Judge: Edward B. Moreton, Jr, Case: 24SMCV00326, Date: 2025-01-21 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24SMCV00326    Hearing Date: January 21, 2025    Dept: 205

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles – West District

Beverly Hills Courthouse / Department 205

BACKGROUND

This is a personal injury case.  Plaintiff Matlynn Rozell Giles alleges she sustained severe burns to her body due to hot coffee she bought at a 7-Eleven store.  (First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) ¶12.)  The coffee spilled on her when the car she was riding came to a stop at a red light.  (Id.)  She alleges that the coffee was “unreasonably hot and heated well above industry standards.”  (Id. ¶13.)  She also alleges the lids were not the appropriate “quality and size” to properly ensure that the hot coffee would not spill.  (Id. ¶21.)

The original complaint alleged a single cause of action for negligence against Defendants 7-Eleven Inc. (the franchisor), R. Berg Enterprises Inc. (the franchisee) and Ralph Berg (the manager and owner) (collectively, “Moving Defendants”).  The Court granted a motion to strike Plaintiff’s claim for punitive damages.  Plaintiff then filed a first amended complaint, still alleging a single claim for negligence against the same Defendants, but without any allegations relating to punitive damages.

This hearing is on Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a second amended complaint.  Plaintiff seeks leave to add a new defendant, Bunn-O-Matic, who it claims manufactured the coffee maker used to prepare the coffee that spilled on her, and on which the other Defendants claim they relied for the proper, recommended “coffee holding temperature”.  Plaintiff claims it did not know of Bunn-O-Matic until it was identified by the other defendants in responses to interrogatories asking for facts supporting their claim that they were not negligent, which responses were not provided until October and November 2024.  Plaintiff also seeks to add two new claims against all Defendants, for strict product liability-failure to warn and negligent product liability.  There was no opposition filed as of the posting of this tentative ruling.   

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 motion focuses on the amendment to add Bun-O-Matic as a defendant, but it wholly fails to explain why the additional claims against the other Defendants are only being added now.  There is no explanation why the two product liability claims could not have been asserted in the original complaint. 

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 August 3, 2026,  and discovery has not yet closed. 

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: January 21, 2025                                                   ___________________________

Edward B. Moreton, Jr.

Judge of the Superior Court