Judge: H. Jay Ford, III, Case: 24AMCV00255, Date: 2025-02-25 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24AMCV00255    Hearing Date: February 25, 2025    Dept: O

Case Name:  Courtney v. Trident Cosmetic & Family Dentistry, et al.

SUBJECT:                 MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND COMPLAINT

MOVING PARTY:   Plaintiff Travis Courtney

RESP. PARTY:         Defendant Joel A. Krejmas, D.D.S.

TENTATIVE RULING

            Plaintiff Travis Courtney Motion for Leave to File the First Amended Complaint is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s declaration in support of the motion satisfies the requirements under CRC Rule 3.1324.  Plaintiff identifies the amendments, their effect, the recently received information that prompted the amendment, and attaches the proposed First Amended Complaint to the declaration. (See Levy Decl., ¶¶5–12, Ex. A, B.).  The proposed amendment is timely and will not prejudice the Defendants.

REASONING

“Once the defendant's answer is filed, the plaintiff's right to amend as a matter of course is gone. Thereafter, a party wishing to amend a pleading must follow the procedure set forth in section 473, which vests in the trial court discretion to grant leave to amend." (Barton v. Khan (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 1216, 1220.)

A motion for leave to amend a pleading must “[i]nclude a copy of the proposed amendment or amended pleading,” “[s]tate what allegations in the previous pleading are proposed to be” deleted and/or added. ((Cal. R. Ct. 3.1324(a).)  A motion for leave to amend a pleading must also be supported by 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 reason why the request for amendment was not made earlier. (Cal. R. Ct. 3.1324(b).)

“Courts must apply a policy of liberality in permitting amendments at any stage of the proceeding, including during trial, when no prejudice to the opposing party is shown.”  (P&D Consultants, Inc. v. City of Carlsbad (2010) 190 Cal.App.4th 1332, 1345 [leave to amend properly denied where plaintiff offered no explanation for one-year delay in seeking leave to amend, amendment was requested after trial readiness conference, amendment would require additional discovery and amendment would likely trigger a demurrer or other pretrial motions].)  Prejudice exists, for example, where the plaintiff unduly delayed in seeking leave to amend, and the amendment will require a trial continuance and a reopening of discovery on the eve of trial. (Ibid.; see also Magpali v. Farmers Group, Inc. (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 471, 488 [“Where the trial date is set, the jury is about to be impaneled, counsel, the parties, the trial court, and the witnesses have blocked the time, and the only way to avoid prejudice to the opposing party is to continue the trial date to allow further discovery, refusal of leave to amend cannot be an abuse of discretion”].)

            “Any judge, at any time before or after commencement of trial, in the furtherance of justice, and upon such terms as may be proper, may allow the amendment of any pleading or pretrial conference order.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 576.) “If the motion to amend is timely made and the granting of the motion will not prejudice the opposing party, it is error to refuse permission to amend and where the refusal also results in a party being deprived of the right to assert a meritorious cause of action or a meritorious defense, it is not only error but an abuse of discretion.” (Morgan v. Superior Court of Cal. In and For Los Angeles County (1959) 172 Cal.App.2d 527, 530.)

            Plaintiff Travis Courtney (“Plaintiff”) filed this motion on 10-16-24, under a year from when the original complaint was filed on 1-18-24.  Plaintiff claims that the identity of the dental assistance was unknown at the time of the Complaint filing, and Plaintiff has since learned the dental assistant’s identity, Erica Terrazas, through the discovery responses.(Levy Decl., ¶ 5.). Plaintiff declares that upon further investigation Plaintiff has discovered that Defendant Erica Terrazas “was not, and is not licensed as a dental assistant or a provider licensed by the Dental Board of California . . . . [t]herefore, Ms. Terrazas was practicing unlawfully and/or outside the scope permitted by Bus. & Prof. Code Section 1750.1.” (Levy Decl., ¶ 7.)

Plaintiff seeks leave to amend to include a cause of action for battery against Defendants  Erica Terrazas; Trident Cosmetic & Family Dentistry, Joel A. Krejmas, D.D.S.; Elaine Gorelik, D.D.S.; Elaine Gorelik Treystman, DDS, Inc.; Temporary Dental Help; And Brenda Galvin;  to add a cause of action for negligent hiring, supervision and/or retention against Defendants Trident Cosmetic & Family Dentistry, Joel A. Krejmas, D.D.S., Elaine Gorelik, D.D.S., Elaine Gorelik Treystman, DDS, Inc., Temporary Dental Help, and Brenda Galvin; Lastly, the amendment includes Elaine Gorelik, D.D.S. in Plaintiff’s First Cause of Action for Professional Negligence. (Levy Decl., ¶ 9.) Plaintiff attaches the proposed Amended Complaint to the declaration, plus a blue-lined comparison of the Complaint against the Proposed Amended Complaint. (Levy Decl., ¶¶ 9, 10; Ex. A, B.)

Plaintiff has met the requirements of Rule 3.1324(b) by including the proposed amended complaint, explaining that the new facts were discovered during discovery and are necessary and proper, filing for leave to amend diligently upon discovery and investigation in the new facts, and explained the effects of the added causes of action and defendants.

            Defendant argues Plaintiff has not met the guidelines under Rule 3.1324(b), Plaintiffs additional causes of action are highly speculative and not based on actual facts/evidence, and Plaintiffs additional causes of action and lack of diligence in filing for leave will prejudice the Defendant. The Court is not persuaded. Defendant has failed to establish any lack of filing diligence or prejudice as a result of the amendment as no trial date has been set, and Plaintiff filed the motion for leave less than a year after filing the complaint immediately after discovery of new facts. Defendant fails to make any showing of prejudice that would require denial.  Further there is no showing that evidence will be lost, nor is the motion brought on the eve of trial. 

            Finally, Defendant’s arguments regarding the substantive merits of Plaintiff’s proposed additions are not persuasive.  Ordinarily, the validity of an amendment is not grounds for denial of leave to amend and its legal sufficiency should be tested in other appropriate proceedings.  (See Atkinson v. Elk Corp. (2003) 109 Cal.App.4^th 739, 760 [“the better course of action would have been to allow [plaintiff] to amend the complaint and then let the parties test its legal sufficiency in other appropriate proceedings.”].) “Leave to amend should be denied only where the facts are not in dispute, and the nature of the plaintiff's claim is clear, but under substantive law, no liability exists and no amendment would change the result.”  Edwards v. Superior Court (2001) 93 Cal.App.4th 172, 180 [reversing denial of leave to amend based on trial court’s erroneous application of CCP §364 as an affirmative defense].)  A court’s discretion to deny an amendment based on its “substantive vitality” is most appropriately exercised in “cases in which the insufficiency of the proposed amendment is established by controlling precedent and where the insufficiency could not be cured by further appropriate amendment.”  (California Casualty Gen. Ins. Co. v. Supr. Ct. (1985) 173 Cal.App.3d 274, 280-281, disapproved of on other grounds.)  Where the legal sufficiency of a proposed amendment is “a novel question almost certain to be tested in an appellate court, the preferable practice would be to permit the amendment and allow the parties to test its legal sufficiency by demurrer, motion for judgment on the pleadings or other appropriate proceedings.”  (Id. at p. 281.) 

Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend is GRANTED.  Plaintiff should file its proposed FAC under separate cover today.