Judge: Frank M. Tavelman, Case: 23BBCV01489, Date: 2024-04-19 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23BBCV01489    Hearing Date: April 19, 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: 

Rhonda and Glenn Hunter (Plaintiffs) bring this action against Uber Technologies Inc. (Uber), Raiser-CA, Raiser, LLC, Lauren Pena (Pena), and Muruli Ntamba (Ntamba). This suit concerns an incident where Ntamba, while working for Uber, was transporting Plaintiffs’ son and four others from Fullerton, CA to Corona, CA. Plaintiffs allege that Ntamba made a non-emergency stop on the freeway during the trip, at which time Plaintiffs’ son exited the vehicle in a disoriented state. Plaintiffs further allege that Ntamba thereafter left their son on the side of the road, where he was ultimately struck by a vehicle operated by Pena.

On September 9, 2023, Pena filed a Cross-Complaint against Uber, Raiser-CA, Raiser, LLC, and Ntamba (Cross-Defendants). Pena’s Cross-Complaint states four causes of action for (1) Indemnity, (2) Apportionment of Fault, (3) Comparative Fault, and (4) Declaratory Relief.

Pena now moves for leave to amend her Cross-Complaint to add an additional cause of action for Negligence. Plaintiff seeks permission of the Court to amend as all Cross-Defendants have filed responsive pleadings. Cross-Defendants have rendered no opposition to this motion.

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

Pena attaches a proposed First Amended Cross-Complaint. (Schneberg Decl. Exh. A.) Pena also states the allegations that are proposed to be added concerning the cause of action for Negligence, the demand for jury trial, and the prayer for relief. (Mot. p. 1-2.) Pena states that the purpose of this amendment is to state a claim for personal injuries in connection with the event giving rise to the allegations of Plaintiffs’ Complaint. (Schneberg Decl. ¶ 3.) Pena explains that this relief was not requested sooner because she was initially only represented by counsel within the scope of defense and damage to her vehicle. (Schneberg Decl. ¶ 5-6.) Pena has subsequently retained additional counsel to represent her with respect to the personal injuries she now alleges. (Id.)

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 Cross-Complaint, allowing Pena to file the amended Cross-Complaint will increase the likelihood of the case being resolved efficiently on the merits.

Requests to amend initial pleadings are to be liberally considered and Cross-Defendants have rendered no opposition to Pena’s motion.  Additionally, the trial in this case has not yet been set, so there would be no prejudice to Defendant if Pena is allowed to amend her Cross-Complaint at this time.

Accordingly, Pena’s motion for leave to amend her Cross-Complaint is GRANTED.

--- 

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 

Lauren Pena’s Motion for Leave to Amend came on regularly for hearing on April 19, 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.  AMENDED PLEADING TO BE FILED WITHIN 20 CALENDAR DAYS.

CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE IS SET FOR AUGUST 19, 2024 AT 9:00 AM.

UNLESS ALL PARTIES WAIVE NOTICE, DEFENDANT PENA TO PROVIDE NOTICE.  

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATE:  April 19, 2024                                   _______________________________ 

                                                                        F.M. TAVELMAN, Judge 

Superior Court of California 

County of Los Angeles