Judge Daniel M. Crowley, Case Number: 22STCV27975, Date: 2024-04-11 Tentative Ruling

Plaintiffs Jyla Elsa Corral’s, Jonaven Hess Corral’s, Jazlyn Leilani Corral’s, Jayven Cali Corral’s, and Jocelyn Gianna Corral’s, individually and as successors in interest to Heather Susy Garcia, by and through their Guardian Ad Litem Rafael Corral’s unopposed motion for leave to file a first amended complaint is granted. Plaintiffs may file the proposed first amended complaint with the Court.

Plaintiffs filed their Complaint on August 26, 2022, alleging three causes of action: (1) negligence; (2) strict products liability; and (3) wrongful death, arising from the death of their mother as a passenger in a van who fell out of the subject vehicle when the vehicle’s front door failed. (See Complaint ¶¶3, 12-13.)

Plaintiff filed the instant motion on December 18, 2023. As of the date of this hearing no opposition has been filed.

“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.”

Plaintiffs’ motion substantially complies with CRC Rule 3.1324(a). The motion includes a copy of the proposed FAC. (Decl. of Torres ¶9, Exh. 1.) Plaintiffs’ motion sets forth the allegations proposed to be added and deleted, and where, by page, paragraph, and line number. (Motion pgs. 4-5.)

Plaintiffs’ motion substantially complies with CRC Rule 3.1324(b). Plaintiffs 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 Torres ¶¶5, 8.) Plaintiffs asserts the amendments are necessary because they learned upon the filing of various cross-complaints that Westinghouse Air Brake Technologies Corporation was the entity which designed, manufactured and/or sole the defective door system installed on the Subject Vehicle. (Decl. of Torres ¶5.) Plaintiffs asserts the proposed FAC does not add any new causes of action but clarifies the allegations against Westinghouse Air Brake Technologies Corporation as Doe 8. (Motion, pg. 4.)

Plaintiff’s counsel states when the facts giving rise of the amended allegations were discovered and why the request for amendment was not made earlier. Plaintiff’s counsel declares, “It was only upon the filing of cross-complaints by various defendants in this action against Westinghouse Air Brake Technologies Corporation in May and June 2023 that Plaintiffs learned that Westinghouse Air Brake Technologies Corporation was the entity which designed, manufactured and/or sole the defective door system installed on the party van. As such Plaintiffs added Westinghouse Air Brake Technologies Corporation as Doe 8 as October 5, 2023, and served it with the Summons and Complaint on October 31, 2023.” (Decl. of Torres ¶5.)

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file a FAC is granted.

Plaintiffs’ unopposed motion for leave to amend its Complaint is granted. Plaintiffs are to file the proposed FAC with the Court within 7 days of this order.

Hon. Daniel M. Crowley

Judge of the Superior Court