Skip to main content.

PUBLIC NOTICE Reduced Hours of Operation – Clerk’s Offices

From December 22, 2025 – January 2, 2026, The Superior Court of California, County of Santa Barbara, will reduce phone hours and the public access operating hours of the Clerk’s Offices. For more information, click here.

Notice:

The court is aware of fraudulent messages and scams being sent to the public. For more information please click here.

Susanna Vadas vs Jeffrey R. Polito, MD

Case Number

23CV02584

Case Type

Civil Law & Motion

Hearing Date / Time

Fri, 11/21/2025 - 10:00

Nature of Proceedings

Motion: Leave

Tentative Ruling

On June 15, 2023, plaintiff Susanna Vadas filed her original complaint in this action against defendant Jeffrey R. Polito, M.D., asserting causes of action for medical negligence and lack of informed consent. On March 13, 2024, with no response to the complaint having been filed, plaintiff filed her first amended complaint (FAC) asserting one cause of action for medical negligence. On March 14, 2024, defendant filed his answer to the FAC generally denying the allegations thereof and asserting 23 affirmative defenses. On November 14, 2024, the court entered its order relieving counsel for plaintiff and thus leaving plaintiff self-represented. On July 25, 2025, Erika E. Szell, as administrator for the Estate of Susanna M. Vadas, filed this motion for leave to file a second amended complaint (proposed SAC). In support of this motion, Szell declares that Vadas died on September 20, 2024, and that Szell has been appointed as administrator for the estate. (Szell decl., ¶¶ 3, 4 & exhibit A.) The motion is opposed by defendant on grounds including that the motion fails to comply with the requirements of California Rules of Court, rule 3.1324. No trial date has yet been set in this matter; a case management conference is now on calendar for March 27, 2026.

The motion for leave to file an amended complaint (the proposed SAC) is denied without prejudice. In addition to the failure to comply with rule 3.1324 as stated in the opposition to the motion, there is an additional issue regarding representation. “A person who is unlicensed to practice law and who represents a decedent’s estate cannot appear in propria persona on behalf of the estate in matters outside the probate proceedings.” (Hansen v. Hansen (2003) 114 Cal.App.4th 618, 621.) Szell does not identify herself as licensed to practice law and so may not represent the Estate of Vadas in propria persona. This issue will need to be resolved prior to determining a procedurally proper noticed motion for leave to amend.

Was this helpful?

Yes No
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Was this helpful?