Judge Daniel M. Crowley, Case Number: 24STCV11411, Date: 2024-11-18 Tentative Ruling

Plaintiff Luz Maria’s motion for leave to file a first amended complaint is granted. Plaintiffs may file the proposed first amended complaint with the Court.

Moving Plaintiff and Brianna Villa (“Villa”) (collectively, Plaintiffs”) filed the operative Complaint for personal injury on May 7, 2024, alleging two causes of action against Defendants Diana Rodriguezsuastegui (“Rodriguezsuastegui”) and Jose Alquisira (“Alquisira”) (collectively, “Defendants”): (1) motor vehicle negligence; and (2) general negligence. (See Complaint.)

Moving Plaintiff filed the instant motion on August 23, 2024. Defendants filed their opposition on October 22, 2024. Moving Plaintiff filed her reply on November 5, 2024.

“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.”

Moving Plaintiff’s motion substantially complies with CRC Rule 3.1324(a). The motion includes a copy of the proposed FAC. (Decl. of Hassid ¶2, Exh. A.) Moving Plaintiff’s counsel’s declaration sets forth the allegations proposed to be added and deleted, and where, by page, paragraph, and line number. (See Decl. of Hassid ¶¶3-5.)

Moving Plaintiff’s motion substantially complies with CRC Rule 3.1324(b). Moving Plaintiff’s counsel’s declaration specifies the effect of the amendments and explains why the amendments are necessary and proper. (Decl. of Hassid ¶6.) Moving Plaintiff’s counsel asserts the proposed amendment is necessary and proper because it will “allow Destiny Maria, the real party in interest, to protect her rights and have her day in court.” (Decl. of Hassid ¶6.)

Moving Plaintiff’s counsel states when the facts giving rise to substantive amended allegations were discovered and why the request for amendment was not made earlier. Moving Plaintiff’s counsel declares, “[o]n May 7, 2024, I caused Plaintiffs’ Complaint to be filed, therein asserting claims for (a) general negligence; and (b) motor vehicle liability. Through my and my office’s inadvertence, error and mistake, I and my office inadvertently included the name of real party in interest’s mother, Luz Maria, rather than Destiny Maria.” (Decl. of Hassid ¶8.) Moving Plaintiff’s counsel declares, ““[t]his request for amendment by Motion was made as soon as reasonably practicable upon discovery of the clerical error giving rise to this amendment.” (Decl. of Hassid ¶12.)

Moving Plaintiff’s counsel declares, “I believe that [this motion is brought in] the interests of justice and of judicial efficiency, as (a) the correction is necessitated on account the undersigned counsel’s clerical error, inadvertence and mistake that was only recently discovered; (b) the amendment does not seek to add new causes of action but, rather, only corrects the complaint to name the real party in interest in this case; and, (c) does not substantively affect the claims being asserted against Defendants in this case.” (Decl. of Hassid ¶6.)

Defendants’ arguments in opposition to Moving Plaintiff’s motion are unavailing. Defendants argue that Plaintiffs’ claims are barred by the statute of limitations. (Opposition, pg. 4.) Ordinarily, a court will not consider the validity of the proposed amended pleading in deciding whether to grant leave to amend. Grounds for demurrer or motion to strike are premature. Instead, after leave to amend is granted, Defendants will have the opportunity to attack the validity of the amended pleading. (See Kittredge Sports Co. v. Superior Court (1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 1045, 1048; Atkinson v. Elk Corp. (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 739, 760, [“the better course of action would have been to allow [plaintiff] to amend the complaint and then let the parties test its legal sufficiency in other appropriate proceedings”].)

Defendants also oppose Moving Plaintiff’s motion on the basis that Moving Defendant has not established that she was ignorant of Destiny Maria’s identity at the time the Complaint was filed. (Opposition, pg. 5; Stephens v. Berry (1967) 249 Cal.App.2d 474, 477.) However, Defendants’ reliance on Stephens v. Berry (1967) 249 Cal.App.2d 474 in support of this premise is misplaced. In Stephens, the plaintiffs sought to add a new defendant in lieu of a fictitiously named defendant. (Stephens, 249 Cal.App.2d at pg. 476.) It is only in the context of amendments relating to suits brought against fictitiously named parties that a Plaintiff, pursuant to C.C.P. §474, must meet their burden to demonstrate they were ignorant to the name of the defendant sued under a fictitious name. (Stephens, 249 Cal.App.2d at pg. 477.) Here, C.C.P. §474 is inapplicable because Plaintiff’s motion does not implicate amending the names of DOE defendants. Further,

when it comes to adding a new plaintiff, courts have refined the general rule: A new plaintiff’s claims relate back to claims asserted in a previously and timely filed complaint if the new plaintiff is seeking to enforce the same right as a previously named plaintiff (because, in that case, the amendment relies on the same general set of facts, involves the same injury, and refers to the same instrumentality of the defendant’s conduct). (Klopstock v. Superior Court (1941) 17 Cal.2d 13, 16-21, 108 P.2d 906 (Klopstock).

(Engel v. Pech (2023) 95 Cal.App.5th 1227, 1236-1237, as modified on denial of reh’g (Oct. 19, 2023).)

Finally, 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.)

Based on the foregoing, Moving Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend her Complaint and file the proposed FAC is granted.

Moving Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend her Complaint is granted. Moving Plaintiff may file the proposed FAC with the Court.

Hon. Daniel M. Crowley

Judge of the Superior Court