Judge Audra Mori, Case 21STCV00972 2023-02-01 Tentative Ruling

Plaintiff Danielle Hemple (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendant Bristol Farms (“Defendant”) for injuries relating to Plaintiff’s slip and fall in Defendant’ store. Plaintiff alleges that on February 3, 2019, Defendant allowed rainwater to accumulate in the front register area of its store, and that Plaintiff slipped on the wet floor as she was exiting the register area and walking towards the exit doors. The complaint alleges a single claim negligence-premises liability. Trial is currently set for February 27, 2023.

Plaintiff now moves for leave to amend the complaint to add a request for punitive damages. Defendant opposes the motion, and Plaintiff filed a reply.

Plaintiff provides that she seeks to file a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) to add a prayer for punitive damages based on Defendant's person most qualified on safety’s deposition testimony. Plaintiff provides that she obtained the deposition transcript on October 24, 2022, and that the deposition testimony confirms that Defendant ratified the conduct of the employee that exposed Plaintiff to a hazard. Plaintiff contends that the discovery warrants punitive damages, and Plaintiff argues that the proposed amendments will not cause delay or prejudice Defendant.

In opposition, Defendant argues that Plaintiff unreasonably delayed in waiting until November 2022 to file the instant motion because Plaintiff had relevant evidence concerning Defendant’s safety policy and the relevant employee’s conduct since at least September 2021. Additionally, Defendant contends that allowing Plaintiff to file the FAC would unfairly block Defendant from challenging the punitive damages request before trial, and from conducting adequate discovery regarding such. Defendant further contends that the proposed amendments are insufficient to justify an award of punitive damages. Alternatively, Defendant request a trial continuance of six months to allow it to conduct discovery and challenge the punitive damages request.

In reply, Plaintiff contends that the motion was timely made, and that Plaintiff has diligently prosecuted this case. Further, Plaintiff asserts that any claimed prejudice can be cured by continuing the trial date, which Plaintiff does not oppose.

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’s motion complies with CRC Rule 3.1324(a). Furthermore, Plaintiff asserts that Defendant's person most qualified on safety was deposed on October 7, 2022, and that the testimony was then transcribed on October 24, 2022. Plaintiff then filed this motion on November 2, 2022. Plaintiff avers that person most qualified on safety’s deposition testimony is the evidence that made it clear that punitive damages were warranted, and thus, there is no showing that Plaintiff delayed in filing this motion. Nonetheless, even if Defendant established that Plaintiff was aware of the evidence Plaintiff relies on for her punitive damages request, Defendant must show both unreasonable delay and prejudice to warrant denying Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend. Given the trial date, Defendant is correct that it will not have sufficient time to challenge the new allegations and conduct discovery on the FAC. However, the parties agree that the trial date can be continued so that Defendant can challenge FAC. The trial date will thus be continued to alleviate any prejudice to Defendant.[1] To the extent the parties dispute whether the proposed FAC sufficiently states a claim for punitive damages, the Court will not consider the validity of the proposed affirmative defenses at this time. (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 5 days. The February 27, 2023 trial date is continued to ______________ at 8:30 a.m. in Department 31 of the Spring Street Courthouse. The February 6, 2023 Final Status Conference is continued to _______________ at 10:00 a.m. in Department 31. All discovery and expert cutoff dates are to be based on the new trial date.

Hon. Audra Mori

Judge of the Superior Court

[1] Plaintiff provides the parties have committed to participating in private mediation, but the mediators that are mutually acceptable likely do not have availability for the next five months. Further, Plaintiff provides her counsel is currently engaged in trial in another matter and expert discovery has not yet been started in this action. There has only been one prior trial continuance.