Judge Bruce G. Iwasaki, Case 22STCV04775 2023-02-07 Tentative Ruling

DEPARTMENT 58

Case Name: Steve Martinez dba Agua Dulce Water Trucks & Transportation v. Southern California Gas Company et al.

Responding Party: Defendants Southern California Gas Company and the Newhall Land and Farming Company

Tentative Ruling: The Motion for Leave to File the First Amended Complaint is granted. Plaintiff is ordered to file his First Amended Complaint within 10 days.

This is a negligence case. On February 8, 2022, Steve Martinez, doing business as Agua Dulce Water Trucks and Transportation (Plaintiff) sued Defendants Southern California Gas Company (SoCalGas), Goldie Productions LLC, and the Newhall Land and Farming Company for a single count of negligence involving a sinkhole.

In May 2021, Defendant Goldie Productions LLC hired Plaintiff’s company to transport water to its filming location at a ranch owned by Newhall Land and Farming Company. When Plaintiff’s driver entered the ranch, the truck dropped into a sinkhole that was adjacent to a SoCalGas gas line, causing extensive damage. One year after Plaintiff’s complaint, SoCalGas filed a Cross-complaint against Newhall Land and Farm Company for indemnity, apportionment of fault, declaratory relief, and comparative negligence.

Plaintiff now moves for leave to file his First Amended Complaint. He seeks to add in two defendants, Five Point Holdings, LLC and Barnard Construction Company Inc., and numerous causes of action: premises liability, breach of fiduciary duty, promissory estoppel, fraud, constructive fraud, and violation of Public Utilities Code section 2106.

Plaintiff states that he recently obtained a copy of the “Trench Mediation Completion Summary” report during discovery. The report reveals that Barnard Construction may have assisted with the construction of the gas line and that Five Point Holdings is the parent company of Defendant Newhall Land and Farming Company.

Defendant SoCalGas opposes the motion for leave to file a first amended complaint. It argues that Plaintiff unduly delayed in bringing the motion, there is no basis for the new claims, and the amendment will result in the filing of additional motions. Defendant Newhall Land and Farming Company joined in the opposition.

Plaintiff replied to the opposition, contending that the claims are based on the same set of facts in the original Complaint.

Given the law’s liberality in allowing amendment and Defendants’ failure to show any prejudice, the Court grants the motion for leave to file the First Amended Complaint. It is premature to rule on the sufficiency of the new causes of action.

The court may, in furtherance of justice, allow a party to amend any pleading upon any terms as may be proper. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 473, subd. (a), 576.) Courts liberally grant leave to amend based on a strong policy favoring resolution of all disputes between parties in the same case. (Nestle v. Santa Monica (1972) 6 Cal.3d 920, 939; Morgan v. Superior Court (1959) 172 Cal.App.2d 527, 530.) Thus, requests for leave to amend generally will be granted unless the party seeking to amend has been dilatory in bringing the proposed amendment, and the delay will cause prejudice to the opposing party if leave to amend is permitted. (Hirsa v. Superior Court (1981) 118 Cal.App.3d 486, 490; see also Armenta ex rel. City of Burbank (2006) 142 Cal.App.4th 636, 642 [“instances justifying the court’s denial of leave to amend are rare.”].) Absent prejudice, delay alone is insufficient to deny leave to amend. (Higgins v. Del Faro (1981) 123 Cal.App.3d 558, 564-565.)

A party requesting leave to amend must state what allegations in the previous pleading are proposed to be deleted and added, as well as specify where, by page, paragraph, and line number, the changes are located. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1324(a)(1)-(3).) The moving party must also attach the proposed amended pleading with a declaration by counsel, describing (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) why the request was not made earlier. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1324(b)(1)-(4).)

Plaintiff has complied with the Rules of Court. The motion for leave attaches a copy of the proposed First Amended Complaint, and counsel indicates the proposed changes. (Motion, pp.6-7.) Counsel’s declaration in support of the motion for leave describes the newly discovered facts. He avers that two reports were produced to Plaintiff – one in June 2022 in which the Barnard Construction Company investigated the sinkhole (First Report) and in November 2022, potentially implicating that all Defendants had knowledge of other sinkholes around the ranch (Second Report). (Gomez Decl., ¶¶ 11, 14-15.) After the First Report, Plaintiff requested stipulation from the Defendants to file his First Amended Complaint, which they declined. (Id. at ¶ 13.) Shortly after receipt of the Second Report, Plaintiff requested leave to amend his Complaint. (Id. at ¶ 16.)

Defendant’s argument that the motion is untimely as being filed a year after the initial complaint is unavailing. This overlooks the fact that Plaintiff did not receive the Second Report until November 2022. Even if the delay is unreasonable, this alone is insufficient to deny leave to amend if Defendants suffer no prejudice. (See Kittredge Sports Co. v. Superior Court (1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 1045, 1048 [“Even if [there was unreasonable delay], it is an abuse of discretion to deny leave to amend where the opposing party was not misled or prejudiced by the amendment”]; Morgan v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County, supra, 172 Cal.App.2d at p. 530 [“If the motion to amend is timely made and the granting of the motion will not prejudice the opposing party, it is error to refuse permission to amend and where the refusal also results in a party being deprived of the right to assert a meritorious cause of action or a meritorious defense, it is not only error but an abuse of discretion”].) Defendant’s cited case of Roemer v. Retail Credit Co. (1975) 44 Cal.App.3d 926, 938 is inapposite because that involved a request to amend an answer at trial, just prior to the court providing instructions to the jury.

The only other arguments that Defendant presents is addressed to the merits of the causes of action. For example, it argues that there are no facts pled to support a claim of fraud or punitive damages.

It is true that a court may deny leave to amend the complaint if the proposed amendment “ ‘is insufficient to state a cause of action.’ ” (Congleton v. National Union Fire Insurance Co. (1987) 189 Cal.App.3d 51, 62 [quoting Witkin].) However, such denial is proper only if the insufficiency cannot be cured by further amendment, e.g., if the statute of limitations has expired, or the “insufficiency of the proposed amendment is established by controlling precedent.” (California Casualty General Insurance Co. v. Superior Court (1985) 173 Cal.App.3d 274, 280-281, disapproved on other grounds in Kransco v. American Empire Surplus Lines Insurance Co. (2000) 23 Cal.4th 390; Foxborough v. Van Atta (1984) 26 Cal.App.4th 217, 231 [“amendment would have been futile because it was barred by the statute of limitations”].) Otherwise, a court ordinarily should not consider the merits of the proposed amendment and “the preferable practice would be to permit the amendment and allow the parties to test its legal sufficiency by demurrer, motion for judgment on the pleadings or other appropriate proceedings.” (Kittredge Sports Co. v. Superior Court, supra, 213 Cal.App.3d at p. 1048.)

Here, Defendant has not shown that the claims are so insufficient that they should be barred. It argues that Plaintiff “failed to present any evidence that defendant willfully ignored plaintiff’s rights or safety.” (Opposition, p. 3:23-25.) But this is not a motion for summary judgment. The Court does not consider evidence at the pleading stage. Moreover, Plaintiff is alleging several theories of fraud, including concealment. Defendant’s argument does not address how the concealment allegations fail. In any event, Defendant is free to test the pleadings by filing a demurrer or other appropriate motion.

Finally, Defendant makes no argument as to how it would be prejudiced by the filing of a First Amended Complaint. An increase in “law and motion work through demurrers and/or motions to strike [and] . . . additional discovery” does not constitute prejudice.

Trial is scheduled for November 27, 2023, over nine months away. There is sufficient time for all parties to prepare for trial and discovery is still ongoing. Therefore, the Court grants Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend the Complaint. Plaintiff is ordered to file his First Amended Complaint within 10 days.