Judge Holly J. Fujie, Case Number: 22STCV11004, Date: 2024-05-15 Tentative Ruling

This is a childhood sexual abuse case pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 340.1. On April 1, 2022, Plaintiff filed a complaint. On May 4, 2022, Plaintiff filed the operative First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) against Defendants alleging causes of action for: (1) negligence; and (2) negligent hiring, retention, and supervision. On June 22, 2022, Defendant filed its answer.

California Code of Civil Procedure section¿473, subdivision¿(a)(1) provides, in relevant part: “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.”¿

“This discretion should be exercised liberally in favor of amendments, for judicial policy favors resolution of all disputed matters in the same lawsuit.”¿¿(Kittredge Sports Co. v. Superior Court¿(1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 1045, 1047.)¿ 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.¿ The court, however, 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.¿¿(California Casualty General Ins. Co. v. Superior Court¿(1985) 173 Cal.App.3d 274, 281¿(overruled on other grounds by¿Kransco¿v. American Empire Surplus Lines Ins. Co.¿(2000) 23 Cal.4th 390).)¿

“‘[I]t is an abuse of discretion to deny leave to amend where the opposing party was not misled or prejudiced by the amendment.’ (Atkinson v. Elk Corp. (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 739, 759-761.) 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.)

Under¿California Rules of Court¿Rule 3.1324(a), a motion to amend a pleading shall: (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.¿

Under¿California Rule of Court¿Rule 3.1324(b), a separate declaration must accompany the motion and must specify (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.¿

Here, Defendant seeks a court order permitting it to file an Amended Answer to add an affirmative defense under Education Code section 44808, which precludes liability under certain situations for conduct that occurred off the school site. After Defendant filed its Answer, the deposition of Plaintiff was conducted on August 8, 2023, and Defendant learned that Plaintiff alleges the subject abuse occurred both on campus and off campus. (Hicks Decl., ¶ 3.) In evaluating this case for a May 7, 2024 mediation and trial preparation, Defendant understood, based on the testimony of Plaintiff, that it had this additional defense. (Id., ¶ 4.)

Defendant has complied with CRC Rule 3.1324 by including a copy of the proposed Amended Answer and indicating what allegations are proposed to be added to the previous pleading. (Hicks Decl., Exh. 2.) Defendant also states that it discovered the applicability of this additional defense after the deposition of Plaintiff and while evaluating the case for mediation. This is sufficient to explain why the amendment is necessary and proper, when the facts giving rise to the amended allegations were discovered, and why it was not made earlier.

Accordingly, the Court exercising its discretion liberally in favor of amendments, GRANTS the unopposed motion for leave to file an amended answer. Defendant is ordered to file its answer as a separate document within 10 days of this order.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMC_DEPT56@lacourt.org as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org. If the department does not receive an email and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion will be placed off calendar.

Hon. Holly J. Fujie

Judge of the Superior Court