Judge: Christopher K. Lui, Case: 20STCV34110, Date: 2024-03-05 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 20STCV34110 Hearing Date: April 11, 2024 Dept: 76
Pursuant to California Rule of Court
3.1308(a)(1), the Court does not desire oral argument on the motion addressed
herein. Counsel must contact the staff
in Department 76 to inform the Court whether they wish to submit on the
tentative, or to argue the matter. As
required by Rule 3.1308(a), any party seeking oral argument must notify ALL
OTHER PARTIES and the staff of Department 76 of their intent to appear and
argue.
Notice to Department 76 may be sent by email to
smcdept76@lacourt.org or telephonically at 213-830-0776.
Per Rule of Court 3.1308, if notice of intention to appear is not given, the Court may adopt the tentative ruling as the final ruling.
This is an action arising out of a motor vehicle accident. Defendant Alexander was allegedly negligent in causing the accident. Defendant Tokasey allegedly defamed Plaintiffs by stating that they were committing insurance fraud and had staged the accident with Defendant Alexander.
Defendant Repwest Insurance Company and Matt Tokasey move for leave to amend their answer.
TENTATIVE RULING
Defendant Repwest Insurance Company and Matt Tokasey’s motion for leave to file an amended answer to the Second Amended Complaint is GRANTED. Defendants are to file copies of their stand-alone answers today, which are deemed to be served as of the date of this order.
ANALYSIS
Motion For Leave
To Amend Answer
Discussion
Defendant
Repwest Insurance Company and Matt Tokasey move for leave to amend their answer
to add two defenses in light of the Court’s ruling on the motion for summary
judgment/summary adjudication clarifying that the alleged defamation is the
reporting of Plaintiffs to a non-profit organization that administers a
database for suspicious claims (the National Insurance Crime Bureau (“NICB”)).
That focus raises two defenses: (1) Repwest is required to report suspicious
claims to NICB under California law (the Insurance Frauds Prevention Act) and
is insulated from liability as a result of that reporting; and (2) as such, the
common interest privilege covers statements made between Repwest and the
NICB.
CRC Rule 3.1324 provides:
(a) Contents of motion A motion to amend a pleading before trial
must:
(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.
(b) Supporting declaration 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.
(Cal.
Rules of Court, Rule 3.1324.)
Here, the motion sets
forth the proposed amendment at Pages 1:21 – 3:8. A redlined copy of each
Defendant’s proposed amended answer to the Second Amended Complaint is attached
to the Declaration of Jonathan J. Kim.
The Kim Declaration indicates
these additional defenses are necessary in light of the Court’s ruling on
Defendants’ motions for summary judgment/summary adjudication. (Kim Decl., ¶
6.) This implicitly explains when the need for amendment was discovered and why
the request to amend was not brought earlier.
Section 473 permits the trial court in its discretion to
allow amendments to pleadings in the furtherance of justice. Ordinarily, courts
should "exercise liberality" in permitting amendments at any stage of
the proceeding. (Citations omitted.) In particular, liberality
should be displayed in allowing amendments to answers, for a defendant denied
leave to amend is permanently deprived of a defense. (Citations omitted.)
"[N]evertheless, whether such an amendment shall be
allowed rests in the sound discretion of the trial court. [Citations.] And
courts are much more critical of proposed amendments to answers when offered
after long unexplained delay or on the eve of trial [citations], or where there
is a lack of diligence, or there is prejudice to the other party
(citations)." (Citation omitted.)
(Hulsey v. Koehler (1990) 218 Cal.App.3d 1150, 1159.)
Where
an additional theory of liability (or defense) is proposed, this not prejudice
which would justify the denial of leave to amend. (See Hirsa v. Superior Court (1981) 118 Cal.App.3d 486, 490;
see also Atkinson v. Elk Corp. (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 739, 761: “[I]t is irrelevant that new legal theories are introduced as long as the
proposed amendments 'relate to the same general set of facts.'
[Citation.]" [Citation omitted].)
Trial is currently set for June 3, 2024.
However, as Plaintiffs have not filed an opposition demonstrating prejudice
from the amendment, the Court does not find any prejudice exists which would
justify denial of leave to amend.
As such, the motion for leave to file an
amended answer to the Second Amended Complaint is GRANTED. Defendants are to
file copies of their stand-alone answers today, which are deemed to be served
as of the date of this order.