Judge: Audra Mori, Case: 22STCV01073, Date: 2022-10-28 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV01073    Hearing Date: October 28, 2022    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

1. Background Facts

On January 11, 2022, Plaintiffs Victoria Warner and Jesus Toro (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed this action against defendants Fox Rent A Car Inc. (“Fox”), Andrea De La Vega, Adam De La Vega for damages arising out of a motor vehicle accident.  Trial is currently set for July 11, 2023.

At this time, Fox seeks leave to file a First Amended Answer (“FAA”) to assert the Graves Amendment as an affirmative defense under 49 U.S.C. § 30106.  Plaintiff opposes the motion, and Fox filed a reply.

Fox filed its answer to Plaintiff’s complaint on March 30, 2022.  Fox provides it is seeking leave to amend its answer to assert the affirmative defense of the Graves Amendment, which Fox’s counsel mistakenly omitted from its initial answer.  Fox asserts that not raising the Graves Amendment was an inadvertent oversight that Fox did not realize until it was too late for Fox to amend its answer without leave.  Fox provides that it rented one of its vehicle to Andrea De La Vega, who got into an accident with Plaintiff, so Fox should be permitted to assert the Graves Amendment as an affirmative defense in this matter.  Fox attests no other changes will be made. 

In opposition, Plaintiff argues that Fox should not be allowed leave to file the FAA because Fox the defense has been deemed waived since Fox failed to assert it as an affirmative defense in its answer.  Plaintiff argues that Fox had sufficient time to ascertain Plaintiff’s allegations, and that trial is less than one year away. 

Fox, in reply, contends that amendment is appropriate even on the eve of trial, and that at the current stage of litigation, there is no prejudice to Plaintiffs in allowing Fox to file the proposed FAA.  Fox contends the issues should be decided on the merits, and that delay alone is not sufficient grounds to deny the motion.   

2. Motion for Leave to File First 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, Fox provides that due to an inadvertent oversight by defense counsel that was not realized until it was too late for Fox to amend its answer without leave of court, the Graves Amendment was not raised as an affirmative defense in Fox’s answer.  Fox now moves to file the FAA with the only change being the addition of the Graves Amendment as the 11th affirmative defense. 

In reply, Fox does not dispute delaying in seeking leave to file the FAA.  However, Plaintiffs must show both unreasonable delay and prejudice to warrant denying Fox’s motion for leave to amend.  Plaintiffs do not argue or identify any prejudice they will suffer if Fox is permitted to amend its answer to assert the Graves Amendment as an affirmative defense.  While Plaintiffs contend that trial is less than one year away, Plaintiffs fail to articulate any reasoning explaining why a trial date more than eight months away is insufficient for Plaintiffs to conduct any necessary discovery or investigation regarding this additional affirmative defense. 

Furthermore, to the extent Plaintiffs argue that the proposed affirmative defense should be deemed waived, 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.)  Plaintiffs cite to Quigley v. Garden Valley Fire Prot. Dist. (2019) 7 Cal. 5th 798 in arguing that Fox’s motion should be denied.  However, Quigley did not concern a motion for leave to amend a pleading.  Rather, Quigley addressed a written motion for nonsuit made after an opening statement at trial where the defendant invoked an immunity defense for the first time.  (Id. at 805-06.)  Moreover, the Court cannot say as a matter of law that the proposed amendment fails to state a valid defense.  

Accordingly, Fox’s motion for leave to amend is granted.  Fox must file a separate copy of its First Amendment Answer within 10 days.

Defendant Fox 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 October 2022