Judge: Gregory Keosian, Case: 22STCV21882, Date: 2023-08-29 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV21882    Hearing Date: October 4, 2023    Dept: 61

Plaintiff Cesar De Leon’s Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint is GRANTED in part, and Plaintiff may file an amended pleading asserting new causes of action to support a claim for negligence, but may not include allegations to support a claim for products liability or defective design.

I.                   MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT

Code Civ. Proc. section 473 subd. (a)(1) states that:

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 Cesar De Leon (Plaintiff) seeks leave to file a First Amended Complaint (FAC) adding additional facts to support Plaintiff’s claims for negligence and products liability against Defendants, including Defendant Toyota North America, Inc. (Toyota). These facts include allegations that Toyota defectively designed the vehicle by not including mechanisms to render it inoperable if the airbag was removed, and further that certain recall repairs conducted on the subject vehicle were negligently done and failed to discover the absence of an airbag or seatbelt tensioner. (Hoonanian Decl. Exh. 2.)

On August 29, 2023, this court heard Toyota’s motion for summary judgment, and took the matter under submission. On September 29, 2023, this court ruled on the motion, granting it as to the second cause of action for products liability, and denying it as to the second cause of action for negligence.  The theories advanced in Plaintiff’s proposed FAC are the theories that Plaintiff argued and supported in opposition to Defendant’s motion for summary judgment, which has been ruled upon. Accordingly, Plaintiff cannot be granted leave to amend to re-allege claims that have already been disposed on identical allegations, such as claims based on products liability or a design defect. However, leave to amend is appropriate as to Plaintiff’s negligence claim, which remains operative. There is no prejudice resulting from granting such leave to amend.

Accordingly, the motion is GRANTED in part, and Plaintiff may file an amended pleading asserting new causes of action to support a claim for negligence, but may not include allegations to support a claim for products liability or defective design.

Plaintiff to provide notice.