Judge: Cherol J. Nellon, Case: 19STCV47006, Date: 2023-04-24 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19STCV47006    Hearing Date: April 24, 2023    Dept: 28

Motion for Leave to File a First Amended Answer to Complaint of Plaintiff

Having considered the moving papers, opposition, and reply, the Court rules as follows.

BACKGROUND

On December 31, 2019, Plaintiff Marian Courtney Ong Lopez (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendants Miguel A. Alcaraz (erroneously sued as Miguel A. Alcaraz-Segobiano) and Pacific West Space Communications, Inc. (collectively, “Defendants”), alleging causes of action for motor vehicle negligence and general negligence.

On March 14, 2023, Defendants filed a motion for leave to file a first amended answer to the complaint of Plaintiff. Plaintiff has opposed the motion and Defendants have replied.

Trial is set for August 21, 2023.

PARTY’S REQUESTS

            Defendants seek to file a joint amended answer to the complaint to admit liability to a certain extent and withdraw some of their previously raised affirmative defenses.

LEGAL STANDARD

Leave to File First Amended Answer 

California Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (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.  (See Id. at p. 1048.)  The court, however, does have discretion to deny leave to amend where a proposed amendment fails to state a valid defense 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 California Rules of Court 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 California Rule of Court 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.) 

DISCUSSION

            The Court finds in Defendants’ favor and will grant the motion for leave to file a first amended answer to the complaint of Plaintiff. Defendants have provided a copy of the proposed first amended answer to the motion with the proposed additions and deletions per California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1324(a). (CRC Rule 3.1324(a).) Defendants have also attached a declaration attesting to the effect of the proposed amendments and why the proposed amendments are necessary and proper per California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1324(b). (Id., Rule 3.1324(b).) The Court does note, however, that the declaration does not indicate when the facts giving rise to the amended pleading were discovered or the reasons why the request for amendment was not made earlier. (Id.) Nevertheless, considering the liberal policy permitting amendments, the Court finds that Defendants have complied sufficiently with Rule 3.1324 to permit amending their answer to the complaint.

            Plaintiff’s opposition to the motion is not well taken. Plaintiff cites to virtually no legal authority to support her arguments and the one statue she does reference, Code of Civil Procedure section 473(a), does not limit amendments of pleadings to correcting mistakes. (CCP § 473(a) [“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.”].)

Moreover, it is unclear what prejudice Plaintiff will suffer here, if any. This case has been pending for more than three years and the parties have had plenty of time to conduct discovery. Trial is currently set for approximately four months from now, so the parties still have time to conduct discovery if necessary.[1] (Minute Order (1/17/2023). The proposed amended answer does not add any new affirmative defenses or issues to be addressed at trial. In fact, it specifically removes a number of affirmative defenses and will otherwise expedite trial on the issue of liability.

 Defendants have not claimed that Plaintiff would be prohibited from conducting discovery on the issues of liability and Plaintiff has not cited any legal authority indicating as much. Rather, it would help obviate the need for such discovery or at least narrow its scope. If Plaintiff wishes to conduct more discovery on Defendants regarding the issue of liability, they will certainly be free to do so until the discovery cutoff.

Additionally, there is nothing confusing about the proposed amended answer regarding the issues of liability. Defendants are offering to admit to liability but reserving the right to claim that others contributed to causing Plaintiff’s injuries. If there are no other such parties, then Defendants will have admitted to sole liability.

Therefore, the Court will grant Defendants’ motion for leave to file a first amended answer to the complaint.

CONCLUSION

Defendants’ motion for leave to file a first amended answer to the complaint of Plaintiff is GRANTED.

Defendants are ordered to give notice of this ruling and file proof of service of same within five days.

The parties are directed to the header of this tentative ruling for further instructions.