Judge: Audra Mori, Case: 21STCV11265, Date: 2023-01-24 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV11265    Hearing Date: January 24, 2023    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

1. Background

On March 24, 2021, Virginia Cruz and Gilbert Meno filed this action against Provance Roofing Services, Joshua Flood, and Craig Provance for damages arising from a motor vehicle accident.  On July 19, 2022, this matter was consolidated with Case No. 21STCV11302, which was filed by Wendy Ortiz and Noel Ortiz against Provance Roofing Services, Joshua Flood, and Craig Provance, and which arises out of the same motor vehicle accident. 

At this time, Plaintiffs Virginia Cruz and Wendy Ortiz (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) move for leave to amend their complaint.  Defendant Provance Roofing Services (“Provance Roofing”) opposes the motion, and Plaintiff filed a reply. 

Plaintiffs seek leave to amend to add a prayer for punitive damages and facts to support the prayer against Provance Roofing.  Plaintiffs assert they have discovered evidence showing that Provance Roofing forced its employees to drive while exhausted and likely to cause serious injuries.  Plaintiffs state they discovered the relevant facts supporting the punitive damages request after they deposed defendant Joshua Flood (“Flood”). 

In opposition, Provance Roofing argues that the motion is procedurally improper because the motion fails to comply with all relevant California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1324(a).  Further, Provance Roofing contends that the proposed amendment does not sufficiently support a claim for punitive damages against Provance Roofing as a corporate defendant.  Additionally, Provance Roofing asserts that Flood’s deposition testimony cannot be used against Provance Roofing because it was impermissibly taken after a valid objection was served by Provance Roofing. 

In reply, Plaintiffs assert that it is improper to challenge the validity of the proposed amendment in ruling on the instant motion for leave to amend, and that Provance Roofing’s objections to Flood’s deposition are meritless.  Plaintiffs provide that Flood was represented by his own counsel at the deposition, who did not object to Flood’s deposition being taken. 

2. Motion for Leave to Amend

a. Evidentiary Objections

            Provance Roofing submits 15 objections to Plaintiffs’ counsel’s declaration filed with the motion.  Objections 1-6 are sustained as Plaintiff’s counsel does not establish personal knowledge for the relevant statements asserted.  Objections 8-13 are sustained as the Flood’s deposition transcript speaks for itself.  Objections 7, 14 and 15 are overruled. 

b. Analysis

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, Plaintiffs’ motion does not comply with California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1324.  Plaintiffs are seeking leave to file an amended complaint, but Plaintiffs did not include a copy of a proposed first amended complaint with their motion.  (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1324(a)(1).)  Further, as Provance Roofing asserts, it is unclear whether Plaintiffs are seeking leave to amend the complaint filed in 21STCV11265, the complaint filed in 21STCV11302 or both.  While Plaintiffs provide a copy of a proposed exemplary damages attachment, (Mot. Exh. B), Plaintiffs do not specify whether the proposed attachment is the only amendment that will be made to the complaint.  Additionally, Plaintiffs’ counsel’s declaration does not specify why the request for amendment was not made earlier, particularly as the deposition testimony upon which Plaintiff relies was obtained more than four months ago.  Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1324(b), a declaration with this information must be submitted with the motion for leave to amend. 

            Based on the foregoing, Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend is denied without prejudice. 

Moving Plaintiffs are 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 24^th day of January 2023