Judge: Audra Mori, Case: BC705881, Date: 2022-09-27 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: BC705881    Hearing Date: September 27, 2022    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

1. Background Facts

Plaintiffs Luis Mejia (“Luis”) and Teresa Mejia (“Teresa”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed this action against Defendants Sebastian Josephraj and the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Los Angeles, erroneously sued and served herein as Roman Catholic Archbishop of Los Angeles, (collectively, “Defendants”) for damages arising from a motor vehicle accident.   

At this time, Defendants seek leave to file an amended answer to assert an affirmative defense based on lack of capacity to sue.  Plaintiffs oppose the motion.  As of September 22, 2022, no reply has been received. 

Defendants assert they seek leave to assert an affirmative defense based on Luis’s lack of capacity to sue.  Defendants provide they recently learned that Luis suffered a stroke in 2021 that left him disabled and compromised his ability to understand and communicate.  Defendants contend that as of the filing of the motion, a guardian ad litem has not been appointed for Luis, so Defendants seek to assert the subject affirmative defense. 

Plaintiffs, in opposition, provide that on August 23, 2022, Teresa was appointed as Luis’s guardian ad litem in this action.  Plaintiffs argue the proposed amendment should not be permitted because the amendment is now moot since a guardian ad litem has now been appointed for Luis. 

2. Motion for Leave to File First Amended Answer

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, Defendants seek leave to file a FAA to assert an affirmative defense based on Luis’s alleged lack of capacity to sue because he had not yet had a guardian ad litem appointed when the motion was filed.  As Plaintiffs assert, a guardian ad litem, Teresa, was appointed for Luis on August 23, 2022.  Plaintiffs contend the motion is thus moot, and Defendants did not file a reply to otherwise challenge this assertion. 

Nonetheless, even if Defendants argued the proposed amendment was still proper, Defendants’ counsel’s declaration attached to the motion does not comply with California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1324(b).  Defense counsel’s declaration does not specify the effect of the amendment, why the amendment is necessary and proper, and why the request for amendment was not made earlier. 

Additionally, trial in this matter is currently set for November 4, 2022, which is just over one month after this hearing.  Allowing Defendants to file the FAA now may result in unfair prejudice, as it may require trial to be continued so that discovery may be done on the new affirmative defense, and there is not much time to bring this matter to trial as it is more than four years old.  (See Hirsa v. Superior Court (1981) 118 Cal.App.3d 486, 490; see also Magpali v. Farmers Group, Inc. (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 471, 486-88.) 

Accordingly, Defendants’ motion for leave to file amended answer is denied.

Defendants 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 27^th day of September 2022