Judge: Anne Hwang, Case: 22STCV29766, Date: 2024-07-10 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV29766    Hearing Date: July 10, 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 September 13, 2022, Plaintiff Robert Hulett (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendants Vons, Vons Supermarket Company, Novolex Corporation, Hilex Corporation, and Does 1 to 100 for negligence, premises liability, and products liability.

The products liability cause of action alleged the defective product was a reusable plastic bag, and was asserted against Novolex Corporation, Hilex Corporation, and Does 1 to 100 (and not against Vons).

On June 4, 2024, Plaintiff filed the instant motion for leave to file a first amended complaint in order to assert the products liability cause of action against Hilex Poly Co., LLC, The Vons Companies, Inc., and Does 1 to 100. Defendant The Vons Companies, Inc. (“Vons”) opposes. No reply has been filed.

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].)

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

As an initial matter, the procedural requirements are not met because the declaration in support does not state when the facts giving rise to the amended allegations were discovered, and the reasons why the request was not made earlier. The declaration only states that the omission was discovered “recently”. (Chambers Decl. ¶ 5.) Additionally, the motion does not state by page, paragraph, and line number, the deletions or additions. However, Plaintiff has attached the proposed amended complaint. (Chambers Decl., Exh. A.)

Plaintiff argues this amendment will add Vons to the products liability cause of action, since Vons sold the product at issue: a reusable bag.

In opposition, Vons notes this incident occurred on October 2, 2020, the complaint was filed on September 13, 2022, and argues Plaintiff has not sufficiently explained the reason for the delay in seeking this amendment. Vons also asserts that throughout discovery in this case, Plaintiff has only asserted that he tripped over a parking stop in front of the store. While the complaint alleges a reusable bag for products liability, Vons states Plaintiff has never alleged facts that he tripped because his reusable bag broke, until May 28, 2024. (Macksoud Decl. ¶ 5.) Vons provides Plaintiff’s response to its Special Interrogatories number 5 which asked, “Describe with as much factual specificity (including names, dates, times and location) as You can, how the Incident occurred.” (Macksoud Decl., Exh. A, SROG # 5.) In the response served February 3, 2023, Plaintiff uses language similar to the complaint but only alleges the defective condition as a parking stop. Nowhere does he allege a defect with a reusable bag. (See id., Exh. B, SROG #5.)

 Vons argues it will be prejudiced because it has not conducted discovery on this matter and trial is set for July 10, 2024.[1] If the Court is inclined to grant the amendment, Vons requests a continuance of trial to February-March 2025.

Based on the above, the Court finds that Plaintiff has not provided sufficient reasons why this amendment was not sought earlier. Additionally, the delay in bringing this amendment will result in prejudice to Vons since trial is scheduled in less than two weeks and discovery is closed. Plaintiff has not filed a reply and fails to dispute Vons’ contentions or show why it did not present facts in discovery about the reusable bag’s role in the incident. “Unexplained delays in seeking leave to amend is a valid reason to deny amendment.” (Doe v. Los Angeles County Dept. of Children & Family Services (2019) 37 Cal.App.5th 675, 689.)

Therefore, the motion for leave to amend is denied.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint is denied.

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