Judge: Frank M. Tavelman, Case: 23BBCV00904, Date: 2024-09-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23BBCV00904    Hearing Date: September 6, 2024    Dept: A

LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT

NORTH CENTRAL DISTRICT - BURBANK

DEPARTMENT A

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND COMPLAINT

NOTICE:

The Court is not requesting oral argument on this matter.  The Court is guided by California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1308(a)(1) whereby notice of intent to appear is requested.  Unless the Court directs argument in the Tentative Ruling, no argument is requested and any party seeking argument should notify 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 argument is received.  

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

ALLEGATIONS: 

Alfred William (Plaintiff) brings this action against Hakob Mehrabyan & 77 Space Inc. (Defendants). Plaintiff alleges Defendants hired him as an independent contractor and provided him with a truck and trailer to transport goods. Plaintiff alleges the truck and trailer were negligently maintained by Defendants such that the trailer caught fire and caused him severe injury.

Plaintiff now moves for leave to amend his Complaint to:

1)      Add his wife, Lians Gasparian (Gasparian), as a Plaintiff, asserting a new cause of action for Loss of Consortium.

2)      Add the dealer Intermountain Trailer (Intermountain) as a Defendant, asserting causes of action for Negligence and Products liability against.

Defendants oppose the motion only insofar as it relates to the addition of Gasparian and the Loss of Consortium cause of action.

ANALYSIS: 

I.                    LEGAL STANDARD 

A party requesting leave to amend must submit a motion that includes: (1) a copy of the proposed amendment or amended pleading, serially numbered to differentiate it from previous pleadings; (2) a statement of which allegations would be deleted by the amendment, and where they are located in the previous pleading; and (3) a statement of what allegations would be added by the amendment, and where they are located in the proposed pleading.¿ (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1324(a).) The motion should also include a declaration stating: (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) why the request was not made earlier.¿ (Id. at Rule 3.1324(b).)

A party may amend its pleading once without leave of court at any time before an answer, demurrer, or motion to strike is filed. C.C.P. § 472(a). After the period for amending a pleading without leave of court has passed, the pleading may be amended under C.C.P. § 473(a) and § 576.

The trial court should permit a plaintiff to amend a pleading when doing so is in furtherance of justice and in keeping with the fundamental policy that cases should be decided on their merits.¿ (Honig v. Financial Corp. of America (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 960, 956-966.) While the trial court may deny a motion for leave to amend on grounds that, e.g., the party seeking the amendment has caused unreasonable delay in doing so, it probably abuses its discretion if it denies any such motion in the absence of a finding of prejudice to the opposing side.¿ (See Thompson Pacific Construction, Inc. v. City of Sunnyvale (2007) 155 Cal.App.4th 525, 545.)

II.                 MERITS

Loss of Consortium

Defendants oppose amendment on grounds that Plaintiff seeks to add a cause of action against them which is barred by the applicable statute of limitations. Plaintiff’s proposed amendment seeks to name his wife, Gasparian, as a Plaintiff asserting a cause of action for loss of consortium. (See Exh. 1, p. 14.)

Loss of consortium claims are governed by a two-year statute of limitations. (C.C.P. § 335.1.) The statute of limitations begins to run when the injury resulting in the loss of consortium occurs. (Priola v. Paulino (1977) 72 Cal.App.3d 380, 390-91.) Here, Plaintiff’s claims stem from an injury which occurred on July 24, 2022. (Compl. p. 4.)

Plaintiff does not dispute that more than two years have passed since the underlying incident in this case. Instead, Plaintiff argues that the loss of consortium claim could not have been brought earlier because it was not yet discovered. Plaintiff argues that because “the complete loss of interest in and enjoyment of sexual relations by William and following necessity of in vitro fertilization by his wife was not discovered until late 2023/early 2024[,] the claim is still timely.” (Reply, p. 2.)

The Court finds this argument unpersuasive. First, the argument is undermined by Plaintiff’s own declaration in support of the motion. Plaintiff submits a declaration from his counsel which states that this cause of action was not brought earlier “based on the embarrassment it caused the Plaintiffs”. (Gruzman Decl. ¶ 6.) That Gasparian was too embarrassed to bring a loss of consortium claim supports that she was aware of the injury forming the basis of a loss of consortium claim for quite some time.

Plaintiff’s deposition testimony also reveals that his counsel was aware of the claim within the statute of limitations. When Plaintiff was asked about a loss of consortium claim in his June 27, 2024 deposition, his counsel responded that they would be amending to assert such a claim. (Wallick Decl. Exh. A, p. 86.) When questioned further on the lack of intimacy, Plaintiff responded that he and his wife have had no sexual life “since the accident”. (Wallick Decl. Exh. A, p. 89.)

In short, the Court is unpersuaded that new cause of action is permitted by claiming delayed discovery thereby circumventing the statute of limitations.

Further, the Court finds no other meritorious basis by which the statute of limitations for a loss of consortium action should be tolled or disregarded. There is no tolling during the pendency of the spouse’s personal injury action. (Meighan v. Shore (1995) 34 Cal.App.4th 1025, 1034, citing Priola v. Paulino (1977) 72 Cal.App.3d 380, 383 [“It has been held that an action must be filed within one year from the date of injury which gives rise to the loss of consortium.”].) Additionally, Courts have found that a loss of consortium claim does not relate back to the injured spouse’s personal injury action. (See Bartalo v. Superior Court (1975) 51 Cal. App. 3d 526, 534.) This is because a claim for loss of consortium seeks to enforce a right independent from that of the underlying personal injury claims such that it cannot be said to relate back to the original claim. (Id.) As case law makes clear, Plaintiff cannot argue that Gasparian’s claim relates back to his own for purposes of avoiding the statute of limitations.

The Court finds the authority relied upon by Plaintiff to be distinguishable from the instant case. Plaintiff relies upon Vanhooser v. Superior Court and Leonard v. John Crane, Inc. In Vanhooser, the trial court granted summary judgment on a wife’s claim for loss of consortium. (Vanhooser v. Superior Court (2012) 206 Cal.App.4th 921, 925.) The defendants in Vanhooser argued that the wife could not show the first element of a loss of consortium claim, that she was married to Plaintiff at the time he was exposed to the asbestos causing his underlying injury of mesothelioma. (Id. at 926.) The Court of Appeal reversed, finding that in the context of latent disease, injury supporting a loss of consortium claim occurs at the time of diagnosis. (Id. at 927.) Thus, to avoid summary judgment, all the wife needed to show was that she was married to her injured spouse at the time his mesothelioma was diagnosed. (Id.)

Johnson also concerned a case of latent mesothelioma. The spouse in Johnson appealed a trial court order sustaining a demurrer to her cause of action for loss of consortium. (Leonard v. John Crane, Inc. (2012) 206 Cal.App.4th 1274.) The Court of Appeal reversed holding “where an injury to a spouse that in turn causes injury to the plaintiff's right to consortium in the marital relationship is not discovered or discoverable until after the couple's marriage, and the underlying cause of action thus accrues during the marriage, the plaintiff has a valid claim for loss of consortium even though the negligent conduct may have predated the marriage.” (Leonard v. John Crane, Inc. (2012) 206 Cal.App.4th 1274, 1290.)

Here, Gasparian’s claims do not derive from Plaintiff suffering a latent disease. The injuries which caused Plaintiff to lose interest in intimacy are, by his own testimony, injuries which have been known to himself and Gasparian since the July 2022 incident. Plaintiff cites to no authority for his claim that the facts underlying the cause of action for loss of consortium were not “discovered” until it reached a certain point of seriousness in the Plaintiff’s own eyes. Unlike the plaintiffs in Vanhooser and Leonard, the effects of the incident on Plaintiff are alleged to have been immediately apparent. As such, there is no reason to apply the “latent disease” rationale to this case.

In short, Defendant has sufficiently demonstrated that allowing amendment to add the cause of action for loss of consortium would not serve the interests of justice. Allowing this amendment would necessitate Defendant bringing a dispositive motion on the same statute of limitation grounds, which the Court has already found to be meritorious.

Accordingly, the motion for leave to amend is DENIED as to the addition of Lians Gasparian and the cause of action for Loss of Consortium.

Intermountain

Defendants do not oppose the addition of Intermountain to the Complaint.

Plaintiff attaches the proposed First Amended Complaint to his motion. (Gruzman Decl. Exh. 1.) Plaintiff explains that Intermountain could not have been added previously because Plaintiff was unaware of its identity as the dealer of the trailer. (Gruzman Decl. ¶ 3.) Plaintiff states that Defendants had previously stated they could not locate purchase records for the trailer but finally produced the relevant documents on June 19, 2024. (Gruzman Decl. ¶ 4.)

The Court finds the requirements of California Rules of Court, Rules 3.1324(a) and (b) are satisfied. Additionally, as the underlying facts are related to the original Complaint, allowing Plaintiff to file the amended Complaint will increase the likelihood of the case being resolved efficiently on the merits.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend is GRANTED as to the addition of Intermountain Trailer as a Defendant and the addition of the Negligence and Products Liability causes of action against them.

--- 

RULING:

In the event 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 

Alfred William’s Motion for Leave to Amend came on regularly for hearing on September 6, 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 IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.  THE MOTION IS DENIED AS TO THE ADDITION OF LIANS GASPARIAN AS A PLAINTIFF ASSERTING A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR LOSS OF CONSORTIUM.  THE MOTION IS GRANTED AS TO THE ADDITION OF INTERMOUNTAIN TRAILER AS A DEFENDANT AND THE NEGLIEGENCE AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST THEM.

PLAINTIFF IS TO FILE HIS AMENDED COMPLAINT WITHIN 10 DAYS.

PLAINTIFF TO PROVIDE NOTICE.  

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATE:  September 6, 2024                            _______________________________ 

                                                                        F.M. TAVELMAN, Judge 

Superior Court of California 

County of Los Angeles