Judge: Audra Mori, Case: 20STCV24052, Date: 2022-12-07 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV24052    Hearing Date: December 7, 2022    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

1. Background Facts

Plaintiff Shi Biao Hu (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendant Jorge Ochoa (“Defendant”) for damages arising out of a motor vehicle accident.  The complaint, filed on Judicial Council form PLD-PI-001, alleges a single cause of action for motor vehicle negligence.  Trial is currently set for August 22, 2023.

At this time, Plaintiff seeks leave to file a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) on a non-Judicial Council pleading paper with three additional causes of action and to request punitive damages against Defendant.[1]  Defendant opposes the motion, and Plaintiff filed a reply.  

2. Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint

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.

Additionally, 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 the proposed FAC concerns the same accident and claims, but Plaintiff seeks to allege three additional causes of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress, assault, and battery and to add a prayer for punitive damages.  Plaintiff asserts the proposed FAC is based on Defendant’s deposition testimony taken on August 8, 2022, which Plaintiff contends provides clear and convincing evidence of malicious and oppressive conduct by Defendant.  Plaintiff contends that Defendant will not be prejudiced from the proposed amendments. 

In opposition, Defendant contends that Plaintiff cannot point to any new facts learned during Defendant’s August 2022 deposition, so Plaintiff cannot show any facts that were recently discovered that justify the FAC.  Defendant argues Plaintiff delayed in seeking leave to amend, and that this warrants denying the motion. 

In reply, Plaintiff again contends that there is no prejudice to Defendant, as Plaintiff previously obtained a trial continuance to allow Plaintiff to seek leave to file the proposed FAC. 

Plaintiff provides that the proposed FAC does not delete any essential allegations from the original complaint, and instead it changes the form and adds the three proposed intentional tort claims.  (Mot. Hoffman Decl. ¶ 3.)  Plaintiff specifies that based on Defendant’s deposition testimony taken on August 8, 2022, Plaintiff believes there is evidence that Defendant acted with malice and oppression at the time of the incident and contends the effect of the amendment is to provide more coverage for Plaintiff’s claim and damages.  Further, Plaintiff asserts that based on Defendant’s written discovery responses, Plaintiff did not seek Defendant’s deposition during the Covid-19 pandemic, but once Defendant’s deposition was taken, Plaintiff promptly sought leave to file the FAC. 

While Defendant disputes that Plaintiff discovered the relevant facts that warrant filing the FAC during Defendant’s deposition, Defendant must show both unreasonable delay and prejudice to warrant denying Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend.  Defendant does not argue or show that he will be prejudiced if Plaintiff is permitted leave to file the FAC.  Moreover, Plaintiff provides that the claims are based on the same underlying accident and Defendant’s conduct.  Additionally, given trial is currently set for August 22, 2023, Defendant will have sufficient time to conduct any necessary discovery as to the additional claims in the FAC.  Furthermore, the Court cannot say as a matter of law that Plaintiff’s proposed FAC fails to state a claim as a matter of law, nor will the Court consider the validity of such at this time.  (See California Casualty General Ins. Co., 173 Cal.App.3d at 281.)

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend is granted.  Plaintiff must file a separate copy of the First Amendment Complaint within ten (10) days.  Plaintiff is ordered to serve Defendant pursuant to Code. 

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 7^th day of December 2022