Judge: Frank M. Tavelman, Case: 19BBCV01129, Date: 2024-02-02 Tentative Ruling

REQUESTING ORAL ARGUMENT PER CRC 3.1308

The Court will attempt to post all Tentative Rulings at least the day prior to the hearing by 3:00 p.m.; however, the Court does not post Tentative Rulings for all matters.  

The
Court will indicate in the Tentative Ruling whether the Court is requesting oral argument.  For cases where the Court is not requesting argument, then pursuant to
California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1308(a)(1) notice of intent to appear is
required.  Unless the Court directs argument in the Tentative Ruling, no
argument will be permitted unless a “party notifies all other parties and the
court by 4:00 p.m. on the court day before the hearing of the party’s intention
to appear and argue.  The tentative ruling will become the ruling of the
court if no notice of intent to appear is received.”   

Notice
may be given either by email at BurDeptA@LACourt.org or by telephone at (818)
260-8412.

Notice of the ruling must be served as indicated in the tentative.  Remote appearances are permitted for all law and motion unless otherwise indicated by the Court.  

Case Number: 19BBCV01129    Hearing Date: February 2, 2024    Dept: A

LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT

NORTH CENTRAL DISTRICT - BURBANK

DEPARTMENT A

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND ANSWER

NOTICE:

The Court is not requesting oral argument on this matter.  Pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1308(a)(1) notice of intent to appear is required.  Unless the Court directs argument in the Tentative Ruling, no argument will be permitted unless a “party notifies all other parties and the court by 4:00 p.m. on the court day before the hearing of the party’s intention to appear and argue.  The tentative ruling will become the ruling of the court if no notice of intent to appear is received.”  

Notice may be given either by email at BurDeptA@LACourt.org or by telephone at (818) 260-8412.

ALLEGATIONS: 

Anoush Semerdjian (Plaintiff) brings this action against California Automobile Insurance Company (CalAuto). Plaintiff contends she purchased a homeowner’s insurance policy (Policy) from CalAuto prior to April 7, 2018 that covered her pets. (TAC ¶¶ 7, 8.)  Plaintiff asserts that on April 7, 2018, her dog escaped the property and subsequently bit Lode Margolis (“Margolis”) who sustained substantial injury. (TAC ¶ 11.) Plaintiff alleges CalAuto breached the terms of the insurance contract when it refused to reimburse Plaintiff for the costs associated with boarding the dog after the incident. (TAC ¶ 14.)

CalAuto now moves for leave to amend their answer to the TAC for a second time. CalAuto seeks to add an additional affirmative defense that Plaintiff’s claim is barred by the four-year statute of limitations. CalAuto states this affirmative defense was inadvertently omitted from its first amended answer. Plaintiff has rendered no opposition to this motion.

ANALYSIS: 

I.                    LEGAL STANDARD 

C.C.P. § 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.) 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. (See Id. at 1048.) The court, however, does have discretion to deny leave to amend where a proposed amendment fails to state a valid defense 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.)

Under California Rules of Court Rule (C.R.C.) 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 C.R.C. 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.

II.                 MERITS

The Court finds CalAuto has submitted sufficient declarations in support of their motion.

CalAuto submits a copy of the proposed amended answer alongside their motion which includes the additional affirmative defense. CalAuto also submits the declaration of their counsel Tod Castronovo (Castronovo). In his declaration, Castronovo attests that the amended answer seeks to add a sixth affirmative defense at page 6, lines 7-11 reading “Statute of Limitations – 4 Year Statute of Limitations”. (Castronovo Decl. ¶ 3.) The Court finds these submissions satisfy the requirements of C.R.C. Rule 3.1324(a).

A separate Castronovo declaration is attached to the moving papers. In this declaration Castronovo states that CalAuto inadvertently failed to include the additional affirmative defense at the time it filed its first amended complaint on September 21, 2023. (Castronovo Mot. Decl. ¶ 5.) Castronovo advised Plaintiff’s counsel of this omission and sent correspondence seeking a stipulation that the affirmative defense be added. (Castronovo Mot. Decl. ¶ 7, Exh. A.) Having heard no reply to this correspondence, Castronovo instead proceeded to seek leave of the court to amend. (Castronovo Mot. Decl. ¶ 8.) From the Castronovo declaration, the Court is satisfied that the requirements of C.R.C. Rule 3.1324(b) have been met. CalAuto has explained the effect of the amendment would be to add an additional affirmative defense, has demonstrated that this defense may be applicable to the instant case, and stated their efforts to correct the inadvertent omission of the defense once it was discovered.

The Court finds CalAuto has fulfilled the requirements of California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1324(a) and (b). Further, requests to amend Answers are to be liberally considered and Plaintiff has rendered no opposition to this motion.  Accordingly, CalAuto’s motion for leave to amend their answer to the Third Amended Complaint is GRANTED. The Second Amended Answer to Third Amended Complaint filed by CalAuto on December 4, 2023 is deemed the operative Answer.

--- 

RULING:

In the event the parties submit on this tentative ruling, or a party requests a signed order or the court in its discretion elects to sign a formal order, the following form will be either electronically signed or signed in hard copy and entered into the court’s records. 

ORDER 

California Automobile Insurance Company’s Motion for Leave to Amend came on regularly for hearing on February 26, 2024 with appearances/submissions as noted in the minute order for said hearing, and the court, being fully advised in the premises, did then and there rule as follows: 

THE MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND IS GRANTED.

THE SECOND AMENDED ANSWER TO THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FILED BY CALAUTO ON DECEMBER 4, 2023 IS DEEMED THE OPERATIVE ANSWER. 

THE CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE SET FOR APRIL 24, 2024 REMAINS.

CALIFORNIA AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY TO GIVE NOTICE.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATE:  February 2, 2024                               _______________________________ 

                                                                        F.M. TAVELMAN, Judge 

Superior Court of California 

County of Los Angeles