Judge Audra Mori, Case 19STCV41706 2023-03-07 Tentative Ruling

Plaintiff Cesar Cruz (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Teresa Montes De Oca and Robert Martinez (collectively, “Defendants”) alleging causes of action for negligence and premises liability. The complaint alleges that Plaintiff suffered a fall when he stepped on a “faulty balcony” that collapsed at Defendants’ property. (Compl. at p. 5.) Trial is currently set for September 19, 2023.

At this time, Defendants seek leave to file a First Amended Answer (“FAA”) to include the defense that Plaintiff’s claims are barred by the exclusive remedy provisions of the Workers’ Compensation Act (the “Act”). Plaintiff opposes the motion, and Defendants filed a reply.

Defendants assert that at the time of the incident, Plaintiff was an employee working within the course and scope of his employment, so Plaintiff’s claims must be brought through the workers’ compensation act. Defendants provide they first became aware of the issue with the exclusive remedy defense when Plaintiff filed his opposition to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Defendants moved for summary judgment on the grounds that Plaintiff’s claims were barred by the Act’s exclusive remedy provisions. The motion for summary judgment was denied because the exclusive remedy defense under the act was not pled as a defense in the answer. Defendants contend they inadvertently failed to plead the defense in their answer.

In opposition, Plaintiff asserts that on July 17, 2018, Plaintiff received a letter from Defendants’ insurance company indicating they were denying Plaintiff workers’ compensation benefits, and Plaintiff contends that Defendants unreasonably delayed in bringing this motion. Plaintiff argues there are no new facts, and that Defendants were aware of the exclusivity defense since this action was filed and through the discovery process. Plaintiff contends that Defendants are seeking to benefit from their own unconscionable conduct because Plaintiff filed this action after Defendants denied Plaintiff workers’ compensation benefits. Plaintiff contends he will be prejudiced if Defendants are allowed to amend their answer, and that Defendants’ motion does not comply with California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1324.

Defendants, in reply, assert that they did not unreasonably delay in filing this motion, and that Plaintiff was aware of the defense since at least April 2022. Defendants further assert that the failure to assert the defense was an excusable error, and Defendants contend there will be no prejudice to Plaintiff if the motion is granted.

CCP § 473(a)(1) provides, in relevant part: “The 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.)

Under CRC Rule 3.1324(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 CRC Rule 3.1324(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.

Even if a good amendment is proposed in proper form, a long, unwarranted and unexcused delay in presenting it may be a good reason for denial. In most cases, the factors for timeliness are: (1) lack of diligence in discovering the facts or in offering the amendment after knowledge of them; and (2) the effect of the delay on the adverse party. 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. (Hirsa v. Superior Court (1981) 118 Cal.App.3d 486, 490.) Prejudice exists where the amendment would require delaying the trial, resulting in loss of critical evidence, or added costs of preparation such as an increased burden of discovery. (Magpali v. Farmers Group, Inc. (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 471, 486-488.)

In this case, Defendants assert that after Plaintiff’s counsel took their depositions in March 2022, Defendants determined that Plaintiff’s claims were subject to the workers’ compensation exclusivity rule. Defendants then filed their motion for summary judgment on April 15, 2022. Defendants assert they were unaware of their failure to plead the Act’s exclusive remedy provisions until they were served with Plaintiff’s opposition to the summary judgment motion. Defendants state the failure to plead the defense in their answer was the result of defense counsel’s mistake, inadvertence, and excusable neglect. While Defendants were aware the Act’s exclusive remedy provisions could be relevant to their defense since April 2022, they did not become aware of their failure to plead such as a defense until September 2022. Defendants then filed the instant motion on November 23, 2022. Accordingly, there is no showing that Defendants unreasonably delayed in seeking leave to amend their answer.

Moreover, even if the Court found that Defendants delayed in seeking to amend their answer, Plaintiff must show both unreasonable delay and prejudice to warrant denying Defendants’ motion for leave to amend. Plaintiff does not dispute being aware that Defendants were asserting the defense since April 2022, and trial in this matter is currently set for September 19, 2023. Plaintiff, thus, has already had time to conduct discovery as to Defendants’ exclusive remedy defense and still has months to continue doing such discovery. Furthermore, to the extent that Plaintiff contends that the defense has been waived or is meritless, the court cannot say as a matter of law that the proposed amendments fail to state constitute a valid defense, and the Court will not consider the validity of the proposed amended pleading in ruling on the motion for leave amend. (See California Casualty General Ins. Co., 173 Cal.App.3d at 281.)

Lastly, Defendants’ motion complies with California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1324. Defendants state they discovered the need to amend their answer after being served with Plaintiff’s opposition to the summary judgment motion, and Defendants submit a copy of the proposed FAA. Defendants specify that the FAA includes the last affirmative defense for workers’ compensation exclusivity, and all other content of the answer is the same as the original. (Mot. Karayan Decl. ¶ 12.)

Accordingly, Defendants’ motion for leave to amend is granted. Defendants must file a separate copy of the First Amendment Answer within 10 days.

Hon. Audra Mori

Judge of the Superior Court