Judge: Gary Y. Tanaka, Case: 20STCV15375, Date: 2022-08-04 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 20STCV15375 Hearing Date: August 4, 2022 Dept: B
LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT – SOUTHWEST DISTRICT
Honorable Gary Y. Tanaka Thursday, August 4, 2022
Department B Calendar No. 3
PROCEEDINGS
Lorena Ochoa, et al. v. Kevin George Aziz Riad, et al.
20STCV15375
Lorena Ochoa, et al.’s Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint
TENTATIVE RULING
Lorena Ochoa, et al.’s Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint is denied.
Background
Plaintiffs filed their Complaint on April 22, 2020. Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint was filed on July 30, 2020. Plaintiffs allege the following facts. Plaintiffs’ decedent was killed in automobile accident. Defendants were operating a 2016 Tesla Model S which purportedly suffered from defects. Plaintiffs allege the following causes of action: 1. Negligence; 2. Negligent Hiring, Training, Retention, and Supervision; 3. Strict Product Liability; 4. Negligence Product Liability; 5. Negligence (Post Sale).
Motion for Leave to Amend
The court may, in furtherance of justice, and on such terms as may be proper, allow a party to amend any pleading. Code Civ. Proc., §§ 473 & 576. Judicial policy favors resolution of all disputed matters between the parties and, therefore, leave to amend is generally liberally granted. 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. However, the court 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. Cal. Casualty General Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1985) 173 Cal.App.3d 274, 281.
The application for leave to amend should be made as soon as the need to amend is discovered. The closer the trial date, the stronger the showing required for leave to amend. If the party seeking the amendment has been dilatory, and the delay has prejudiced the opposing party, the court has the 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.
Pursuant to Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1324(a): A motion for leave to amend must: “(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.”
Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1324(b) also requires that the moving party must submit a separate declaration specifying:
“(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.”
Plaintiffs move for leave to file a Second Amended Complaint. Plaintiffs admit that no new causes of action are sought to be added. Instead, Plaintiffs freely admit that the proposed Second Amended Complaint, instead, only seeks to include more detailed allegations referring to the alleged use and defect of the autopilot system of Defendant Tesla’s vehicle.
Plaintiffs adequately complied with Rule 3.1342(a) and Rule 3.1324(b)(1)(3) and (4). However, the Court determines that the proposed amendment is not necessary and proper.
A Complaint must contain “a statement of the facts constituting the cause of action, in ordinary and concise language.” CCP § 425.10. The facts to be pleaded are deemed the “ultimate facts” – facts upon which liability is based. Doe v. City of Los Angeles (2007) 42 Cal.4th 531, 550. “[T]he complaint ordinarily is sufficient if it alleges ultimate rather than evidentiary facts.” Id. Ultimate facts are those that raise the issues on which the right to recover depends and which are material to the essential elements of the cause of action. Estes v. Eaton Corp. (2020) 51 Cal.App.5th 636, 643, fn.2. “[T]he complaint need only allege facts sufficient to state a cause of action; each evidentiary fact that might eventually form part of the plaintiff's proof need not be alleged.” C.A. v. William S. Hart Union High School Dist. (2012) 53 Cal.4th 861, 872. Allegations of unnecessary detail can be subject to objection as an evidentiary pleading.
Here, the First Amended Complaint has already included allegations which can form the basis of liability based on an alleged defect of the autopilot system. (FAC, ¶¶ 23-36.) Plaintiffs’ proposed allegations which include numerous additional pages are all simply evidentiary matters which are unnecessary to state a cause of action. No prejudice would result to Plaintiffs if these allegations are not included in the First Amended Complaint, as any evidentiary matters, if not properly excluded via any meritorious objection, can be asserted during the case in chief.
With the Reply, Plaintiffs admit that the proposed amended pleading simply recites the current state of the evidence. “Plaintiffs maintain their proposed amendments are not only timely and relevant, but essential to reflect the evidence that had come to light as of the time Plaintiffs first asked Tesla to stipulate to Plaintiffs’ Motion in early March of 2022.” (Plaintiffs’ Reply, page 2, lines 11-13). Such evidentiary facts are not necessary nor properly alleged in a Complaint.
Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file Second Amended Complaint is denied.
Defendant Tesla is ordered to give notice of this ruling.