficient facts to warrant such an…

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.