Judge: Daniel M. Crowley, Case: 21STCV12689, Date: 2022-10-25 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV12689    Hearing Date: October 25, 2022    Dept: 28

Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint

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

BACKGROUND

            On April 21, 2019, Jason Williams (“Plaintiff”) was operating his motorcycle on Duarte Road in Los Angeles, California, when a motor vehicle operated by David Woo (“Defendant”) negligently caused a collision which injured Plaintiff.

            On April 20, 2021, Plaintiff initiated the present action by filing a Complaint against Defendant and Does 1 through 10.  Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges a single cause of action for “Negligence/Negligence Per Se”.

            On January 10, 2022, Defendant filed an Answer.

            On January 13, 2022, a “Substitution of Attorney—Civil” was filed by Plaintiff. The “Substitution of Attorney” indicates Plaintiff will substitute Leonidas Nicol, Esq. of Quirk Law Firm into the present action as his counsel of record, replacing his former legal counsel, Burke L. Huber, Esq. of Richard Harris Law Firm.  

            On July 1, 2022, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Leave to File a First Amended Complaint.

            Trial is set for June 6, 2023.

PARTY’S REQUESTS

Plaintiff moves for an Order granting leave to file a First Amended Complaint.

LEGAL STANDARD

            Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (a) provides: “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.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 473, subd. (a)(1); see Code Civ. Proc., § 576.)

            Courts have broad discretion to permit amendments to pleadings, and “the court’s discretion will usually be exercised liberally to permit amendment of the pleadings.”  (Howard v. County of San Diego (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 1422, 1428.)  “The policy favoring amendment is so strong that it is a rare case in which denial of leave to amend can be justified.”  (Ibid.)  “If the motion to amend is timely made and the granting of the motion will not prejudice the opposing party, it is error to refuse permission to amend . . . .”   (Morgan v. Superior Court (1959) 172 Cal.App.2d 527, 530.)  Prejudice includes “delay in trial, loss of critical evidence, or added costs of preparation.”  (Solit v. Tokai Bank, Ltd. New York Branch (1999) 68 Cal.App.4th 1435, 1448.) 

            A motion to amend a pleading before trial must include a copy of the proposed amendment or amended pleading.  (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1324, subd. (a)(1).)  A motion to amend a pleading must also be supported by a declaration which specifies the following: (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, subd. (b).) 

DISCUSSION

            Plaintiff moves for an Order granting leave to permit the filing of a First Amended Complaint.  Plaintiff’s Motion remains unopposed, and the Court now considers the merits of Plaintiff’s request.

Compliance with Procedural Requirements Outlined within California Rules of Court

            The Court concludes Plaintiff has sufficiently complied with the procedural requirements outlined within California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1324.  Plaintiff has properly included a copy of the proposed First Amended Complaint as Exhibit 1 of the Declaration of Leonidas Nicol, Esq.  (Nicol Decl., ¶ 1, Ex. 1.)  Plaintiff’s Motion is, further, properly supported by the Declaration of Leonidas Nicol, Esq., which includes the four necessary averments outlined within California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1324, subdivision (b).  (Id., ¶¶ 14i.-14iv.)  Specifically, the Declaration of Leonidas Nicol, Esq. specifies the following: (1) The effect of the proposed First Amended Complaint is to remedy a factual error and mistake which was made within the original Complaint, that is, stating Plaintiff was riding a motorcycle when he, in actuality, was sitting in his vehicle when the subject collision occurred; (2) The amendment is necessary and proper in order to remedy a factual mistake in the original pleading; (3) Plaintiff’s counsel learned of this factual mistake on April 19, 2022, when Plaintiff’s counsel was newly substituted into this action; and (4) The request to file a First Amended Complaint was not made earlier because Plaintiff’s original counsel drafted the original Complaint, which includes the factual discrepancy.  (Ibid.)  Accordingly, the Court concludes Plaintiff has sufficiently complied with the procedural requirements outlined within California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1324. 

Substantive Request to File First Amended Complaint Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure

            The Court concludes Plaintiff is entitled to the relief requested, and may file the proposed First Amended Complaint, which is attached as Exhibit 1 of the Declaration of Leonidas Nicol, Esq.  (Nicol Decl., ¶ 1, Ex. 1.)  The Court observes Plaintiff moves to file the proposed First Amended Complaint for the purposes of correcting a mistake within the factual allegations of the original pleading.  Specifically, Plaintiff’s original Complaint mistakenly alleges that Defendant’s motor vehicle collided with Plaintiff while Plaintiff was riding on a motorcycle.  (Compl., ¶ 8.)  This allegation is factually incorrect as Plaintiff was, instead, sitting in his vehicle when Plaintiff’s vehicle was struck by Defendant’s motor vehicle.  (Nicol Decl., ¶ 3.)  Plaintiff’s proposed First Amended Complaint corrects this factual mistake, correctly alleging that Plaintiff “was not operating a motorcycle” at the time of the subject collision and, instead, “was an occupant” of his own motor vehicle when the subject collision occurred.  (Id., Ex. 1 at ¶ 11.)  The Court recognizes that Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (a)(1) provides this Court with the authority to permit amendment where the purpose of an amendment is to “correct[] . . . a mistake in any . . . respect”.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 473, subd. (a)(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 correcting a mistake in the name of a party, or a mistake in any other respect[.]”].)   

            Further, the Court concludes no prejudice will be suffered as a result of Plaintiff’s requested amendment.  The Court observes the trial date in this action  is eight (8) months away, and the parties have ample time to conduct discovery to explore the veracity of Plaintiff’s allegations.

            Based on the foregoing, the Court concludes Plaintiff may be permitted to file the proposed First Amended Complaint, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (a)(1).

CONCLUSION

            Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File a First Amended Complaint is GRANTED.  Plaintiff is ordered to file the proposed First Amended Complaint within twenty (20) days.

            Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

Plaintiff 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.