Judge: Anne Hwang, Case: 19STCV15084, Date: 2023-12-08 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19STCV15084    Hearing Date: December 8, 2023    Dept: 32

PLEASE NOTE:   Parties are encouraged to meet and confer concerning this tentative ruling to determine if a resolution may be reached.  If the parties are unable to reach a resolution and a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the Court at sscdept32@lacourt.org indicating that party’s intention to submit.  The email shall include the case number, date and time of the hearing, counsel’s contact information (if applicable), and the identity of the party submitting on this tentative ruling.  If the Court does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may place the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.  If all parties do not submit on this tentative ruling, they should arrange to appear in-person or remotely.  Further, after the Court has posted/issued a tentative ruling, the Court has the inherent authority to prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion and adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court. 

TENTATIVE RULING

BACKGROUND

On May 1, 2019, Plaintiff Maria Teresa Joya (Plaintiff) filed a complaint for premises liability and general negligence after stepping on an open irrigation box. Plaintiff sued Matsunaga Enterprise, Inc. (Matsunaga), which provided landscape maintenance on the property. Defendant filed an answer on November 26, 2019. Defendant then moved for summary adjudication, which was granted in part on August 23, 2022.

On October 12, 2023, Plaintiff filed the instant motion for leave to file a second amended complaint. Matsunaga opposes and Plaintiff replies.   

LEGAL STANDARD

Amendment to Pleadings: General Provisions

Under Code of Civil Procedure section 576, “[a]ny judge, at any time before or after commencement of trial, in the furtherance of justice, and upon such terms as may be proper, may allow the amendment of any pleading or pretrial conference order.”

Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (a)(1) provides, in relevant part: “[t]he court may, in furtherance of justice, and on any terms as may be proper, allow a party to amend any pleading or proceeding by adding or striking out the name of any party, or by correcting a mistake in the name of a party, or a mistake in any other respect; and may, upon like terms, enlarge the time for answer or demurrer.¿ The court may likewise, in its discretion, after notice to the adverse party, allow, upon any terms as may be just, an amendment to any pleading or proceeding in other particulars; and may upon like terms allow an answer to be made after the time limited by this code.”¿ 

“This discretion should be exercised liberally in favor of amendments, for judicial policy favors resolution of all disputed matters in the same lawsuit.”¿(Kittredge Sports Co. v. Superior Court¿(1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 1045, 1047.)¿ The Court of Appeal in Morgan v. Superior Court held “If the motion to amend is timely made and the granting of the motion will not prejudice the opposing party, it is error to refuse permission to amend and where the refusal also results in a party being deprived of the right to assert a meritorious cause of action or a meritorious defense, it is not only error but an abuse of discretion.”  (Morgan v. Superior Court (1959) 172 Cal.App.2d 527, 530, citations omitted.)  Moreover, “it is an abuse of discretion for the court to deny leave to amend where the opposing party was not misled or prejudiced by the amendment.”  (Kittredge Sports Co. v. Superior Court (1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 1045, 1048 [opposing party did not establish harm by the delay in moving to amend the complaint].)

“The court may grant leave to amend the pleadings at any stage of the action.” (Weil & Brown, Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2022) ¶ 6:636 (hereafter Weil & Brown).)  Denial of a motion to amend is rarely justified if the motion is timely made and granting the motion will not prejudice the opposing party. (Id. at ¶ 6:639, citations omitted.)  However, if the party seeking the amendment has been dilatory, and the delay has prejudiced the opposing party, the judge has discretion to deny leave to amend. (Id. at ¶ 6:655, citations omitted. Absent prejudice, any claimed delay alone is not grounds for denial. “If the delay in seeking the amendment has not misled or prejudiced the other side, the liberal policy of allowing amendments prevails. Indeed, it is an abuse of discretion to deny leave in such a case even if sought as late as the time of trial. (Id. at ¶ 6:653 (citing Higgins v. Del Faro (1981) 123 Cal.App.3d 558, 564-565).)  “Prejudice exists where the amendment would result in a delay of trial, along with loss of critical evidence, added costs of preparation, increased burden of discovery, etc.  . . .  But the fact that the amendment involves a change in legal theory which would make admissible evidence damaging to the opposing party is not the kind of prejudice the court will consider.”  (Weil & Brown, supra, at ¶ 6:656, citations omitted.)

“Even if some prejudice is shown, the judge may still permit the amendment but impose conditions, as the Court is authorized to grant leave ‘on such terms as may be proper.’”  (Weil & Brown, supra, at ¶ 6:663, citation omitted.)  For example, the court may cause the party seeking the amendment to pay the costs and fees incurred in preparing for trial. (Id. at ¶ 6:664 (citing Fuller v. Vista Del Arroyo Hotel, 42 Cal.App.2d 400, 404).)

California Rules of Court, rule 3.1324:  Procedural Requirements

Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1324(a), a motion to amend a pleading before trial must:

“(1) Include a copy of the proposed amendment or amended pleadings, which must be serially numbered to differentiate it from previous pleadings or amendments;

(2) state what allegations in the previous pleading are proposed to be deleted, if any, and where, by page, paragraph, and line number, the deleted allegations are located; and

(3) State what allegations are proposed to be added to the previous pleading, if any, and where, by page, paragraph, and line number, the additional allegations are located.”

In addition, under Rule 3.1324(b), a motion to amend a pleading before trial must be accompanied by a separate declaration that specifies the following:

“(1) the effect of the amendment;

 (2) why the amendment is necessary and proper;

(3) when the facts giving rise to the amended allegations were discovered; and

(4) the reasons why the request for amendment was not made earlier.”

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff seeks leave to amend in response to Defendant’s motion in limine, which seeks to exclude argument and evidence on issues that were decided in the motion for summary adjudication. (Motion, 6.)

In its motion for summary adjudication, Matsunaga moved for adjudication of the following issues:

(1)   Plaintiff’s First Cause of Action for Premises Liability fails because there exists no evidence that Defendant Matsunaga owned or otherwise maintained possession or control over the property where Plaintiff alleges she fell.

(2)   Plaintiff’s First Cause of Action for Premises Liability fails because there is no evidence that Defendant Matsunaga had notice that the irrigation utility box was uncovered at any time prior to Plaintiff’s alleged fall into the box.

(3)   Plaintiff’s Second Cause of Action for General Negligence fails because Plaintiff has no evidence that Defendant fell below its standard of care in its duty to those on the property such as Plaintiff, or to the extent Defendant owed Plaintiff a Duty, breached such a duty, or that such breach caused Plaintiff injury.

The Court denied summary adjudication of Issue No. 3. (See Minute Order Dated August 23, 2022 at p. 14.) The Court noted that “Plaintiff raises a triable issue as to whether Matsunaga employed a sufficient inspection policy to ensure safety on the premises, particularly with respect to uncovered irrigation utility boxes near walkways or failed to suggest to AMC that the irrigation utility boxes be secured in accordance with industry practices, and as to whether an act or omission by Matsunaga caused or contributed to Plaintiff’s fall.” (Id. at pp. 13-14.) However, the Court granted summary adjudication as to Issue Number 2.

Plaintiff does not explain how there can be no triable issue of fact as to whether Matsunaga had actual or constructive notice that the box was uncovered (Issue Number 2), but yet there remains a triable issue of fact that Matsunaga itself removed the box cover. Plaintiff’s position could result in a jury verdict inconsistent with the Court’s ruling on summary adjudication. Accordingly, Plaintiff has not met her burden to establish that amendment is proper. However, the Court notes that the parties’ motions in limine will be heard by the trial court. To the extent that an amendment becomes necessary and proper to conform to the proof actually permitted at trial, the Court can address the issue then.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend its first amended complaint is DENIED.

Plaintiff to provide notice and file a proof of service of such.