Judge: Daniel M. Crowley, Case: 19STCV33168, Date: 2022-12-21 Tentative Ruling

All parties are urged to meet and confer with all parties concerning this tentative ruling to see if they can reach an agreed-upon resolution of their matter.  If you are able to reach an agreement, please notify the courtroom staff in advance of the hearing if you wish to submit on the tentative ruling rather than argue the motion by notifying the court by e-mailing the court at: SSCDEPT28@lacourt.org.  Include the word "SUBMITS" in all caps and the Case Number in the Subject line.  In the body of the email, please provide the date and time of the hearing, your name, your contact information, the party you represent, and whether that party is a plaintiff, defendant, cross-complainant, cross-defendant, claimant, intervenor, or non-party, etc.

            Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may still appear at the hearing and argue the matter, and the court could change its tentative based upon the argument.  Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue.  If you submit, but still intend to appear, include the words "SUBMITS, BUT WILL APPEAR" in the Subject line.     If you elect to argue your matter, you are urged to do so remotely, via Court-Connect.
                          
            Note that once the Court has issued a tentative, the Court has the inherent authority not to allow the withdrawal of a motion and to adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the court.   
 
            If you submitted a courtesy copy of your papers containing media (such as a DVD or thumb drive), unless you request the return of the media in your papers, the court will destroy it following the hearing of your matter.  

Case Number: 19STCV33168    Hearing Date: December 21, 2022    Dept: 28

Motion for Leave to File Amended Answer

Having considered the moving papers, the Court rules as follows.  No opposing papers were filed.

BACKGROUND

            On September 18, 2019, Plaintiff Ceasar Pallares filed a complaint against Defendants Maria Salgado, Jade Moreno, and Jhovany Rojas, and Enterprise Truck Rental, alleging negligence for a motor vehicle accident occurring on September 19, 2017.

            On November 23, 2022, Defendant Jhovany Rojas (“Rojas”) filed a motion for leave to file a first amended answer.

            Trial is set for April 13, 2023.

PARTY’S REQUESTS

Defendant Rojas asks for leave to file a First Amended Answer asserting an additional affirmative defense based on the exclusive remedies doctrine.

LEGAL STANDARD

            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

            Defendant Rojas seeks to amend his answer to add an affirmative defense based on the exclusive remedies doctrine because Rojas and Rojas’ counsel recently learned facts that supported the conclusion that both Plaintiff and Rojas were acting within the scope of their employment at the time of the alleged incident. (Bozoghlian Decl. ¶ 6.) Defendant Rojas argues that the affirmative defense is significant because it would mean that workers’ compensation would be the exclusive remedy for any injury caused by Rojas. (Bozoghlian Decl. ¶ 7.)

            Defendant Rojas asserts that allowing this amendment will not prejudice Plaintiff because the issue is purely legal and no additional discovery items will be added to this litigation. Further, they argue that this addition will not delay trial because the motion is brought four months before the trial date of April 13, 2023. Plaintiff submits no opposition arguing that the amendment will delay trial or cause prejudice.  

The Court finds that there is good cause to grant the motion for leave to file an amended answer. Although the action is over two years old and discovery has been taking place, the proposed amended answer with the additional affirmative defense will likely not prejudice Plaintiff or delay trial and will assist the Court in resolving the case on the merits.

CONCLUSION

            The motion for leave to file an amended answer is GRANTED.

            Defendant Rojas is ordered to file the proposed answer within 20 days of this ruling.

            Defendant Rojas is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

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