Sherwood v. Kern Valley Healthcare Dist.
| Decision Date | 09 October 2018 |
| Docket Number | F075175 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | TYLER WAYNE SHERWOOD, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. KERN VALLEY HEALTHCARE DISTRICT, Defendant and Respondent. |
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
OPINIONAPPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kern County. David R. Lampe, Judge.
Law Offices of John J. Jackman and John J. Jackman for Plaintiff and Appellant.
Clifford & Brown, Patrick J. Osborn and Ann S. Garza for Defendant and Respondent.
-ooOoo-
Tyler Wayne Sherwood (plaintiff) is the surviving spouse of Alexandra Sherwood, who committed suicide at the age of 21. Plaintiff sued Kern Valley Healthcare District (defendant) for wrongful death on a theory of medical negligence. Defendant, a public entity, successfully moved for summary judgment based on plaintiff's noncompliance with procedural requirements of the Government Claims Act (Gov. Code, § 810 et seq.), formerly known as the Tort Claims Act. This appeal is taken from a judgment entered on the order granting defendant's motion. However, the issues concern the trial court's denial of a request for leave to amend the complaint.
Facing the inevitable dismissal of his case on summary judgment, plaintiff had hoped to circumvent the Government Claims Act by pleading two causes of action under federal law. As we explain, the proposed amendment did not relate back to the original complaint for statute of limitations purposes. Furthermore, plaintiff did not have standing to assert the federal claims in his individual capacity. The amendment necessitated replacing plaintiff with a new party and would have substantially changed the nature of the action. Even assuming the proposed amendment was permissible, it was within the trial court's discretion to deny the request because of plaintiff's unwarranted delay in seeking leave to amend and the consequential prejudice to defendant. We therefore affirm the judgment.
On September 4, 2014, the decedent went to the emergency department at Kern Valley Hospital complaining of suicidal thoughts and reporting a history of mental illness, but she left after allegedly waiting more than four hours to be seen. Afterward, she killed herself. Eleven months later, in August 2015, plaintiff's legal counsel sent defendant a notice of intent to sue pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 364.1 The letter was properly directed to the Risk Management department of Kern Valley Healthcare District at defendant's address on Laurel Avenue in Mountain Mesa. Thedocument indicates a copy was also sent to Kern Valley Hospital at 6429 Park Avenue in Lake Isabella.
On September 1, 2015, plaintiff filed a complaint alleging one cause of action for wrongful death based on medical negligence. The named defendants were "Kern Valley Hospital and Does 1 through 25, inclusive." Kern Valley Hospital is owned and operated by defendant, which is a public entity. Therefore, as a prerequisite to filing suit in the trial court, plaintiff was obligated to present a government tort claim directly to defendant within six months of the accrual of his cause of action. (Gov. Code, § 911.2.)
On September 8, 2015, defendant sent a letter to plaintiff's attorneys notifying them of the failure to comply with the Government Claims Act and advising of potential avenues of relief, e.g., applying for permission to present a late claim. (Gov. Code, §§ 910.8, 911, 911.4, 911.6, 911.8., 946.6.) Despite the written advisement, plaintiff took no corrective action. Defendant filed an answer and conducted discovery, which confirmed plaintiff's claim had likely accrued on the date of his wife's death and certainly no later than October 2014.
On July 29, 2016, defendant filed its motion for summary judgment. The motion was based on plaintiff's failure to present a government tort claim and the expiration of time to remedy the omission. Three months later, on November 2, 2016, plaintiff filed an ex parte application for leave to amend the complaint and/or have a motion for such relief heard on shortened time. Leave to amend was requested pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 473. The trial court agreed to hear the motion on shortened time and scheduled it for November 21, 2016, the date already reserved for defendant's motion for summary judgment.
According to attorney declarations filed below, defendant's September 2015 letter regarding plaintiff's failure to comply with the Government Claims Act was presumably received by plaintiff's counsel but never read. The error was attributed to a mail clerk/legal assistant who had experienced a series of "minor strokes" and was believed tohave discarded or misplaced the letter. Since none of the attorneys ever saw the letter, plaintiff's counsel was allegedly ignorant of defendant's status as a public entity until the filing of its motion for summary judgment. "Upon receiving the motion, [p]laintiff's counsel began to evaluate and ascertain if any other causes of action would be applicable in this case." After "conducting research," counsel believed plaintiff had colorable claims under federal law.
Plaintiff's proposed amended complaint attempted to state causes of action under title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. § 12132; hereafter ADA) and section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. § 794; hereafter Rehabilitation Act). These claims alleged intentional discrimination by defendant against the decedent because of a disability, i.e., her "mental impairment." Defendant was accused of violating the decedent's "individual civil rights" as guaranteed by the federal Constitution and causing various injuries to her, but not to plaintiff himself. The prayer for relief sought remedies available under federal law, including compensatory damages and attorney fees.
After moving for leave to amend, plaintiff filed an opposition to the motion for summary judgment. The merits of defendant's motion were not disputed, but plaintiff requested it be treated as one for judgment on the pleadings and granted with leave to amend. In the alternative, he asked the trial court to grant the motion for leave to amend and deny defendant's summary judgment motion as moot. Plaintiff argued either disposition was permissible because the proposed federal claims were timely under the relation-back doctrine.
Defendant opposed amendment of the pleadings on multiple grounds. First, it argued plaintiff's delay in seeking leave was unwarranted and allowing the amendment would be prejudicial. Second, defendant argued the claims were time-barred and did not relate back because they would transform the case into a survivor action for injuries to the decedent rather than her heirs.
According to the trial court's written order, the motions were submitted without argument. Summary judgment was granted for the following reasons:
The trial court provided no analysis regarding plaintiff's request to amend the complaint. The motion for leave to amend was simply denied as "moot," apparently in light of the summary judgment ruling. This timely appeal followed.
(Salas v. Sierra Chemical Co. (2014) 59 Cal.4th 407, 415.) "We must affirm a summary judgment if it is correct on any of the grounds asserted in the trial court, regardless of the trial court's stated reasons." (Grebing v. 24 Hour Fitness USA, Inc. (2015) 234 Cal.App.4th 631, 637.)
The standard of review for orders denying leave to amend a complaint under Code of Civil Procedure section 473 is abuse of discretion. (Leader v. Health Industries of America, Inc. (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 603, 612.) Here, plaintiff understandably complains of the trial court's denial of leave to amend on the ground of mootness. However, "if a judgment is correct on any theory, the appellate court will affirm it regardless of the trial court's reasoning." (Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011) 194 Cal.App.4th 939, 956.) "We imply all findings necessary to support the judgment, and our review islimited to whether there is substantial evidence in the record to support these implied findings." (In re Marriage of Cohn (1998) 65 Cal.App.4th 923, 928; accord, Hall v. Municipal Court (1974) 10 Cal.3d 641, 643.) Plaintiff must affirmatively demonstrate error. (Denham v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 564.)
California state law imposes a prelitigation claim requirement in order to file "a cause of action for death or for injury" against a public entity. (Gov. Code, § 911.2, subd. (a).) The claim "shall be presented ... not later than six months after the accrual of the cause of action." (Ibid.) An application to present an untimely claim may be submitted to the public...
To continue reading
Request your trial