Judge: Alison Mackenzie, Case: 18STCV06549, Date: 2024-02-26 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 18STCV06549 Hearing Date: February 26, 2024 Dept: 55
NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS:
Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to Amend
Complaint and for Other Relief.
The motion is granted.
The proposed First Amended Complaint may be served and
filed, as a separate document, within 10 days.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs Albert J. Corado and Salvador Albert
Corado, individually and as successor-in-interest to Melyda Corado, (“Plaintiffs”)
brings this case against the City of Los Angeles and Los Angeles Police
Department officers Sinlen Tse and Sarah Winans (collectively, “Defendants”) for
damages after Officers Tse and Winans accidentally shot and killed Plaintiff’s
daughter Melyda during the Officers’ pursuit of Gene Atkins.
In 2022, the Court dismissed Plaintiffs’ Fifth Cause
of Action for Wrongful Death from the Complaint after Plaintiffs requested the
Court to do so. Plaintiffs also dismissed the Third Cause of Action for Negligent
Hiring, Training, and Supervision. The remaining causes of action in the
Complaint are: (1) Negligence; (2) Violation of the Bane Act; and (3) Battery. During
the FSC in 11/23, Defendants contended that Plaintiffs could not seek wrongful
death damages at trial because Plaintiffs no longer alleged a wrongful death
claim. Following briefing on the issue, the Court ordered that Plaintiffs could
not introduce evidence regarding wrongful death damages.
The Court permitted Plaintiffs to file a motion for
leave to amend the Complaint. Plaintiffs now seeks to file an Amended Complaint
with the following changes:
(1) Amend
the title of the First Cause of Action for Negligence to “Negligence: Wrongful
Death (Code Civ. Proc. § Section 377.30) and Survivor Claim (Code Civ. §
Section 377.31),” and add allegations that Plaintiffs seek recovery in the
negligence claim for the wrongful death of Melyda Corado, and Plaintiff
Salvador Corado seeks recovery as the successor-in-interest to Melyda Corado;
(2) Remove
the Third Cause of Action for Negligent Hiring, Training, and Supervision;
(3) Amend
the title of the Fourth Cause of Action for Battery to “Battery [California
Civil Code Section 43]; Wrongful Death (Code Civ. Proc. § Section 377.30) and
Survivor Claim (Code Civ. § Section 377.31),” and add allegations that
Plaintiffs seeks recovery in the negligence claim for the wrongful death of
Melyda Corado, and Plaintiff Salvador Corado seeks recovery as the
successor-in-interest to Melyda Corado; and
(4) Remove
the Fifth Cause of Action for Wrongful Death.
Defendants oppose the motion.
LEGAL STANDARD
A trial court has discretion to allow a party to amend a pleading in the furtherance of justice. CCP § 473(a). The court should exercise discretion liberally to permit amendments and “it is a rare case in which denial of leave to amend can be justified.” Howard v. County of San Diego (2010) 184 Cal. App. 4th 1422, 1428.
|
|
ANALYSIS
Plaintiffs seeks to file the First Amended Complaint
to expressly allege that their causes of action for negligence and battery seek
recovery for wrongful death pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Sections 377.30
and 377.31.
A wrongful death claim requires “(1) a wrongful act or
neglect on the part of one or more persons that (2) causes (3) the death of
another person.” Norgart v. Upjohn Co. (1999) 21 Cal. 4th 383, 390. Wrongful
death damages consist of “the financial benefits” plaintiffs received from
decedent “at the time of death, those reasonably expected in the future, and
the monetary equivalent of loss of comfort, society, and protection.” Corder v. Corder (2007) 41 Cal. 4 644,
661.
The Court previously disallowed evidence of wrongful
death damages because the Complaint did not contain a separate wrongful death
cause of action. Moreover, the negligence and battery claims in the Complaint made
no mention of the Code of Civil Procedure sections related to wrongful death.
The proposed amended First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) addresses these issues by expressly
stating the applicable code sections and expressly stating in the negligence
and battery claims that Plaintiff seeks recovery for Melyda Corado’s wrongful
death, and Plaintiff Salvador Corado seeks damages as his daughter’s
successor-in-interest. (FAC, ¶¶ 18, 37.)
The initial Complaint already contained allegations
regarding wrongful death, separate and apart from the prior separate cause of
action for wrongful death. (Compl., ¶ 13 (alleging decedent was shot), ¶ 19
(alleging negligence causing wrongful death), ¶ 38 (alleging wrongful act
caused death of decedent in battery claim)). The initial Complaint also already plead
wrongful death damages, such as loss of support. (Id., ¶ 22.) These
allegations remain in the FAC along with the proposed additions.
These facts distinguish this case from an opinion
emphasized in Defendants’ opposition. In that case, the issue involved amending
to conform to proof at trial, where the alleged theory did not remain within
the surviving portions of the complaint. Pinter-Brown v. Regents of Univ. of
California (2020) 48 Cal.App.5th 55, 100 (“The court had already
adjudicated the retaliation issue. To put it before the jury at the eleventh
hour constituted an ambush.”). “A judge
may not permit a plaintiff to amend the complaint to allege a cause of action
that has been summarily adjudicated. This is because summary adjudication of a
cause of action in a defendant’s favor is a judicial determination that the
issue is not subject to further controversy, is deemed ‘established,’ and may
not be relitigated by the parties.” Leave
to Amend to Conform to Proof; Cal. Judges Benchbook Civ. Proc. Trial § 9.4
(citing Pinter-Brown, supra).
Plaintiffs argue that the FAC will not prejudice
Defendants because Defendants have continued to litigate this case as if the
wrongful death claim “embedded” in the negligence and battery causes of action
remained in the case. The Court agrees. As described above, the underlying allegations
supporting wrongful death remained in the case after the Court previously
dismissed the separate wrongful death cause of action. The label of the
negligence and battery causes of action were not determinative. Davaloo v
State Farm Ins. Co. (2005) 135 Cal. App. 4th 409, 418 (holding that the
allegations, not the caption, constitute the causes of action). A cause of
action summarily adjudicated is deemed established, but that does not bar
remaining causes of action, and proof relevant to those claims is still
admissible. Lewis v City of Benicia (2014) 224 Cal. App. 4th 1519, 1536,
n. 18.
Defendants’ actions make clear that they also believed
that a wrongful death theory of recovery remained in the case. Defendants’ depositions
of Plaintiffs reflect that Defendants sought to uncover information related to
wrongful death, suggesting that Defendants believed Plaintiffs would still be
able to recover such damages on their remaining claims. See Mot. at 5-6
(asking questions about their relationship with the decedent and expenses they
had incurred because of the incident). Under these circumstances, the Court
sees no prejudice to Defendants.
Plaintiffs did not learn of Defendants’ position
regarding wrongful death damages until the FSC. This delay, coupled with the
Court’s ruling on the motion in limine about wrongful death damages, justifies
Plaintiffs’ late filing of a motion for leave to amend. A newly raised argument
or court ruling may be justification for delay in moving for leave to amend. Foundation
For Taxpayer and Consumer Rights v. Nextel Communications, Inc. (2006)
143 Cal.App.4th 131, 136 (“The argument fails because the FTCR had
no reason to amend its complaint until Nextel sought to apply Proposition 64 to
this case.”).
For all these reasons, the Court grants the motion. This
ruling means the Court will reconsider its ruling on Defendants’ motion in
limine number 1, and now denies that motion to the extent it sought to exclude
evidence or testimony regarding wrongful death damages.