Judge: Audra Mori, Case: 20STCV46385, Date: 2023-02-28 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV46385    Hearing Date: February 28, 2023    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

Plaintiff Technology Insurance Company (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendant Ashley Shana Williams (“Defendant”) and Does 1 to 10 for subrogation to recover workers’ compensation benefits paid to Plaintiff’s insured’s employee.  The First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) alleges that Defendant physically assaulted the employee in the course and scope of his employment, and that Plaintiff made payments pursuant to a workers’ compensation policy.  The FAC states that Plaintiff seeks damages in the amount of $55,098.70 against Plaintiff.  Plaintiff has obtained Defendant’s default.          

At this time, Plaintiff moves to amend the FAC to change the amount sought in the prayer from $55,098.70 to $110,215.33. 

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.  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, Plaintiff asserts that after filing the FAC, Plaintiff incurred additional workers’ compensation payments, and the total amount is now $110,215.33.  Plaintiff seeks leave to file the proposed Second Amended Complaint to allege the correct damages amount sought.  To date, Defendant has not appeared in the action, and thus, there is no showing of any prejudice by allowing Plaintiff to amend the FAC. 

The motion is unopposed and granted. 

Plaintiff’s proposed Second Amended Complaint filed on January 13, 2023, is deemed filed on this date.  Plaintiff is ordered to serve Defendant in compliance with the 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 28^th day of February 2023