Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_17-cv-02265/USCOURTS-cand-3_17-cv-02265-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 362
Nature of Suit: Medical Malpractice
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RONALD TURNER,

Plaintiff,

v.

UNITED STATES, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 17-cv-02265-WHO 

ORDER GRANTING LEAVE TO FILE 

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

Re: Dkt. No. 60

Plaintiff Ronald Turner alleges that after he met with defendant Dr. Tracie Rivera at a 

Veterans Clinic, Dr. Rivera negligently disclosed confidential medical information, causing 

worsening of plaintiff’s medical condition, loss of employment, and humiliation. He brings suit 

against Dr. Rivera and her presumed employer, Locumtenens.com, LLC (“Locumtenens”), for 

medical malpractice, and against the United States Department of Veterans Affairs under the 

Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”). He now moves for leave to file a second amended complaint 

in order to add LT Medical, LLC (“LT Medical”) as a party to the action. 

Turner contends that LT Medical is a related entity to Locumtenens, but he did not learn of 

LT Medical’s existence or the relationship until Locumtenens disclosed that LT Medical held a 

contract with Dr. Rivera during a meet and confer on March 15, 2018. Turner Decl. [Dkt. No. 61] 

¶ 1. The contract between LT Medical and Dr. Rivera produced in discovery on March 19, 2018 

revealed that LT Medical held an agreement with Locumtenens, which in turn contracted with San 

Francisco Veterans Affairs. Turner Decl. Ex. A (“Services Agreement”). The Services 

Agreement also provides, in a section labeled “Independent Contractor”:

It is mutually understood and agreed that in the conduct of your business of 

providing professional medical services you shall at all times be acting and 

performing as an independent contractor of LT Medical, and neither LT 

Case 3:17-cv-02265-WHO Document 73 Filed 05/18/18 Page 1 of 3
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Medical nor any of its affiliates, including LocumTenens.com, LLC, shall 

have or exercise any control or direction over the method or manner by 

which you perform your professional medical services. Nothing in this 

Services Agreement or your relationship with LT Medical or any of its 

affiliates, including LocumTenens.com, LLC, is intended to constitute or be 

construed to create an employer/employee relationship, or a partnership, 

joint venture, or equity interest with you.

Services Agreement at LT - 000003.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) governs amended pleadings and provides that courts 

“should freely give leave when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). A district court 

should grant leave “unless it determines that the pleading could not possibly be cured by the 

allegation of other facts.” Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127 (9th Cir. 2000). “Futility alone 

can justify the denial of a motion to amend.” Johnson v. Buckley, 356 F.3d 1067, 1077 (9th Cir. 

2004).

Turner moves to add LT Medical on the grounds that it is likely the actual employer of Dr. 

Rivera, and therefore may bear liability in this action. While the United States Department of 

Veterans Affairs does not oppose Turner’s motion, see Dkt. No. 64, Dr. Rivera and Locumtenens 

do on futility grounds. They argue that the plain language of the Services Agreement establishes 

that Dr. Rivera was an independent contractor and not an employee of either LT Medical or 

Locumtenens, and therefore neither party may be held liable for her actions. 

Under California law, “[t]he determination of employee or independent-contractor status is 

one of fact.” S.G. Borello & Sons, Inc. v. Dep’t of Indus. Relations, 48 Cal. 3d 341, 349 (1989). 

Only where the evidence or inferences are undisputed does “the question become[] one of law.” 

Id.; see also O’Connor v. Uber Techs., Inc., 82 F. Supp. 3d 1133, 1148 (N.D. Cal. 2015) (both 

California and Ninth Circuit law “establish[] that a hiree’s status as either an employee or 

independent contractor should typically be determined by a jury, and not the judge”). While the 

Services Agreement is certainly relevant to the question of whether Dr. Rivera was an independent 

contractor, it in and of itself is not definitive. See Borello, 48 Cal. 3d at 349 (“The label placed by 

the parties on their relationship is not dispositive, and subterfuges are not countenanced.”); Uber, 

82 F. Supp. 3d at 1153 (noting that agreement between parties “stating no employment 

relationship [wa]s created” was not dispositive and denying summary judgment). 

Case 3:17-cv-02265-WHO Document 73 Filed 05/18/18 Page 2 of 3
3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Instead, the California Supreme Court requires courts to consider “a number of indicia of 

an employment relationship,” Narayan v. EGL, Inc., 616 F.3d 895, 900 (9th Cir. 2010), including 

the amount of control retained by the hirer, the right to discharge at will without cause, the type of 

occupation and skill required, whether the principal or worker supplies the workplace and tools, 

the length of time of the relationship, the method of payment, and a number of other factors. See 

Borello, 48 Cal. 3d at 350–51. Given the fact-intensive nature of this inquiry, as well as the early 

stage of the proceedings, it would be inappropriate for me to make this determination at this time. 

Turner is entitled to discovery on these issues, which he has diligently requested from defendants. 

See Turner Decl. ¶ 2. Because discovery may reveal new facts regarding the nature of Dr. 

Rivera’s relationship with LT Medical and/or Locumtenens, Turner’s proposed amendment would 

not be futile and I therefore GRANT his motion to amend the pleadings to add LT Medical as a 

party.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 18, 2018

William H. Orrick

United States District Judge

Case 3:17-cv-02265-WHO Document 73 Filed 05/18/18 Page 3 of 3