Judge: Audra Mori, Case: 20STCV47594, Date: 2022-12-09 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV47594    Hearing Date: December 9, 2022    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

1. Background Facts

On December 11, 2020, Plaintiff Mone Sandhu (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against defendants City of Long Beach (the “City”), Naples Improvement Association, and Does 1 through 25 for damages arising out of trip and fall on a sidewalk.  The operative First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) alleges that he was walking on the sidewalk “when he tripped as a result of stakes and plastic edging protruding from the ground” and fell.  (FAC ¶ 6.)  The FAC alleges causes of action for (1) dangerous condition of public property against the City, (2) negligence against NIA, and (3) premises liability against NIA.  The City has filed a cross-complaint against NIA, Michael Martinez, and Barbara Martinez.  Michael Martinez and Barbara Martinez have filed a cross-complaint against NIA and the City. 

At this time, Plaintiff seeks leave to file a Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) to add Michael Martinez and Barbara Martinez (the “Martinezes”) as named defendants.  The Martinezes oppose the motion, and Plaintiff filed a reply. 

Plaintiff asserts that the Martinezes have actively participated in this action since being named as cross-defendants in the City’s cross-complaint, and that after the Martinezes provided Plaintiff with a survey performed of the Martinezes’ property, Plaintiff determined that it did not conclusively establish that the Martinezes did not own the property where the incident occurred.  Plaintiff now seeks to add the Martinezes as named defendants, and contends it is in the interest of justice to permit the amendment.  Plaintiff argues that the Martinezes will not be prejudiced by the SAC, and that the SAC is not barred by the statute of limitations. 

In opposition, the Martinezes argue that Plaintiff has delayed in making this motion for more than three years after the incident, and after settling his action with NIA.  The Martinezes contend that Plaintiff has been given evidence showing the incident did not occur on their property, and the Martinezes argue that the SAC is barred by the statute of limitations since Plaintiff waited over two years after the occurrence of the incident to bring this motion. 

Plaintiff, in reply, contends that even if he has delayed in seeking leave to file the SAC, the Martinezes fail to show that they will be prejudiced if Plaintiff is given leave to file the SAC.  Plaintiff asserts that the Martinezes have participated in the action, that trial is almost five months away, that no new legal theory is being added, and again contends that the SAC is timely. 

2. Motion for Leave to File Second 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.

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 provides that after being provided with a survey by the Martinezes of their property, Plaintiff determined that it did not conclusively establish that the City had an easement where the incident occurred.  Plaintiff avers there are thus questions about the ownership and control of the subject location.  Plaintiff seeks to add the Martinezes as named defendants in the SAC and argues that the amendments are necessary and in the furtherance of justice in order to determine who controlled the portion of the property where the incident occurred. 

The Martinezes contend that Plaintiff delayed in seeking to file the SAC and name them as defendants because they have been cross-defendants in this action since February 10, 2021.  However, even if it was determined that Plaintiff delayed in seeking leave to file the SAC, the Martinezes must show both unreasonable delay and prejudice to warrant denying Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend.  The Martinezes do not argue or show that they will be prejudiced if Plaintiff is permitted to file the SAC.  Further, the Martinezes do not deny actively participating in this action since being named cross-defendants, including participating in Plaintiff’s deposition and responding to written discovery propounded by Plaintiff.  Additionally, Plaintiff avers the SAC is not adding any new legal theories against the Martinezes, and trial is currently set for April 26, 2023, such that the Martinezes will have sufficient time to conduct any additional discovery they deem necessary before trial.  To the extent the parties dispute that the SAC is barred by the statute of limitations, the Court will not consider the validity of Plaintiff’s claims 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 Second Amendment Complaint within ten (10) days.  Plaintiff is ordered to serve the parties pursuant to Code. 

Plaintiff is ordered to give notice.

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE:

·       The Court is not available to hear oral argument on this date.  If the parties do not submit on the tentative and want oral argument, the hearing will have to be continued, and the parties must work with the clerk to find an available date for the continuance.

• 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 December 2022