Judge: Audra Mori, Case: 20STCV21127, Date: 2022-08-17 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV21127    Hearing Date: August 17, 2022    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

Plaintiffs Carmen Diaz Roblero and Fabiola Pascual (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed this action against defendants Lyft, Inc., et al. for damages arising from a motor vehicle accident. 

At this time, Defendant, Lyft, Inc. (“Defendant”) moves for leave to file a First Amended Answer (“FAA”) to Plaintiff’s complaint.  No opposition to the motion has been received. 

The court may, in furtherance of justice, and on such terms as may be proper, allow a party to amend any pleading.  (CCP §§ 473 and 576.)  Judicial policy favors resolution of all disputed matters between the parties and, therefore, leave to amend is generally liberally granted.  (Kittredge Sports Co. v. Superior Court (1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 1045, 1047.) The application for leave to amend should be made as soon as the need to amend is discovered.  The closer the trial date, the stronger the showing required for leave to amend.  If the party seeking the amendment has been dilatory, and the delay has prejudiced the opposing party, the court has the 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.)

Here, Defendant asserts that following discovery, and based on the available evidence, Defendant believes the facts support three affirmative defenses: (1) Negligence or Other Acts of Others; (2) Failure to Mitigate; and (3) Comparative Negligence.  Defendant avers these proposed affirmative defenses are related to the issues investigated by the parties throughout the discovery process, so Plaintiffs have notice of the defenses, and that no party will be prejudiced by their inclusion.  Additionally, Defendant avers it has not delayed in seeking leave to file the FAA. 

The motion is unopposed and granted.  Trial in this matter is current set for June 22, 2023, and thus, the parties will have sufficient time to prepare for trial. 

Defendant Lyft is ordered to file a separate copy of its FAA within five (5) days.

Moving Defendant Lyft 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 17^th day of August 2022