Judge: Deirdre Hill, Case: 22TRCV01342, Date: 2023-05-10 Tentative Ruling

ALERT

Due to Coronavirus, please consider appearing by phone for Department M cases.

 

Department M strongly encourages the use of  LA CourtConnect* for ALL hearings, without need for prior approval, unless live testimony by a witness is required.

 

The contact information for LA CourtConnect* is:

 

 

 https://lacourt.portalscloud.com/VCourt/

 

 

*Parties with a fee waiver on file may be eligible to appear at no/reduced cost


Dept. M issues tentative rulings in many, but not all motion hearings. There is no set time at which tentatives are posted. Please do not call the staff to inquire if a tentative will be posted. 

If parties are satisfied with the ruling, parties may submit on the tentative. However, if an opposing party does not submit, they will be permitted to argue. Please check with the other side before calling the courtroom to submit. The staff does not keep track of which parties submitted and which did not, so please do not ask. 

If a matter is also a scheduling hearing (CMC, TSC, OSC etc) an appearance is still required even if a party submits on the tentative ruling.



Case Number: 22TRCV01342    Hearing Date: May 10, 2023    Dept: M

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Southwest District

Torrance Dept. M

 

MERCURY INSURANCE COMPANY,

 

 

 

 

Plaintiff,

 

Case No.:

 

 

22TRCV01342

 

vs.

 

 

[Tentative] RULING ON MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMENDED ANSWER OF SUIKY RINGO LING

 

 

JANICE LING, and DOES 1 to 10,

 

 

 

Defendants.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hearing Date:                         May 10, 2023 at 8:30 a.m.     

 

Moving Parties:                      Defendant Janice Ling (“Defendant”)

Responding Party:                  None

 

Motion for Leave to File Amended Answer

 

            The Court has considered the moving papers. No opposition or reply have been filed.

 

RULING

 

            The motion is GRANTED.

 

BACKGROUND

 

            This is a subrogation action. Plaintiff Mercury Insurance Company (“Plaintiff”) filed this action on November 28, 2022 based on an incident that occurred on November 29, 2019, wherein Defendant Janice Ling[1] (“Defendant”) allegedly knocked over a fire hydrant in her car that led to water damage to the property of Plaintiff’s insured in the amount of $48,231.44. Defendant filed an Answer on January 31, 2023.

 

Defendant filed the instant motion on April 14, 2023, seeking leave to file an Amended Answer to permit her to plead affirmative defenses that were not pled in her original Answer. Plaintiff has not opposed the motion and Defendant has not replied.

 

            No trial date is set as of the date of this ruling.

           

LEGAL AUTHORITY

 

A motion to amend a pleading must:

(1)           include a copy of the proposed amended pleading;

(2)           state what allegations 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.  See CRC Rule 3.1324(a).

 

            The moving party must include a separate declaration that specifies:

(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.  See CRC Rule 3.1324(b).

 

            The court may allow a party to amend any pleading on any such terms as may be just. (See CCP §§ 473(a)(1), 576; see also Kittredge Sports Co. v. Superior Court (1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 1045, 1046 [trial court should liberally exercise its discretion and allow amendments in furtherance of the judicial policy to resolve all disputed matters in the same lawsuit].

 

“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.” (See Morgan v. Superior Court (1959) 172 Cal.App.2d 527, 530; Redevelopment Agency v. Harrold (1978) 86 Cal.App.3d 1024, 1031.)

 

DISCUSSION

 

            The motion sufficiently complies with the provisions of Rules 3.1324(a) and 3.1324(b) of the California Rules of Court. While some aspects of these rules were not precisely followed, such as specifying by line and page number where the proposed affirmative defenses are to be added under subdivision (a) or the supporting declaration not specifically addressing each of the items listed in subdivision (b), it is clear that Defendant is only seeking to add affirmative defenses that were not raised in her original Answer and that Defendant moved to correct this problem shortly after retaining new counsel who discovered the error. It is also apparent from the proposed Amended Answer where the affirmative defenses are going to be added. The Court nevertheless admonishes Defendant going forward of the need to comply with the California Rules of Court.

            The Court further notes that this action was only recently filed and no trial date has been set, so there will be no prejudice. Additionally, Plaintiff has not opposed the motion, which further evidences the lack of prejudice.

 

Accordingly, the motion is GRANTED.

 

Defendant is ordered to give notice of this ruling.


[1] The caption page of the moving papers for this motion indicate it is seeking leave to amend the Answer of Suiky Ringo Ling, but the moving papers otherwise indicate that the moving party is Defendant Janice Ling. The Court assumes this was either a typo or a failure to explain that Suiky Ringo Ling and Janice Ling are the same person and that those are alternate names for the Defendant.