Judge: Daniel M. Crowley, Case: 20STCV29343, Date: 2023-03-10 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: 20STCV29343    Hearing Date: March 10, 2023    Dept: 28

Plaintiffs Doroteo Gonzales, Jr. and Terry Gonzales’s Motion for Leave to Amend the Complaint

Having considered the moving, opposing and reply papers, the Court rules as follows. 

BACKGROUND

On August 4, 2020, Plaintiffs Doroteo Gonzales, Jr. (“Gonzales Jr.”) and Terry Gonzales (“Gonzales”) against Defendants Kido Sports Co., LTD (“Kido”), Scorpion Sports, Inc. (“Scorpion”) and Cycle Gear, Inc. (“Cycle”) for products liability.

On July 19, 2021, Kido filed an answer.

On September 3, 2021, Cycle filed an answer and a Cross-Complaint against Cross-Defendant Kido and Scorpion for equitable indemnity, apportionment of fault, contribution and declaratory relief. On October 4, 2021, Kido filed an answer.

On November 29, 2021, the Court dismissed Cycle, with prejudice, pursuant to Plaintiff’s request. On December 22, 2021, the Court dismissed Cycle’s Cross-Complaint, without prejudice, pursuant to Cycle’s request.

On February 10, 2023, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Leave to File a First Amended Complaint to be heard on March 10, 2023.

Trial is scheduled for September 11, 2023.  

PARTY’S REQUESTS

Plaintiffs request leave to file to amend the operative complaint to add a request for punitive damages.

Kido requests the Court deny the motion.

OBJECTIONS

Kido’s Objections are all SUSTAINED.

LEGAL STANDARD

CCP §473(a) states “(1) 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.

(2) When it appears to the satisfaction of the court that the amendment renders it necessary, the court may postpone the trial, and may, when the postponement will by the amendment be rendered necessary, require, as a condition to the amendment, the payment to the adverse party of any costs as may be just.”

CCP §576 provides: “Any judge, at any time before or after commencement of trial, in the furtherance of justice, and upon such terms as may be proper, may allow the amendment of any pleading or pretrial conference order.”

In order to state a prima facie claim for punitive damages, a complaint must set forth the elements as stated in the general punitive damage statute, Civil Code Section 3294. (Coll. Hosp., Inc. v. Superior Court (1994) 8 Cal. 4th 704, 721.) These statutory elements include allegations that the defendant has been guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice. (Civ. Code § 3294 (a).) “Malice is defined in the statute as conduct intended by the defendant to cause injury to the plaintiff or despicable conduct which is carried on by the defendant with a willful and conscious disregard of the rights or safety of others." (Coll. Hosp., Inc., supra, 8 Cal. 4th at 725 [examining Civ. Code § 3294(c)(1)].)

DISCUSSION

Plaintiffs claim that, over the course of discovery, Plaintiffs have found a basis for punitive damages. Plaintiffs’ underlying claim is that Defendants produced a defective helmet that resulting in injury to Decedent during a motorcycle accident. Plaintiffs note that during discovery, they learned: 1) the injury suffered by Decedent is uncommon when wearing a proper helmet; 2) the helmet at issue is constructed to appear to comply with the Department of Transportation requirements; 3) that Defendants intentionally market their helmet in a confusing and deceptive way; 4) that no other manufacturers make a similar-model despite the popularity; 5) the helmet’s marketing is deceptive, confusing and potentially unsafe; and 6) the helmet is not approved in other countries due to safety concerns.

Plaintiffs’ amendments would not change the underlying allegations of the complaint—it would merely provide an additional avenue for awarding of damages. Punitive damages require a showing of fraud, oppression or malice. Here, Plaintiffs have alleged that Defendants knowingly provided an unsafe helmet while marketing it as safe for motorcycle use. This would provide an adequate basis for punitive damages potentially under fraud or malice. The Court finds the amendment is sufficiently pled to allow for punitive damages. It also will not unduly prejudice Defendants as the underlying basis is the same; should Defendants need additional time to conduct discovery into this issue, Kido may file a motion to continue trial.

Kido argues that Plaintiffs have been dilatory in bringing this motion. However, Plaintiffs had to conduct discovery, including the hiring of experts to review evidence, in order to bring about this motion.  It does not appear that Plaintiffs were sleeping on this amendment, but rather ensuring there was an adequate basis to make a claim for punitive damages.

The Court grants the motion.

CONCLUSION

Plaintiffs Doroteo Gonzales, Jr. and Terry Gonzales’s Motion for Leave to Amend the Complaint is GRANTED. Plaintiffs are ordered to file and serve the First Amended Complaint within 30 days of the hearing on the motion.

Moving Party 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.