Bui v. Hoang
Vien T. Bui, in consolidated actions filed in early 2010, sued various parties for dental work performed on him at a clinic over a nine-month period concluding in November 2008. One of those parties, Lien Hoang, a licensed dentist,[1] moved successfully for summary judgment on dual grounds: (1) Bui could not establish all essential elements of his claim for professional negligence; and (2) his suit was time-barred. At the time it granted summary judgment, the court also denied Bui’s motion to amend his complaint to add new causes of action against Hoang.
In Bui’s appeal from the judgment entered against him, he claims that the court, in granting summary judgment, incorrectly applied the statute of limitations for medical malpractice, Code of Civil Procedure section 340.5, to conclude that his suit was time-barred.[2] He argues that there were a number of legal theories other than professional negligence that were reasonably contemplated in the complaint for which section 340.5 was inapplicable. He contends further that, in any event, the court erred by selecting an arbitrary date in June 2008 as the commencement date of the statute of limitations under section 340.5. Lastly, he asserts that the court abused its discretion in denying his motion for leave to amend his complaint.
We conclude that the court properly granted summary judgment on the ground that Bui’s pleaded claim was time-barred, and that the court did not abuse its discretion in denying Bui leave to amend. We will therefore affirm the judgment.
Comments on Bui v. Hoang