Judge: Christopher K. Lui, Case: 20STCV45139, Date: 2025-05-13 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 20STCV45139 Hearing Date: May 13, 2025 Dept: 76
Plaintiff
alleges that he suffered retaliation for voicing safety concerns at various
worksites involving the operation of heavy machinery.
Defendant
Jessie Contreras moves for leave to amend the answer.
TENTATIVE RULING
Defendant Jessie Contreras’ motion
for leave to file a First Amended Answer is GRANTED. Defendant is to file a
stand-alone copy of the First Amended Answer today, which is deemed served as
of the date of this order.
ANALYSIS
Motion For Leave
To Amend Answer
Defendant
Jessie Contreras moves for leave to amend the answer to add an affirmative
defense based on the Government Claims Act statute of limitations (Gov. Code §§
911.2 et seq., 911.4, et seq., and 945.6..
Cal. Rules of Court 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, a redlined
version of the proposed amended answer is attached to the Declaration of
Jacqueline Wade as Exh. A.
The Wade Declaration
sufficiently complies with Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1324(b). In short,
after substituting into this case, counsel discovered that prior counsel failed
to assert the statute of limitations defense.
Trial is currently set for September 8, 2025, but the statute of limitations defense has
been asserted by co-Defendants. As there does not appear to be any prejudice to
Plaintiff in granting leave to asset the new affirmative defense of which
Plaintiff is already aware. Plaintiff did not file any opposition to
demonstrate such.
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].)
The motion for leave
to file a First Amended Answer is GRANTED.
Defendant is to file a stand-alone copy of
the First Amended Answer today, which is deemed served as of the date of this
order.