Judge Gregory Keosian, Case Number: 19STCV15161, Date: 2023-07-11 Tentative Ruling

Plaintiff Plaintiff Brandon Joaquin Rodarte Ayala’s Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint is DENIED.

Plaintiff Plaintiff Brandon Joaquin Rodarte Ayala’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories from Defendant Xue Zhe Jin is GRANTED as to Form Interrogatory No. 17.1, and DENIED as to Form Interrogatories No. 50.2 and 50.5. No sanctions are awarded.

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.

“The trial court has discretion to permit or deny the amendment of the complaint, but instances justifying the court's denial of leave to amend are rare.” (Armenta ex rel. City of Burbank v. Mueller Co. (2006) 142 Cal.App.4th 636, 642.)

“Although courts are bound to apply a policy of great liberality in permitting amendments to the complaint at any stage of the proceedings, up to and including trial [Citations], this policy should be applied only ‘[w]here no prejudice is shown to the adverse party . . .’ [Citation.] A different result is indicated ‘[w]here inexcusable delay and probable prejudice to the opposing party’ is shown. [Citation.]” (Magpali v. Farmers Group, Inc. (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 471, 487.)

Pursuant to California Rule of Court Rule 3.1324, “[a] motion to amend a pleading before trial 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.”

Such a motion must include a supporting 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) The reasons why the request for amendment was not made earlier.” (CRC Rule 3.1324, subd. (b).)

Plaintiff Brandon Joaquin Rodarte Ayala (Plaintiff) seeks leave to file a first amended complaint (FAC) alleging three new causes of action: in addition to the original claim of negligence, he seeks to add claims for violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL), unjust enrichment, and injunctive relief, against Defendant Xue Zhe Jin and potential defendant Alliance United Insurance Company, based on allegations that Jin and Alliance falsified affidavits to make it seem that Jin had been driving in his individual capacity, and therefore need only pay a smaller amount on his individual insurance policy, when in fact Jin had been driving in the course of his employment, which would have entitled Plaintiff to a greater settlement. (Proposed FAC ¶¶ 25–37.) Plaintiff claims this information was discovered during the depositions of Jin and the person most knowledgeable for Defendant I Park Inc. in February 2022, who acknowledged that Jin was on his way to the site to perform work for I Park when the collision occurred. (Heidari Decl. ¶¶ 6–8.)

This motion has, in all material respects, already been heard and denied. On December 21, 2022, the court in Department 29 denied without prejudice Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a first amended complaint which was identical in all material respects and justifications to the proposed FAC that Plaintiff now seeks leave to file. The sole difference appears to be the inclusion of identifications, by page and paragraph number, of the new proposed allegations. (Motion at pp. 6–13.) But the prior denial was not based solely on a procedural infirmity. The court in that order found that Plaintiff had unreasonably delayed seeking leave, noting that Plaintiff had suspected that Jin was operating in his capacity as an employee since before the Complaint was filed.[1] The court in its prior ruling stated that Plaintiff could not claim that he had only “recently discovered” the facts on which his motion was based, and further that allowing leave to amend after Defendant had filed a motion for summary judgment, and as the date of trial loomed closer, would cause prejudice to the other parties in these proceedings. Yet Plaintiff in his present motion seeks leave to add virtually identical causes of action on identical bases, even as Defendant Jin’s motion for summary judgment is still pending, without reference to his prior motion or the court’s denial of same. There are no different circumstances that would justify a different ruling, and the prior ruling remains persuasive as to Plaintiff’s new motion.

“Any party may obtain discovery . . . by propounding to any other party to the action written interrogatories to be answered under oath.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.010(a).) If a propounding party is not satisfied with the response served by a responding party, the former may move the court to compel further interrogatory responses. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300; Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 403.) The propounding party must demonstrate that the responses were incomplete, inadequate or evasive, or that the responding party asserted objections that are either without merit or too general. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300(a)(1)–(3); Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc., supra, 148 Cal.App.4th at 403.)

Plaintiff Brandon Joaquin Rodarte Ayala (Plaintiff) moves to compel further responses to Form Interrogatories No. 17.1, 50.2, and 50.5, from Defendant Xue Zhe Jin (Defendant). The discovery was served on November 14, 2022, and responses were served on December 16, 2022, with a verification on December 20, 2022. (Kim Decl. ¶¶ 5–6.) Plaintiff sent a meet-and-confer letter on January 6, 2023, and filed the present motion on January 10, 2023. (Kim Decl. ¶ 7.)

Form Interrogatory 17.1 asks for facts and evidence to support each response to a request for admission that is not an unqualified admission. This motion particularly pertains to the facts and evidence supporting Defendant’s denial of Request for Admission No. 24, seeking an admission that a recording exists between his insurer and himself in which one or the other speakers admitted that the collision occurred in the course of Defendant’s employment. Defendant’s initial response did not identify specific supporting witnesses, but only identified “[c]laims representatives of Alliance United” who handled Plaintiff’s claims, who could be contacted through Defendant’s counsel. (Separate Statement at p. 3.) Defendant on January 10, 2023, the date this motion was filed, served a supplemental response to this interrogatory, identifying the names of the adjusters, but not including phone numbers or addresses, which Plaintiff now seeks. (Reply at p. 6.)

Interrogatories No. 50.2 and 50.5 concerned Defendant’s allegation in his answer that Plaintiff’s action against him is in breach of a settlement agreement. Interrogatory No. 50.2 asked Defendant to state if he contended there was a breach of any agreement alleged in the pleadings, and if so to give the date of any act or omission constituting a breach, to which Defendant responded that Plaintiff had failed to execute and return a release as required by the settlement agreement, and identified by Bates number both the release and the offer that Defendant accepted, forming their agreement, on June 11, 2019. (Opposing Separate Statement at pp. 8–9.) Meanwhile, Interrogatory No. 50.5 asked if any agreement alleged in the pleadings was unenforceable, and if so to state each agreement and why it is unenforceable. (Opposing Separate Statement at p. 11.) Defendant responded by identifying his purported settlement with Plaintiff and stating that it was enforceable. (Opposing Separate Statement at p. 11.) Plaintiff contends that these responses are insufficient because Defendant’s settlement agreement is not enforceable. (Separate Statement at pp. 4–7; Reply at pp. 6–7.)

A further response is necessary as to Form Interrogatory No. 17.1. This interrogatory seeks the identification of witnesses supporting Defendant’s response to requests for admission, and specifically seeks identification of witness “names, addresses, and telephone numbers.” (Motion Exh. B.) Defendant contends only that the relevant named adjusters may be contacted through Defendant’s counsel; he does not contend that the information is otherwise not discoverable. Defendant contends only that Plaintiff may not ethically contact the named individuals while they are represented. (Opposition at pp. 2–3, citing Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 4.2.) But such contact information may facilitate the conduct of this litigation in the event that any of the adjusters ceases to be represented in this action. Moreover, the identified adjusters are not parties to this action, and their contact information may facilitate their deposition by subpoena. The motion is therefore GRANTED as to Interrogatory No. 17.1.

The motion is DENIED, however, as to Interrogatories No. 50.2 and 50.5. Plaintiff identifies no substantive defect in these responses except disagreement with the affirmative defense on which they are based. (Reply at pp. 6–7.) This is not a proper basis to seek to compel a further response.

Accordingly, the motion is GRANTED as to Form Interrogatory No. 17.1, and DENIED as to Form Interrogatories No. 50.2 and 50.5.

Statute provides that the court shall impose sanctions upon a party who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel further response to interrogatories, requests for production of documents, or requests for admission, absent substantial justification otherwise. (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2030.300, subd. (d); 2031.310, subd. (h); 2033.290, subd. (d).)

Plaintiff seeks $2,860.00 in sanctions, representing eight hours of attorney work at $350 per hour, plus a $60 filing fee. (Kim Decl. ¶ 17.) Plaintiff has only obtained partial relief on this motion, however. Accordingly, no sanctions are appropriate.

[1] Indeed, I Park is already included as a Defendant in this action precisely because Plaintiff alleges that Jin was acting in the course of his I Park employment during the collision. (Complaint ¶ 6.)