Judge: Anne Hwang, Case: 20STCV39294, Date: 2023-11-21 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV39294    Hearing Date: January 25, 2024    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 October 13, 2020, Plaintiff Alexandra Delgado (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendants Maria Dolores Gutierrez, Joseph Rene Velasco, and Genardo Rene Velasco (“Defendants”) for injuries resulting from a motor vehicle accident. On November 13, 2020, Defendants filed an answer.

On October 2, 2023, Defendants filed the instant motion for leave to file an amended answer to assert affirmative defenses surrounding a purported pre-litigation settlement agreement. Plaintiff opposes and Defendants reply.  

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

Defendants seek to amend their answer to include eight affirmative defenses surrounding a settlement agreement offered by Plaintiff’s attorney that was purportedly accepted by Defendants’ insurer, Infinity Insurance Company, on October 6, 2020. (Lawrence Decl., Exh. B, C.)  In reply, Defendants note that on January 2, 2024, Infinity Insurance Company filed a separate action (24STCV00168) against Plaintiff for breach of contract regarding the agreement. (Reply, 2.)

Defendants have satisfied the procedural requirements for making this motion by including a declaration and copy of the proposed answer.

The declaration in support of the motion states that Defendants’ counsel initially filed a motion for leave to amend the Answer on March 5, 2021, which was scheduled to be heard on August 10, 2021. (Lawrence Decl. ¶ 11.) Plaintiff filed an opposition on July 16, 2021. The amended answer asserted defenses regarding the purported settlement. However, the motion was taken off-calendar when the case was re-assigned from Department 27 to Department 32 on August 4, 2021. (Id. ¶ 12, Exh. F.) This case was reassigned because of a recusal. As a result, all matters on calendar in this case were vacated and to be rescheduled in the newly assigned department. (Min. Order, 8/2/21.) The handling attorney subsequently left the firm, and the motion was never re-calendared. (Id. ¶ 13.) Defendants’ current counsel discovered that the motion was never heard during trial preparations on the week of September 25, 2023. (Id.)

In opposition, Plaintiff argues the merits of the purported agreement, stating that it was never signed by the parties and that the purported acceptance was deficient. On October 6, 2020, Plaintiff’s counsel emailed Infinity stating that the tender was incomplete and requested amended affidavits by Defendants. (Smith Decl. ¶ 7, Exh. 3.) Infinity never responded to Plaintiff’s letter. (Id. ¶ 8.)

Plaintiff does not argue that amending the answer would result in prejudice, but rather argues that the defenses cannot be established based on the facts. However, the Court’s role at this stage is not to decide the issues on the merits. Defendants have explained the reason for the delay and the lack of prejudice given the trial continuance, to which Plaintiff stipulated. Accordingly, the Court grants the motion.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Accordingly, Defendants’ motion for leave to amend its answer is granted. Defendants shall file and serve the amended answer within 10 days.

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

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 October 13, 2020, Plaintiff Alexandra Delgado (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendants Maria Dolores Gutierrez, Joseph Rene Velasco, and Genardo Rene Velasco (“Defendants”) for injuries resulting from a motor vehicle accident.

Defendants now move to continue trial and reopen discovery. In their notice of motion, Defendants request the Court to continue trial to May 7, 2024. On January 18, 2024, the Court continued the trial to August 7, 2024 based on the parties’ stipulation and request. As a result, the motion to continue trial appears to be moot. Therefore, the Court will only address the motion to reopen discovery. Plaintiff opposes and Defendants reply.

BACKGROUND

            The complaint was filed on October 13, 2020.

            The answer was filed on November 13, 2020.

            Trial was initially set for April 12, 2022. Accordingly, the discovery cut-off was originally March 13, 2022 with a motions cut-off of March 28, 2022.

            The Court on its own continued trial to September 19, 2022. (Min. Order, 8/4/21.)

            Trial and all related dates were then continued to June 29, 2023, pursuant to Plaintiff’s ex parte application. (Min. Order, 7/21/22.) Trial and all related dates were again continued to October 5, 2023, pursuant to Plaintiff’s ex parte application. The Court noted no further continuance of the trial date absent sufficient good cause. (Min. Order, 5/25/23.)

            At the final status conference on September 21, 2023, the parties orally agreed to continue trial to October 26, 2023. The discovery motion cutoff was closed, and the pre-trial motion cut off remained in effect. (See Min. Order, 9/21/23.)

On October 26, 2023, appearing for trial, the parties orally agreed to continued trial to January 18, 2024. Defendants asserted that its trial counsel was engaged in another trial at the time. (Min. Order 10/26/23.)

On November 29, 2023, the Court denied Defendants’ motion to augment its expert witness list.

On January 18, 2024, appearing for trial, Defendants asserted that its counsel was engaged in another trial at the time. Pursuant to an oral stipulation, the parties agreed to continue trial to August 7, 2024. The discovery motion cutoff was closed, and the pre-trial motion cut off remained in effect.

LEGAL STANDARD

“On motion of any party, the court may grant leave to complete discovery proceedings, or to have a motion concerning discovery heard, closer to the initial trial date, or to reopen discovery after a new trial date has been set.¿ This motion shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040.”¿ (Code Civ. Proc., section 2024.050, subd. (a).)¿¿ 

¿¿¿ 

“In exercising its discretion to grant or deny this motion, the court shall take into consideration any matter relevant to the leave requested, including, but not limited to, the following: (1) The necessity and the reasons for the discovery; (2) The diligence or lack of diligence of the party seeking the discovery or the hearing of a discovery motion, and the reasons that the discovery was not completed or that the discovery motion was not heard earlier; (3) Any likelihood that permitting the discovery or hearing the discovery motion will prevent the case from going to trial on the date set, or otherwise interfere with the trial calendar, or result in prejudice to any other party; (4) The length of time that has elapsed between any date previously set, and the date presently set, for the trial of the action.”¿ (Code Civ. Proc., section 2024.050, subd. (b)(1)-(4).)¿¿¿¿ 

¿ 

MEET AND CONFER

The Declaration of Mark W. Flory states that on October 6, 2023, he met and conferred with Plaintiff’s counsel and was advised that Plaintiff would oppose all relief. (Flory ¶ 7.) Therefore, it appears the meet and confer requirement was met.

DISCUSSION

Defendants move to reopen discovery so they may designate experts responsive to nine expert witnesses designated by Plaintiff. On November 29, 2023, the Court denied Defendants’ motion to augment its expert witness list. (Min. Order, 11/29/23.) The Court found that Defendants’ counsel failed to demonstrate mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect. Defendants’ motion appears to only seek to reopen discovery as to this issue already decided by the Court. Accordingly, the Court denies the motion.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Accordingly, the Court denies Defendants’ motion to reopen discovery.

Defendants shall give notice of this order, and file a proof of service of such.