Superior Court of California 

County of Los Angeles – West District  

Beverly Hills Courthouse / Department 205 

 

 

BACKGROUND 

This case arises from an alleged assault and battery.  Plaintiff Nada Lahoud alleges that on October 4, 2022, Defendant Nicole Sedlock assaulted and battered her just outside a cannabis dispensary commonly known as The Rose Collective which is located at 411 Rose Avenue, Venice, CA.  The Complaint further alleges that Sedlock was an employee of Defendant VFarm 1509, acting within the course of scope of her employment when she committed the alleged assault and battery, and therefore, VFarm1509 had vicarious liability for Sedlock’s alleged misdeeds. 

This hearing is on Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend her Complaint to (1) add factual background for, and a new cause of action against Defendant Sedlock for, assault based on her alleged verbal death threats on November 7, 2023, after the filing of the Complaint and (2) add Cannaco Research Corporation (“Cannaco”) as a defendant based on its employment of Sedlock. 

LEGAL STANDARD 

Code of Civ. Proc. § 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.”¿ 

Under California Rules of Court Rule, Rule 3.1324, subdivision (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.¿¿ 

¿ 

In addition, under California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1324, subdivision (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.¿ 

¿¿ 

The Court’s discretion to grant leave “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.)¿ Ordinarily, the Court will not consider the validity of the proposed amended pleading in ruling on a motion for leave since grounds for a demurrer or motion to strike are premature.¿¿The Court, however, does have discretion to deny leave to amend where a proposed amendment fails to state a valid cause of action as a matter of law and the defect cannot be cured by further amendment.¿ (See¿California Casualty General Ins. Co. v. Superior Court¿(1985) 173 Cal.App.3d 274, 281 (overruled on other grounds by¿Kransco v. American Empire Surplus Lines Ins. Co.¿(2000) 23 Cal.4th 390).)¿¿ 

DISCUSSION 

Plaintiff’s declaration in support of the motion satisfies the requirements under CRC Rule 3.1324.  Plaintiff identifies the amendments, their effect, and the information that prompted the amendment.  (Lahoud Decl. ¶¶2, 6.) 

Plaintiff only learned that Cannaco was Sedlock’s employer on April 26, 2024, when VFarm1509 formally disclosed Cannaco as Sedlock’s employer.  Accordingly, there was no delay in seeking to add Cannaco as a defendant.  However, the Court finds Plaintiff unreasonably delayed in seeking to add the new claim against Sedlock.  Sedlock purportedly threatened Plaintiff on November 7, 2023, and Plaintiff is only now seeking to add a claim against Sedlock based on these threats.  There is no explanation for the delay.   

However, delay alone will not justify denying leave to amend.  Although it is true “a court may deny a good amendment in proper form where there is unwarranted delay in presenting it,” it remains the case that “where there is no prejudice to the adverse party, it may be an abuse of discretion to deny leave to amend.” (Fair v. Bakhtiari (2011) 195 Cal.App.4th 1135, 1147; see also Kittredge Sports co. v. Superior Court (1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 1045, 1048 (“[Defendant] contends [Plaintiff] unreasonably delayed moving to amend… [e]ven if this were so, it is an abuse of discretion to deny leave to amend where the opposing party was not misled or prejudiced by the amendment.”)); Atkinson v. Elk Corp. (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 739, 761 (“[I]t is an abuse of discretion to deny leave to amend where the opposing party was not misled or prejudiced by the amendment.”); Thompson Pacific Construction, Inc. v. City of Sunnyvale (2007) 155 Cal.App.4th 525, 545 (“In spite of this policy of liberality, a court may deny a good amendment in proper form where there is unwarranted delay in presenting it. On the other hand, where there is no prejudice to the adverse party, it may be an abuse of discretion to deny leave to amend.”) (citations omitted).   

Prejudice exists, for example, where the plaintiff unduly delayed in seeking leave to amend, and the amendment will require a trial continuance and a reopening of discovery on the eve of trial.  (Magpali v. Farmers Group, Inc. (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 471, 488 (“Where the trial date is set, the jury is about to be impaneled, counsel, the parties, the trial court, and the witnesses have blocked the time, and the only way to avoid prejudice to the opposing party is to continue the trial date to allow further discovery, refusal of leave to amend cannot be an abuse of discretion”).)  Here, we are not at the eve of trial.  Trial is set for January 12, 2026, and discovery has not closed.   

VFarm 1509 objects to the request for amendment because it argues it was not Sedlock’s employer.  The Court finds this argument premature.  The general rule is that the court need not decide the¿merits of the added claims in deciding whether or not to grant¿leave to amend.  (Kittredge Sports Co. v. Superior Court¿(1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 1045; Weil and Brown,¿Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial¿(The Rutter Group 2022) ¶ 6:644 (“Ordinarily, the judge 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.  After leave to amend is granted, the opposing party will have the opportunity to attack the validity of the amended pleading”).)   

 

 

CONCLUSION 

Based on the foregoing, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a second amended complaint.   

 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 

DATED: August 7, 2024 ___________________________ 

Edward B. Moreton, Jr. 

Judge of the Superior Court