Judge: Audra Mori, Case: 20STCV13556, Date: 2022-09-12 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV13556    Hearing Date: September 12, 2022    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

1. Background

Plaintiff Shirley Wang (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Nicholas Scott Stone and Uber Technologies Inc. for damages arising out of a motor vehicle accident.  This action has been consolidated with Case No. 20STCV26534.

At this time, Plaintiff moves to amend the complaint to include allegations regarding common carrier liability.  No opposition has been received.     

2. Motion for Leave to Amend

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, Plaintiff asserts that the factual allegations in the proposed First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) are not being changed, and that the only addition is the inclusion of the common carrier language to the negligence cause of action asserted in the complaint.

However, Plaintiff’s motion does not comply with California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1324(a), as Plaintiff does not state where, by page, paragraph, and line number, the additional allegations are located.  The Court notes that the complaint consists of 19 paragraphs of allegations, while the proposed FAC contains 34 paragraphs.  While Plaintiff asserts that only language regarding Uber’s status as a common carrier is being added, it is unclear what additional allegations are being inserted in the FAC.  Furthermore, Plaintiff did not submit a declaration as required by California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1324(b) stating why the amendment is necessary and proper, when the facts giving rise to the amended allegations were discovered, and the reasons why the request for the amendment was not made earlier. 

Moreover, trial in this action is currently set for November 14, 2022, which is about two months after the hearing on this matter.  While Plaintiff seems to acknowledge that proximity of trial is an issue, the impact of the amendment on the trial is unclear.   

            Therefore, the motion for leave to amend is denied without prejudice.  If the request is unopposed, the parties should meet and confer about a stipulation to address this matter.

Plaintiff is ordered to give notice. 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE:

• Parties are encouraged to meet and confer after reading this tentative ruling to see if they can reach an agreement.
• If a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the court at sscdept31@lacourt.org with the Subject line “SUBMIT” followed by the case number.  The body of the email must include the hearing date and time, counsel’s contact information, and the identity of the party submitting.  
• Unless all parties submit by email to this tentative ruling, the parties should arrange to appear remotely (encouraged) or in person for oral argument.  You should assume that others may appear at the hearing to argue.  
• If the parties neither submit nor appear at hearing, the Court may take the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.  After the Court has issued a tentative ruling, the Court may prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion without leave. 

Dated this 12^th day of September 2022