Judge: Frank M. Tavelman, Case: 22BBCV00816, Date: 2024-01-05 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22BBCV00816    Hearing Date: January 5, 2024    Dept: NCA

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: 

Piedad Binau (“Plaintiff”) brings this action against Calixto Towing, Inc., Guillermo Calixto Frias, Roberto Calixto, and Carlos Calixto (“Defendants”). Plaintiff alleges Guillermo Calixto Frias negligently operated a motor vehicle owned by Calixto Towing, Inc. such that he collided with Plaintiff and caused serious injury.

Defendants now move the Court for leave to amend their Answer. Defendants seek to add additional affirmative defenses of Negligence Per Se and violation of California Vehicle Code § 21801 (Failure to Yield). Plaintiff opposes the motion, arguing that the declaration submitted in conjunction is not code compliant in several regards. Plaintiff further argues that the motion is untimely, and prejudice would result, because trial is set for the matter in April. Defendants reply that no prejudice would result from amendment.

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 p. 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 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 California Rule of Court 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.

Even if a good amendment is proposed in proper form, a long, unwarranted, and unexcused delay in presenting it may be a good reason for denial. In most cases, the factors for timeliness are: (1) lack of diligence in discovering the facts or in offering the amendment after knowledge of them; and (2) the effect of the delay on the adverse party. If the party seeking the amendment has been dilatory, and the delay has prejudiced the opposing party, the judge has discretion to deny leave to amend. (Hirsa v. Superior Court (1981) 118 Cal.App.3d 486, 490.) Prejudice exists where the amendment would require delaying the trial, resulting in loss of critical evidence, or added costs of preparation such as an increased burden of discovery. (Magpali v. Farmers Group, Inc. (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 471, 486-488.)

II.                 MERITS

The Court finds the declaration submitted in conjunction with Defendants’ motion to be insufficient as per California Rules of Court (“C.R.C.”) Rule 3.324. While Defendants submit a proposed copy of their amended Answer, their declaration does not adhere to many of the requirements for C.R.C. Rule 3.324(b). Defendants’ declaration does not set out why the amendment is necessary and proper, when the facts giving rise to the amendment were discovered, or the reasons why the amendments were not made earlier.

The only statement in Defendants’ declaration which addresses any of these concerns is as follows:

The parties participated in private mediation on October 3, 2023. In preparation for mediation, Defendants presented the negligence per se and vehicle code violation defenses to Plaintiff. On October 24, 2023, Defendants’ counsel conferred with Plaintiffs’ counsel to stipulate to their filing of a First Amended Answer. Plaintiff's counsel refused to stipulate, and therefore, forced Defendants to prepare and file this Motion.

(Jones Decl. ¶¶ 8-9.)

From this statement it is unclear as to when new facts constituting the Negligence Per Se and Vehicle Code affirmative defenses arose. It appears from the statement that these defenses were known to Defendants well in advance of the October 3 mediation. Defendants do not state they learned any facts which gave rise to these defenses through mediation, rather they approached the mediation with these defenses already established. As it stands, Defendants state no reasoning that would satisfy the requirements of C.R.C. Rule 3.324(b). Defendants do not address any of these concerns in their reply, despite argument from Plaintiff that the declaration is not code compliant.

In short, Defendants have submitted a declaration which is devoid of the information necessary for the Court to determine this motion on its merits. Accordingly, the motion for leave to amend is DENIED without prejudice.

--- 

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 

Calixto Towing, Inc., Guillermo Calixto Frias, Roberto Calixto, & Carlos Calixto’s Motion for Leave to Amend Answer came on regularly for hearing on January 5, 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 IN DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

UNLESS ALL PARTIES WAIVE NOTICE, DEFENDANTS TO GIVE NOTICE.  

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATE:  January 5, 2024                            _______________________________ 

                                                                        F.M. TAVELMAN, Judge 

Superior Court of California 

County of Los Angeles