HEARING ON JOINDER IN JOHN MUIR'S MOTION TO STRIKE
FILED BY CODY BACA
* TENTATIVE RULING: *
The motion to strike plaintiff’s claim for punitive damages, brought by defendant John Muir Health and joined by defendant Cody Baca, is denied as to defendant Baca. Plaintiff is directed to tab all exhibits in future filings; the exhibits to the opposition declaration of Daniel Weltin were not tabbed. (See, Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1110, subd. (f).)
The California Supreme Court, in the Central Pathology decision that still defines the scope of the governing statute, stated in pertinent part as follows: “a cause of action against a health care provider for sexual battery would not, in most instances, fall within the statute
because the defendant's conduct would not be directly related to the manner in which professional services were rendered.” (Central Pathology Service Medical Clinic, Inc. v. Superior Court (1992) 3 Cal.4th 181, 192.) The Court finds this general rule applicable to def
Hearing Date
July 12, 2018
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
HEARING ON JOINDER IN JOHN MUIR'S MOTION TO STRIKE
FILED BY CODY BACA
* TENTATIVE RULING: *
The motion to strike plaintiff’s claim for punitive damages, brought by defendant John Muir Health and joined by defendant Cody Baca, is denied as to defendant Baca. Plaintiff is directed to tab all exhibits in future filings; the exhibits to the opposition declaration of Daniel Weltin were not tabbed. (See, Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1110, subd. (f).)
The California Supreme Court, in the Central Pathology decision that still defines the scope of the governing statute, stated in pertinent part as follows: “a cause of action against a health care provider for sexual battery would not, in most instances, fall within the statute
because the defendant's conduct would not be directly related to the manner in which professional services were rendered.” (Central Pathology Service Medical Clinic, Inc. v. Superior Court (1992) 3 Cal.4th 181, 192.) The Court finds this general rule applicable to def