Judge: Audra Mori, Case: 20STCV32909, Date: 2022-08-09 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV32909    Hearing Date: August 9, 2022    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

Plaintiff Carly Mecray (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants, Eataly Century City, LLC, Westfield Century City, LLC, and Westfield, LLC for damages arising from Plaintiff’s slip and fall on defendants’ property.  On March 10, 2021, Plaintiff filed an Amendment to Complaint naming Clune Construction Company, L.P. (“Clune”) as Doe 1.  As relevant here, Clune filed an answer to Plaintiff’s complaint on April 7, 2021. 

At this time, Clune moves for leave to file a First Amended Answer (“FAA”) to Plaintiff’s complaint.  Clune filed this motion on March 29, 2022, setting it for hearing on September 20, 2022.  On June 20, 2022, the court heard and granted Clune’s ex parte application to specially set the hearing for Clune’s motion for leave to file a FAA and scheduled this motion for August 9, 2022.  Clune filed notice of the ex parte application ruling and proof of service on all parties on June 22, 2022.  The court has not received any opposition to the instant motion. 

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, Clune seeks leave to file a FAA to assert an affirmative defense of the completed and accepted doctrine.  Clune contends that newly discovered information regarding construction of stairs involved in the incident support the defense, and that no party will be prejudiced by the amendment.  Further, Clune asserts it did not delay in seeking leave to file the FAA. 

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

Clune is ordered to file a separate copy of its FAA within ten days.

Moving Defendant Clune 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 9^th day of August 2022