Judge Anne Hwang, Case Number: 20STCV46227, Date: 2023-09-20 Tentative Ruling

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.

On December 3, 2020, Plaintiffs Te-Hsi Chang, individually and as successor in interest to the estate of Chen Hsueh Chang, Yi-Chuan Chang, and Chia-Yen Chang filed a negligence, negligent hiring/supervision, and wrongful death action against Defendants Marco Antonio Luevano and J.B. Hunt Transport, Inc., based on an incident in which Defendants’ vehicle struck Decedent Chen Hsueh Chang at an intersection, eventually resulting in Decedent’s death.

On May 19, 2023, the Court granted in part Defendants’ motion for summary adjudication as to the following:

- Second Cause of Action – Negligent Hiring, Retention or Supervision as to Plaintiffs

- Third Cause of Action – Wrongful Death - Plaintiffs Yi-Chuan Chang and Chia-Yen Chang, as individuals only

The Court concluded that Te-Hsi Chang had standing to file the wrongful death cause of action against Defendants for Decedent’s death, and his wrongful death claim survived his own subsequent death via his successor in interest, Plaintiff Yi-Chuan Chang.

In its order, the Court also declined to address the issue of whether Plaintiffs could add a

survival action to the Complaint. (Min. Order, May 19, 2023.) The only cause of action that survived summary adjudication was the wrongful death cause of action brought by Yi-Chuan Chang, as successor in interest to Plaintiff Te-Hsi Chang, only.

Now, Plaintiff Yi-Chuan Chang, as successor-in-interest to the estate of Te-Hsi Chang, (Plaintiff) moves for leave to file a first amended complaint (FAC) for the following reasons:

1. to remove Plaintiffs against whom this action has been summarily adjudicated;

3. to correct the name of Defendant J.B. Hunt Transport Services, Inc. to J.B. Hunt Transport, Inc.;

5. to strike allegations that are irrelevant and/or that have been summarily adjudicated.

Trial is set for December 22, 2023, with a Final Status Conference of December 7, 2023.

Under California Rules of Court Rule, rule 3.1324, subdivision (a), a motion to amend a pleading shall (1) include a copy of the proposed amendment or amended pleading, 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.¿

Under California Rule of Court, rule 3.1324, subdivision (b), a separate declaration must accompany the motion and must specify (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.¿

“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.)¿Ordinarily, the court will not consider the validity of the proposed amended pleading in ruling on a motion for leave since grounds for a demurrer or motion to strike are premature.¿The court, however, does have discretion to deny leave to amend where a proposed amendment fails to state a valid cause of action as a matter of law and the defect cannot be cured by further amendment. (See¿California Casualty General Ins. Co. v. Superior Court¿(1985) 173 Cal.App.3d 274, 281¿[overruled on other grounds by¿Kransco¿v. American Empire Surplus Lines Ins. Co.¿(2000) 23 Cal.4th 390].)¿

“An amended complaint relates back to the original complaint, and thus avoids the statute of limitations as a bar, if it (1) rests on the same general set of facts as the original complaint and (2) refers to the same accident and the same injuries as the original complaint.” (San Diego Gas & Electric Co. v. Superior Court (2007) 146 Cal.App.4th 1545, 1549.)

Plaintiff argues the proposed FAC contains the same operative facts as the original complaint. Plaintiff asserts Defendants will not be prejudiced by the amendment and that the written discovery that has been propounded will be equally as relevant to the survival cause of action. (Mayo Decl. ¶ 5.) Also, Plaintiff argues the survival action will relate back to the wrongful death claim and will not be barred by the statute of limitations.

Defendants argue Plaintiff’s motion does not comply with the California Rules of Court, rule 3.1324, that the statute of limitations on the survival action has run, and that they will be prejudiced by a delay. Defendants also point out that the amended complaint adds a punitive damages claim that was not mentioned in Plaintiff’s motion, and permitting such an amendment will result in further delay and additional cost for Defendants having to now file a motion to strike and a new motion for summary adjudication.

Plaintiff focuses their argument on why there will not be delay of the current trial date or prejudice to Defendants if the Court allows the FAC to be filed. However, the Court finds that Plaintiff has not met the requirements of California Rule of Court, rule 3.1324 (b). The Declaration of David M. Mayo does not specify why the amendment is necessary and proper, when the facts giving rise to the amended allegations were discovered, and the reasons why the request for amendment was not made earlier. Plaintiff has not explained the delay, when Plaintiff has known since March 1, 2019 that Chen-Hsueh Chang succumbed to her injuries. Also, Plaintiff has not followed California Rule of Court, rule 3.1324 (a) by not stating in the motion, what allegations are proposed to be added to the previous pleading by page, paragraph, and line number. ¿This requirement is particularly important here, where Plaintiff’s motion inexplicably made no mention of a new punitive damages claim, which was only brought to the Court’s attention by Defendants’ opposition.

In Plaintiff’s Reply, Plaintiff argues the failure to abide by the California Rules of Court is “form over substance,” and vaguely suggests – not by way of declaration as required by the Rules of Court – that “discovery of the facts giving rise to the amendment occurred as a result of this Court’s ruling on Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment wherein this Court concluded that Plaintiff had standing and could pursue a cause of action for wrongful death.” (Reply at pg. 2.)[1] This argument does not make sense. Presumably, throughout this litigation, Plaintiff believed they had standing to pursue to wrongful death cause of action. Moreover, this does not explain the failure to timely pursue a survival cause of action, or specifically a claim for punitive damages. The punitive damages claim, in particular, will result in a delay of trial, in light of the additional discovery that is likely and in consideration of Defendants’ right to seek summary adjudication.

Additionally, Plaintiff argues that a claim of delay is not enough to deny a party leave to amend the pleadings where there is no possible way the opposing party could be prejudiced. In doing so, Plaintiff ignores the prejudice resulting from the late addition of a punitive damages claim, responding merely that Plaintiff “suggests that any Demurrer, Motion to Strike and/ or Motion for Summary Adjudication would be futile,” because there will be dispute of fact. (Reply at pg. 5.) Regardless of Plaintiff’s belief of the merits of the claim, Defendants are entitled to conduct discovery and to timely move for summary adjudication. Moreover, and more fundamentally, Plaintiff ignores that at this point, without a declaration setting forth the information required by the California Rules of Court, the delay is unjustified.[2] There is no information from which the Court could determine that the Plaintiff “has a good cause of action, which by accident or mistake he has failed to set out in his complaint.” (Higgins v. Del Faro (1981) 123 Cal.App.3d 558, 565.) “Courts must apply a policy of liberality in permitting amendments at any stage of the proceeding, including during trial, when no prejudice to the opposing party is shown. [Citation.] ‘However, ‘even if a good amendment is proposed in proper form, unwarranted delay in presenting it may – of itself, be a valid reason for denial.’” (P&D Consultants, Inc. v. City of Carlsbad (2010) 190 Cal.App.4th 1332, 1345 (citations omitted).)

Accordingly, the Court denies Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a first amended complaint.

Defendants shall give notice of the Court’s order and file a proof of service of such.

[1] The Reply further argues that “[t]o the extent any issue not adequately addressed in the Motion that is required by the Rules of Court, it can and will be addressed at the hearing on the instant Motion.” (Reply at pg. 2.) This response ignores Plaintiff’s responsibility to abide by the Rules of Court as well as the opposing party’s right to notice of the arguments that will be raised. Moreover, the Reply inexplicably fails to seek leave the cure the defect, even after counsel was notified by the opposition of the failure to abide by the California Rules of Court.

[2] Plaintiff was expressly notified on March 3, 2022 by counsel for Defendants that: “It seems possible, if not probable, that Plaintiffs meant not to plead negligence and negligent supervision claims for the conduct of defendants that affected each individual Plaintiff, but rather to make those claims on behalf of the Decedent. If that is true, Plaintiffs meant to make a Survival Cause of Action on behalf of the Decedent’s Estate pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure § 377.20 et seq. However, Plaintiffs, as a technical legal matter, did not and have not done so to date.” (Smith Decl., Exh. B.) Yet no action was taken by Plaintiff until June 15, 2023, when the instant motion was filed. In the interim, Defendants litigated a motion for summary judgment/ summary adjudication, without the opportunity to address any purported survival action, because Plaintiff still had not given any indication that such a claim would be pursued. Plaintiff provides no explanation. Defendant argues that a new motion for summary adjudication will need to be pursued, which will result in a delay of the trial.

DEPT:	32
HEARING DATE:	September 20, 2023
CASE NUMBER:	20STCV46227
MOTIONS:	Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint
MOVING PARTY:	Plaintiff Yi-Chuan Chang
OPPOSING PARTY:	Defendants Marco Antonio Luevano and J.B. Hunt Transport, Inc.