Judge Anne Hwang, Case Number: 22STCV12734, Date: 2024-05-08 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 April 15, 2022, Plaintiff Patricia Guirado (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendants City of Pico Rivera, County of Los Angeles, and Does 1 to 10 for medical negligence, negligence, and premises liability after Plaintiff’s bicycle allegedly fell into grooves on the road, causing her injuries.

On June 14, 2022, County of Los Angeles filed an answer. On July 22, 2022, City of Pico Rivera filed an answer.

On March 28, 2024, Plaintiff filed the instant motion for leave to amend her complaint by removing the medical negligence cause of action, which was mistakenly added by prior counsel, and adding a dangerous condition of public property cause of action. Defendant City of Pico Rivera (“Defendant”) opposes and Plaintiff replies.

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).)

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:

As an initial matter, the declaration in support of this motion does not describe the effect of this motion, why it is necessary, or why the amendment was not made earlier. The motion also does not identify by page, paragraph, and line number, the areas that will be deleted or added. Nevertheless, Plaintiff has provided a copy of the proposed amended complaint. (See Peerali Decl., Exh. C.)

Here, Plaintiff argues the Medical Negligence cause of action was mistakenly added, and the Dangerous Condition of Public Property cause of action was mistakenly omitted, by prior counsel. Former counsel passed away on March 30, 2023. On October 24, 2023, Plaintiff filed a substitution of attorney with current counsel. Plaintiff argues the amendment should be allowed since the cause of action pertains to the same facts of the original complaint and simply serves to identify the proper cause of action for this case against a government entity. Plaintiff also argues Defendant would not be prejudiced by the amendment.

In opposition, Defendant notes the procedural defects under California Rules of Court, rule 3.1324, especially the fact that Plaintiff did not identify all the changes from the original complaint. For instance, the new proposed complaint contains “Parties”, “Venue and Jurisdiction”, and “General Allegations” sections. Defendant also contends that Plaintiff’s current counsel delayed in bringing this motion seeing that they were substituted into this case in October 2023. (Opp., 3.) Defendant argues it will be prejudiced for the following reasons: (1) Plaintiff did not comply with the Tort Claims Act; and (2) Defendant deposed Plaintiff and plans to file a summary judgment motion based on her testimony.

In reply, Plaintiff argues the proposed complaint does not add new legal theories to this action and that she complied with the Tort Claims Act.

The Court agrees that the proposed complaint differs beyond merely omitting the medical negligence cause of action and adding a dangerous condition of public property action. However, the proposed complaint pertains to the same event. A cause of action for Dangerous Condition of Public Property is based on Government Code 835.[1] Here, the original complaint alleges that Defendant’s employees and agents owed Plaintiff a duty of care to maintain the condition on the roadway under Government Code section 830 et seq. It also alleges Defendants are liable under Government Code section 815.2.[2]

Because the proposed complaint deals with similar factual and legal issues, Defendant has not shown it would be prejudiced by granting this motion. Therefore, the motion for leave to file a first amended complaint is granted. The Court admonishes Plaintiff’s counsel that failure to abide by the Rules of Court may result in the Court declining to hear a motion in the future. The Court denies Defendant’s requests to continue trial and to re-depose Plaintiff, absent a properly noticed motion. The parties should promptly meet and confer regarding these issues.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend her complaint is GRANTED. Plaintiff shall file and serve the proposed amended complaint within 10 days.

[1] Government Code section 835 states:¿“Except as provided by statute, a public entity is liable for injury caused by a dangerous condition of its property if the plaintiff establishes that the property was in a dangerous condition at the time of the injury, that the injury was proximately caused by the dangerous condition, that the dangerous condition created a reasonably foreseeable risk of the kind of injury which was incurred, and either:¿¿¿

(a) A negligent or wrongful act or omission of an employee of the public entity within the scope of his employment created the dangerous condition; or¿¿¿

(b) The public entity had actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition under Section 835.2 a sufficient time prior to the injury to have taken measures to protect against the dangerous condition.”¿¿¿

[2] Though the original complaint appears to seek liability against the defendant entities based on actions of its employees, Defendant does not argue this constitutes a different theory of liability.

DEPT:	32
HEARING DATE:	May 8, 2024
CASE NUMBER:	22STCV12734
MOTIONS:	Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint
MOVING PARTY:	Plaintiff Patricia Guirado
OPPOSING PARTY:	Defendant City of Pico Rivera