Pitts v. Quest Diagnostic Clinical Laboratories, Inc.

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 TRACY PITTS, as Guardian Ad Litem for Case No. 1:24-cv-01271-JLT-HBK MARY PITTS, 12 ORDER GRANTING CONSTRUED MOTION Plaintiff, TO AMEND FIRST AMENDED 13 COMPLAINT TO DISMISS CLAIM FOR v. PUNITIVE DAMAGES AND 14 WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FOR UNILAB CORPORATION d/b/a QUEST JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS 15 DIAGNOSTICS. and T.A.M. PROP. INC., (Doc. Nos. 45, 47, 48) 16 Defendants, 17 UNILAB CORPORATION d/b/a QUEST 18 DIAGNOSTICS,

19 Third-Party Plaintiff v. 20 T.A.M. PROP. LLC, 21 Third Party Defendant, 22 23 On August 19, 2025, Defendant Unilab Corporation d/b/a Quest Diagnostics (“Quest”) 24 filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c) as 25 to Plaintiff’s prayer for punitive damages in the First Amended Complaint (“FAC”). (Doc. No. 26 45). In response, Plaintiff filed a stipulation agreeing to dismiss “her allegations regarding the 27 claim and prayer for punitive and exemplary damages, against Defendant Quest Diagnostics, in 28 the Complaint with prejudice.” (Doc. No. 47). Specifically, Plaintiff withdraws from her First 1 | Amended Complaint! the words “punitive damages” from paragraph 37, and her request for 2 | “punitive and exemplary damages” from her Prayer for Relief, at page 8, line 2, paragraph 4; and 3 | line 9, paragraph 4. As a result of Plaintiff’s agreement to withdraw her claim and prayer for 4 | relief for punitive damages, Defendant Quest requests to remove its motion for judgment on the 5 || pleadings from the Court’s calendar. (Doc. No. 48). 6 The Court construes Plaintiffs stipulation to dismiss her claim and prayer for punitive and 7 | exemplary damages as to Defendant Quest as a motion to amend her First Amended Complaint 8 | under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2). Hells Canyon Pres. Council v. U.S. Forest Serv., 9 | 403 F.3d 683, 687 (9th Cir. 2005) (Rule 15(a) “is appropriate mechanism” when party is 10 | eliminating an issue or one or more claims but not completely dismissing a defendant). Finding 11 || no opposition from Defendant and no factors to deny the requested relief, see e.g., C.F. v. 12 | Capistrano Unified School District, 654 F.3d 975, 985 (9th Cir. 2011) (policy to amend should be 13 | applied with “extreme liberality”), the Court will grant the Motion. 14 ACCORDINGLY, it is ORDERED: 15 1. Plaintiff's construed motion to amend (Doc. No. 47) is GRANTED. 16 2. Plaintiff’s claim and prayer for punitive and exemplary damages against Defendant 17 Quest Diagnostics in the First Amended Complaint (Doc. No. 28) are WITHDRAWN. 18 3. Defendant Quest Diagnostics’ request to withdraw its motion for judgment on the 19 pleadings as to Plaintiffs prayer for punitive damages in the First Amended 20 Complaint (Doc. No. 48) is GRANTED and Defendant Quest’s motion (Doc. No. 45) 21 is WITHDRAWN. 22 | Dated: _ September 4, 2025 Wiha. □□ fares Back 24 HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA 35 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

26 27 ' Plaintiff incorrectly cites to the respective paragraph of her Complaint instead of to her First Amended 28 Complaint. The Court has substituted the correct citations.