Judge: Cherol J. Nellon, Case: 21STCV43491, Date: 2023-04-12 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 21STCV43491 Hearing Date: April 12, 2023 Dept: 28
Motion for Leave to Amend Answer
Having considered the moving papers, the Court rules as
follows. No opposing papers were filed.
BACKGROUND
This action arises from an automobile accident that occurred
on or about January 26, 2021. On November 29, 2021, Plaintiff Jesus Adrian
Carrizoza (“Plaintiff”) brought this action against Defendant Joshua Hills
Harrison (“Defendant”) for negligence.
On December 1, 2022, Defendant filed
an Answer.
On March 16, 2023, Defendant filed
this motion for leave to file a First Amended Answer pursuant to section 473 to
add a fifth affirmative defense. No opposition has been filed.
Trial is set for November 29, 2023.
PARTY’S
REQUESTS
Defendant requests leave to file a First Amended Answer to include
a fifth affirmative defense for Civil Code section 3333.4(a)(2) and (3), which
limits the damages by uninsured vehicle owners and operators.
LEGAL STANDARD
Under California Rules of Court Rule, rule 3.1324,
subdivision (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,
subdivision (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.
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.)
DISCUSSION
In response to Form Interrogatories
served upon Plaintiff, Plaintiff did not disclose that he had any automobile
insurance and answered that he was not self-insured. (Capra-Cunningham Decl. ¶
5.) After reviewing these responses, Defendant now seeks to add a fifth affirmative
defense for Civil Code section 3333.4(a)(2)
and (3), which limits the damages by uninsured vehicle owners and operators. This
is the only proposed change to the Answer.
Defendant has complied with the
California Rules of Court requirements. The Court finds that it is in the
interest of justice to allow the filing of the proposed First Amended Answer.
CONCLUSION
The motion for leave to file a First
Amended Answer is GRANTED.
Defendant Joshua Hills Harrison is
ordered to file and serve the First Amended Answer that is attached within five
days of this ruling.
Defendant Joshua Hills Harrison is
ordered to give notice of this ruling.
Defendant
Joshua Hills Harrison is ordered to file the proof of service of this ruling with the
Court within five days.
The parties
are directed to the header of this tentative ruling for further instructions.