Judge: Anne Hwang, Case: 23STCV08149, Date: 2024-10-29 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV08149    Hearing Date: October 29, 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

MOTION

Plaintiff Michael Pacheco (Plaintiff) filed this action against Defendants Rudy’s LA, Rudy’s LA Bar & Grill, Rodolfo Lopez, and Does 1 to 50 (collectively Defendants) for injuries Plaintiff sustained when Plaintiff was shot at Defendants’ bar.

On April 18, 2021, Plaintiff was a patron at Defendants’ bar. (Compl, ¶ 10.) While at the bar, Louis Figueroa shot Plaintiff multiple times. (Compl., ¶¶ 10, 13.) Plaintiff alleges his injuries are the direct result of Defendants’ failure to take adequate measures to protect the safety of its patrons. (Compl., ¶ 23.)

Defendants jointly filed an answer on December 8, 2023.

Plaintiff moves for leave to file a First Amended Complaint. Defendants do not oppose.

ANALYSIS

Plaintiff seeks leave to file a First Amended Complaint to add the names of two Doe parties and to change the monetary amount requested.

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.”

Here, as set forth in the Declaration of Brandon C. Roesler, Plaintiff’s counsel, Plaintiff seeks to add Josefina Lopez[1] as Doe 1, add Bitcoin Hospitality LLC, d/b/a Rudys LA as Doe 2, and to change the monetary amount requested from in excess of $25,000.00 to in excess of $35,000.00. (Declaration of Brandon C. Roesler [Roesler Decl.], ¶ 28; see Gov. Code §§ 70611, 70602.5, 70602.6.)

In May 2023, Plaintiff received Defendants’ discovery responses which revealed that Josefina Lopez (Ms. Lopez), the wife of Defendant Rudy Lopez, owns the building where Rudy’s LA is located. (Roesler Decl., ¶ 4.) The responses also revealed that Bitcoin Hospitality LLC d/b/a Rudys LA (Bitcoin), is the correct entity name for Rudy’s LA. (Motion to Amend, pg. 3:9-16; Roesler Decl., ¶ 3.)

After learning this information, Mr. Roesler and Defendants’ prior counsel came to an agreement to amend the original Complaint in a way where Ms. Lopez and Bitcoin could be properly brought into the case as Does. (Roesler Decl., ¶ 1, 8.) However, on June 20, 2024, Mr. Ensberg informed Mr. Roesler that Ms. Lopez’s insurance picked up coverage and that insurance counsel, Mr. Blanco, would be taking the case. (Roesler Decl., ¶ 9.)

In late July/early August, Mr. Roesler spoke with Mr. Blanco and emailed him the proposed amended complaint. (Roesler Decl., ¶ 13.) Mr. Blanco expressed that he wished to focus on a related matter set for trial in October 2024. (Roesler Decl., ¶ 14.) The trial was continued until February 2025. (Roesler Decl., ¶ 16.) On September 13, 2024, Mr. Roesler spoke to Mr. Blanco about mediating the case and amending the complaint to officially add Ms. Lopez because she is a required party if her insurance appointed an attorney to litigate the case. (Roesler Decl., ¶¶ 18-19.) Mr. Blanco asked for time to review, but Mr. Roesler has not heard from Mr. Blanco since their September 13, 2024 conversation. (Roesler Decl., ¶¶ 20-21.)

Defendants do not oppose this motion.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Accordingly, the Court grants the motion. Plaintiff shall file and serve the proposed First Amended Complaint within 20 days of the hearing on the motion.

Plaintiff is ordered to provide notice of the Court’s order and file a proof of service.