Judge: Christopher K. Lui, Case: 22STCV38689, Date: 2024-07-02 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV38689 Hearing Date: July 2, 2024 Dept: 76
Defendant Los Angeles
Unified School District’s motion to file a First Amended Answer to the First
Amended Complaint 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 Los Angeles Unified
School District moves to file a First Amended Answer to the First Amended
Complaint.
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.)
Defendant seeks to add three defenses asserting: 1. Defendant is not liable for any claim of injury, accident, illness, or death occurring during or by reason of a field trip or excursion pursuant to Cal. Ed. Code § 35330(d), 2. damages suffered by Plaintiff, if any, occurred as the result of the unforeseeable intentional acts of Plaintiff. Defendant had no reason to anticipate Plaintiff’s acts, and 3. pursuant to California Education Code § 44808, Defendant is not liable or in any way responsible for any alleged events which did not occur on Defendant’s property, as Defendant did not make a specific undertaking as defined by law.
Here, the motion sets forth the proposed amendments at Page 4. A copy of the proposed amended answer is attached to the Declaration of Ramon Quintana as Exhibit A.
The Quintana Declaration does not explain when the facts giving rise to the amended defenses were discovered, and the reasons why the request for amendment was not made earlier. (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1324.) However, the Quintana Declaration refers to “ongoing legal and factual research into the case.” (Quntana Decl., ¶ 2.) Because the amendments sought are to affirmative defenses, the Court will be more lenient, and infer that counsel came to a belated realization that the proposed defenses were appropriate. Because trial is currently set for April 1, 2025, there does not appear to be any prejudice to Plaintiff in granting leave to asset the new affirmative defenses. 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.