Judge: David B. Gelfound, Case: 24CHCV01287, Date: 2025-01-21 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24CHCV01287    Hearing Date: January 21, 2025    Dept: F49

LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT

NORTH VALLEY DISTRICT

DEPARTMENT F49

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Motion filed: 10/31/24

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Ny’Kol Turner

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant Magic Mountain, LLC

NOTICE: OK.

RELIEF REQUESTED: An order granting Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint.

TENTATIVE RULING: The motion is granted.

BACKGROUND

            This action arises from alleged personal injuries sustained by Plaintiff while riding a roller coaster at Defendant’s amusement park in Valencia, California.

On April 11, 2024, Plaintiff Ny’Kol Turner (“Plaintiff” or “Turner”) filed a Complaint against Defendant Magic Mountain, LLC (“Defendant” or “Magic Mountain”) and Does 1 through 10, alleging a single cause of action for Negligence (Common Carrier). Subsequently, on May 15, 2024, Magic Mountain filed its Answer to the Complaint.

            On October 31, 2024, Turner filed the instant Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint (the “Motion”). Subsequently, Magic Mountain filed its Opposition on January 7, 2025, and Turner submitted a Reply on January 13, 2025.

ANALYSIS

Code of Civil Procedure section 473 subdivision (a) permits the court to grant leave to a party to amend a pleading. The court’s discretion regarding granting leave to amend is usually exercised liberally to permit amendment of pleadings. (Nestle v. Santa Monica (1972) 6 Cal.3d 920, 939.) “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.) Courts may grant a motion to amend as late as the time of trial and even postpone the trial if necessary to further the interest of justice. (Honig v. Financial Corp. of America (1992) 6 Cal. App. 4th 960, 965.) But despite the general policy of liberality in allowing amendments, it is proper and within the discretion of the trial court to deny leave to file a proposed amendment unless the proponent of the amendment can show the amendment will not be prejudicial to other parties in the action and the delay in bringing the amendment was excusable. (Melican v. Regents of University of California (2007) 151 Cal. App. 4th 168, 175.)

Under California Rules of Court rule 3.1324(a), a motion to amend a pleading shall (1) include a copy of the proposed amendment or amended pleading, which must be serially numbered to differentiate it from previous pleadings or amendments; (2) state what allegations in the previous pleading are proposed to be deleted, if any, and where, by page, paragraph and line number, the deleted allegations are located; and (3) state what allegations are proposed to be added to the previous pleading, if any, and where, by page, paragraph, and line number, the additional allegations are located. 

Additionally, a separate declaration must accompany the motion and must specify (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(b).) 

Even if a good amendment is proposed in proper form, a long, unwarranted and unexcused delay in presenting it may be a good reason for denial.  In most cases, the factors for timeliness are: (1) lack of diligence in discovering the facts or in offering the amendment after knowledge of them; and (2) the effect of the delay on the adverse party.  If the party seeking the amendment has been dilatory, and the delay has prejudiced the opposing party, the judge has discretion to deny leave to amend.  (Hirsa v. Superior Court (1981) 118 Cal.App.3d 486, 490.)  Prejudice exists where the amendment would require delaying the trial, resulting in loss of critical evidence, or added costs of preparation such as an increased burden of discovery. (Magpali v. Farmers Group, Inc. (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 471, 486-488.) However, “it seems unreasonable to deny a party the right to amend where the only apparent hardship to the defendants is that they will have to defend.” (Landis v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County (1965) 232 Cal.App.2d 548, 557.)

A.    Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint

The Motion includes both a redlined copy and a clean copy of the proposed First Amended Complaint (“FAC”). The proposed FAC seeks to refine the factual allegations of the Negligence claim and adds a second cause of action for Strict Liability (Common Carrier). Accordingly, the Court finds the Motion complies with the procedural requirements under California Rules of Court rule 3.1324(a).

Substantively, Plaintiff asserts that the amendment is necessary and proper because the Motion was filed promptly after Plaintiff’s counsel discovered new, pertinent information on October 14, 2024, just 17 days before filing the Motion. (Piccuta Decl. ¶¶ 4, 7.)

Plaintiff emphasizes that the promptness of the Motion can be inferred from the timeline. Specifically, within this 17-day period, Plaintiff’s counsel reviewed nearly 200 pages of documents produced by Defendant, sought additional related information, drafted a proposed amendment, met and conferred with Defendant’s counsel, and prepared the Motion. (Piccuta Decl. ¶¶ 4-5, 7-8, Reply at p. 2)

The newly discovered facts underpinning the amendment pertain to “Defendant’s failure to provide supplemental restraints or constraining devices” (Piccuta Decl. ¶ 7), which were “available for the ride on which Plaintiff was injured.” (Id. ¶ 5.) These allegations are material to Plaintiff’s claim and directly relevant to the issue of liability.

Based on the above declarations, the Court concludes that Plaintiff has satisfied the substantive requirement set forth in California Rules of Court rule 3.1324(b), by demonstrating both the necessity of the amendment and the promptness with which it was sought.

Furthermore, Plaintiff argues that Defendant will not be unduly prejudiced by the proposed amendment. (Mot. at pp. 2-3.)

In its Opposition, Magic Mountain contends that allowing Plaintiff to add a new cause of action will force Defendant to conduct additional fact-specific discovery to rebut such a fundamentally different legal theory. (Opp’n. at p. 6.) It estimates that the additional time and costs associated with the FAC would amount to at least $30,000.00, comprising $10,000 for additional discovery and $20,000 for filing a demurrer and a motion for summary adjudication. (Ibid.)

In response, Plaintiff reiterates that, although the new cause of action for Strict Liability (Common Carrier) constitutes a different legal theory, it is based upon the same general set of facts originally pleaded. (Reply at p. 3, Mot. at p. 4.) Plaintiff asserts that additional discovery required would be limited and not unduly burdensome.

The Court notes that it is well-established in Austin v. Massachusetts Bonding & Ins. Co. (1961) 56 Cal.2d 596 that “[t]he fact that amendment actually changes the cause of action is no longer a ground for routine rejection” [of amendment]. (Id. at p. 600.) The court said amendment is to be allowed and will relate back to overcome the bar of the statute if recovery is sought “on the same general set of facts.” (Ibid.) For purposes of amendment, the Austin decision clarified that the term “cause of action” includes any claim based on the same “general” set of facts.

Here, it is evident from the pleadings that both the original causes of action and the newly proposed causes of action in the FAC arise from the same incident. Specifically, both are based on the occurrence where Plaintiff was a passenger on the X2 ride and allegedly sustained injuries due to the lack of proper restraining or containing devices. (See FAC, ¶¶ 32-35.)

In alignment with the holding in Austin, supra, the Court finds that the proposed cause of action for Strict Liability (Common Carrier) is based on the same operative facts which give rise to the originally pleaded basic cause of action for Negligence (Common Carrier).

Moreover, the Court notes that a trial date has not been set, and ample time before trial remains to permit Defendant to prepare its defense. Defendant has not claimed a situation of loss of critical evidence or other circumstances that would create undue prejudice.

Therefore, at the current pretrial stage of the proceedings, the Court finds that additional discovery and motion practice do not constitute undue prejudice to Defendant, particularly where the only apparent hardship identified is the need to defend against the amended claims.

Lastly, the Court does not find that the proposed FAC contradicts any material admission in the original pleading or changes the basic cause of action.

Based on the foregoing, the Court GRANTS the Motion.

CONCLUSION

Plaintiff Ny’Kol Turner’s Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint is GRANTED.

Plaintiff Ny’Kol Turner is ordered to serve and file the First Amended Complaint within 5 days.

Moving party to give notice.