Judge: Deirdre Hill, Case: 22TRCV00672, Date: 2023-01-12 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22TRCV00672    Hearing Date: January 12, 2023    Dept: M

Hearing Date:                         January 12, 2023

Moving Parties:                      Plaintiff Tania Godfrey

Responding Party:                  None

Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint

            The court considered the moving papers.

RULING

            The motion is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

BACKGROUND

            On August 9, 2022, Tania Godfrey (self-represented) filed a complaint against Glaxo Smith Kline, LLC for general negligence and products liability.  Plaintiff alleges that she started taking the antidepressant Bupropion HCL XL 150 mg on November 9, 2021 and discontinued use on February 15, 2022.  When she was on it, her suicidal ideation increased and she attempted suicide unsuccessfully in February 2022 and was admitted to the hospital for five days.  She alleges that there was a failure on the part of defendant to sufficiently warn of generic drug’s potential side effects for adults over the age of 24 years, including increases in suicide ideation.

On September 20, 2022, plaintiff filed an amendment designating Slate Run Pharmaceuticals LLC as Doe 1.

On September 20, 2022, plaintiff filed a FAC.

On September 20, 2022, defendant Glaxo Smith Kline filed a motion to quash service of summons, which defendant withdrew on October 12, 2022.

On October 12, 2022, defendant filed an amended motion to quash service of summons, which is set for hearing on February 3, 2022.

LEGAL AUTHORITY

CCP § 473(a)(1) provides, in relevant part:  “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.”

 “This discretion should be exercised liberally in favor of amendments, for judicial policy favors resolution of all disputed matters in the same lawsuit.”  Kittredge Sports Co. v. Superior Court (1989) 213 Cal. App. 3d 1045, 1047.

Under CRC 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.

Under CRC Rule 3.1324(b), 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.

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.

DISCUSSION

            Plaintiff Tania Godfrey (self-represented) requests leave to file a Second Amended Complaint to add additional facts for each cause of action and “to present material fact that is more clearly organized in a pleading format” and that “GSK will have a better understanding of the causes of action in order to respond to the allegations.” 

            The court finds that plaintiff failed to comply CRC Rule 3.1324(b) as there is no declaration in support of the motion.

The motion is thus DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

The clerk is to give notice of the ruling.