Judge: Eddie C. Sturgeon, Case: 37-2019-00023205-CU-PA-CTL, Date: 2023-08-04 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - August 03, 2023

08/04/2023  09:00:00 AM  C-67 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Eddie C Sturgeon

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  PI/PD/WD - Auto Motion Hearing (Civil) 37-2019-00023205-CU-PA-CTL MAGALLON VS TURNER [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Motion - Other, 12/15/2022

Plaintiffs Carlos Magallon et al.'s Motion for Leave to Amend is DENIED.

The court 'may, in the furtherance of justice, and on such terms as may be proper, allow a party to amend any pleading[.]' (Code of Civil Proc § 473(a)(1).) Such discretion is liberally exercised. (Nestle v. Santa Monica (1972) 6 Cal.3d 920, 939.) In fact, where there is no prejudice to the opposing party, and where refusal to allow the amendment would deprive the moving party of a meritorious cause of action or claim, the court would abuse its discretion by denying a timely motion to amend. (Morgan v. Superior Court (1950) 172 Cal.App.2d 527, 530.) Even if there has been delay, denial is inappropriate unless the delay has prejudiced the opposing party. (Hirsa v. Super. Ct. (1981) 118 Cal.App.3d 486, 490.) A party claiming to be prejudiced has the burden of demonstrating that prejudice. (See Rickley v. Goodfriend (2013) 212 Cal.App.4th 1136, 1159.) Ordinarily, courts do not consider the validity of proposed amendments in determining whether to grant leave to amend. (Kittredge Sports Co. v. Super.

Ct. (1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 1045, 1048.) However, it is appropriate to deny leave to amend if the proposed amendment would fail as a matter of law. (California Cas. Gen. Ins. Co. v. Super. Ct. (1985) 173 Cal.App.3d 274, 280-281.) Plaintiffs seek to amend the complaint to seek punitive damages against Defendant in light of his deposition testimony.

Plaintiffs attempting to prove malice by 'conscious disregard' must also show that the conduct was 'despicable' and 'willful.' (See, e.g., College Hospital, Inc. v. Super. Ct. (1994) 8 Cal.4th 704, 713 [discussing Legislature's additions to requirements for punitive damages].) ''Despicable conduct' connotes conduct that is 'so vile, base, contemptible, miserable, wretched or loathsome that it would be looked down upon and despised by ordinary decent people.'' (Lackner v. North (2006) 135 Cal.App.4th 1188, 1210 [internal quotation marks omitted].) Ordinarily, gross negligence, and reckless conduct don't amount to malice and don't support a punitive damages award. (E.g., id. at 1210-1211.) Here, Plaintiffs seek to add a request for punitive damages based on the following facts elicited at Defendant's deposition: (1) Defendant admitted 'it would be reckless to drive at 50-60 mph at the subject intersection (where Defendant's speed limit was 25 mph); (2) that driving too fast at the subject intersection could cause catastrophic injuries; (3) that Defendant was in no rush and no reason to drive in excess of the speed limit; (4) that Defendant quickly accelerated on Olive Drive towards the subject intersection in a short distance; (5) and could not state a reason why he would not have observed the stop sign controlling his lane of travel.' (ROA 74, Notice of Motion at 2; see also id. Memo. at 4-5.) These facts do not support a claim for punitive damages and at best allege that Defendant was grossly Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

2915561  8 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  MAGALLON VS TURNER [IMAGED]  37-2019-00023205-CU-PA-CTL negligent or reckless. '[R]ecklessness alone is insufficient to sustain an award of punitive damages[.]' (Lackner, supra, 135 Cal.App.4th at 1211 [citing Taylor v. Superior Court (1979) 24 Cal.3de 890, 894].) Accordingly, the motion to amend is denied.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

2915561  8