Judge Daniel M. Crowley, Case Number: 22STCV17900, Date: 2023-08-29 Tentative Ruling

Cross-Complainants Jorge Bejines’, Karla Rosales Rios’, and Cecelia Rios’ motion for leave to file a first amended cross-complaint to include the vehicle owner, U-Haul Co. of California and U-Haul of Arizona is granted. Cross-Complainants may file the proposed first amended cross-complaint with the Court.

Cross-Complainants Jorge Bejines (“Jorge”), Karla Rosales Rios (“Karla”), and Cecelia Rios (“Cecelia”) (collectively, “Cross-Complainants”) move for leave to file a first amended cross-complaint (“FAXC”) to include the vehicle owner, U-Haul Co. of California, U-Haul of Arizona. (Notice of Motion, pg. 2.)

“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.” (C.C.P. §473(a)(1).)

“Trial courts are vested with the discretion to allow amendments to pleadings ‘in furtherance of justice.’ That trial courts are to liberally permit such amendments, at any stage of the proceeding, has been established policy in this state since 1901.” (Hirsa v. Superior Court (1981) 118 Cal.App.3d 486, 488-489.)

CRC Rule 3.1321(a) requires that a motion to amend must: “[i]nclude a copy of the proposed . . . amended pleading . . . [and] state what allegations in the previous pleading are proposed to be [deleted and/or added], if any, and where, by page, paragraph, and line number, the [deleted and/or additional] allegations are located.”

CRC Rule 3.1324(b) provides, as follows: “[a] separate declaration must accompany the motion and must specify: (1) [t]he effect of the amendment; (2) [w]hy the amendment is necessary and proper; (3) [w]hen the facts giving rise to the amended allegations were discovered; and (4) [t]he reasons why the request for amendment was not made earlier.”

Cross-Complainants’ motion substantially complies with CRC Rule 3.1324(a). The motion includes a copy of the proposed FAXC. (Motion, pg. 6, Exh. A.) Cross-Complainants’ motion sets forth the allegations proposed to be added against Cross-Defendants, and where, by page, paragraph, and line number, the additional allegations are located. (Motion, pgs. 6-7; CRC Rule 3.1324(a)(3).)

Cross-Complainants’ motion substantially complies with CRC Rule 3.1324(b). Cross-Complainants submitted a separate declaration of their counsel that specifies the effect of the amendments and explains why the amendments are necessary and proper. (Decl. of Alvarez ¶¶5-7.) Cross-Complainants assert the amendment is necessary because Cross-Complainants’ counsel believes that without U-Haul being brought into the Cross-Complaint, Cross-Complainants would not have the relief from the rightful party that should be held liable under law for their injuries. (Decl. of Alvarez ¶7.) Cross-Complainants’ counsel concedes that he omitted to include U-Haul as a Cross-Defendant earlier because he was more focused on defending against Plaintiff’s claim against his clients. (Decl. of Alvarez ¶4.)

U-Haul argues it will be prejudiced by this Court granting leave to amend because trial is set for September 25, 2023, and Plaintiffs’ answer to the Cross-Complaint will not even be due until after trial commences, and discovery cut-off will have long passed. (Opposition, pg. 5.) However, U-Haul is not a stranger to this lawsuit and has been aware of the subject incident arising from the damage caused by their vehicle.

Further, the policy favoring amendment is so strong that denial of leave to amend can rarely be justified: “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 and where the refusal also results in a party being deprived of the right to assert a meritorious cause of action or a meritorious defense, it is not only error but an abuse of discretion.” (Morgan v. Superior Court (1959) 172 Cal.App.2d 527, 530, emphasis added; see Mabie v. Hyatt (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 581, 596 [citing text]; Bettencourt v. Hennessy Industries, Inc. (2012) 205 Cal.App.4th 1103, 1111 [abuse of discretion to deny leave to amend when there is a “reasonable possibility” that defect can be cured].)

Based on the foregoing, Cross-Complainants’ motion for leave to file an FAXC is granted.

Cross-Complainants’ motion for leave to amend their FAXC is granted. Cross-Complainants may file the proposed the FAXC with the Court.

Hon. Daniel M. Crowley

Judge of the Superior Court