Judge: Anne Hwang, Case: 22STCV18975, Date: 2023-09-15 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV18975    Hearing Date: September 19, 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 June 9, 2022, Plaintiff Leticia Antonia Cazarez-Cardoza filed a complaint against the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (LACMTA), the City of Los Angeles, the County of Los Angeles, and the State of California, for the alleged negligence of a bus driver. The first amended complaint was filed on August 4, 2022. Plaintiff now moves for leave to file a second amended complaint in order to add a cause of action for Government Code section 815.2.

LEGAL STANDARD

“A party who fails to plead a cause of action subject to the requirements of this article, whether through oversight, inadvertence, mistake, neglect, or other cause, may apply to the court for leave to amend his pleading, or to file a cross-complaint, to assert such cause at any time during the course of the action. The court, after notice to the adverse party, shall grant, upon such terms as may be just to the parties, leave to amend the pleading, or to file the cross-complaint, to assert such cause if the party who failed to plead the cause acted in good faith.¿ This subdivision shall be liberally construed to avoid forfeiture of causes of action.”¿ (Code Civ. Proc., § 426.50.) (Emphasis added.)¿ 

¿ 

The Court of Appeals has explained: “The legislative mandate is clear. A policy of liberal construction of section 426.50 to avoid forfeiture of causes of action is imposed on the trial¿court. A motion to file a cross-complaint at any time during the course of the action must be granted unless bad faith of the moving party is demonstrated where forfeiture would otherwise result. Factors such as oversight, inadvertence, neglect, mistake or other cause, are insufficient grounds to deny the motion unless accompanied by bad faith.” (Silver Organizations Ltd. v. Frank¿(1990) 217 Cal.App.3d 94, 98–99.) “‘‘Bad faith,’ is defined as ‘[t]he opposite of ‘good faith,’ generally implying or involving actual or constructive fraud, or a design to mislead or deceive another, or a neglect or refusal to fulfill some duty or some contractual obligation, not prompted by an honest mistake . . ., but by some interested or sinister motive[,] . . . not simply bad judgment or negligence, but rather . . . the conscious doing of a wrong because of dishonest purpose or moral obliquity; . . . it contemplates a state of mind affirmatively operating with furtive design or ill will. (Id. at 100.)¿ 

California 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.)¿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].)¿ 

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff asserts that in April 2023, she discovered that she inadvertently and mistakenly did not include a cause of action for Government Code section 815.2. which allows a public entity to be liable for the act or omission of a public employee. Without this cause of action, Plaintiff argues she will not be able to litigate the matter. Plaintiff’s counsel declares that as soon as the mistake was realized, she attempted to file a second amended complaint which was rejected. Then, on May 15, 2023, Plaintiff attempted to file again with a stipulation but was rejected and instructed to file this motion. Plaintiff did not file this motion until August 28, 2023.

It appears Plaintiff has complied with the California Rules of Court rule 3.1324. The Court finds that Plaintiff has not acted in bad faith regarding this matter. To avoid a forfeiture of Plaintiff’s cause of action, the Court grants Plaintiff leave to file a second amended complaint.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a second amended complaint is GRANTED. Plaintiff shall file and serve the second amended complaint within ten (10) days.

Plaintiff shall provide notice of the Court’s order and shall file a proof of service of such.