Judge: Holly J. Fujie, Case: 23STCV01711, Date: 2024-02-08 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV01711    Hearing Date: March 26, 2024    Dept: 56

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Aja Vasquez-Looper

RESPONDING PARTY: N/A – Unopposed

            The Court has considered the moving papers. As it is unopposed, Plaintiff’s Renewed Motion for Leave to File First Amend Complaint is GRANTED.  

BACKGROUND

             This case stems from alleged violations of the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.  On January 25, 2023 Aja Vasquez-Looper (“Plaintiff”) filed a Complaint against Renaissance Imaging Medical Associates, Inc. (“RIMA”) for billing Plaintiff after she suffered a work-related injury that she alleges should have been paid for by her workers’ compensation insurance. (Complaint, ¶¶ 30-32.) After discovery, Plaintiff determined that a separate entity – Xifin, Inc. – was responsible for incorrectly billing Plaintiff not RIMA. Plaintiff then dismissed RIMA and now places the current motion before the Court – Plaintiff’s Renewed Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint (the “Motion”). The Motion is unopposed.

DISCUSSION

Legal Standard for a Motion for Leave to Amend a Complaint

            The governing statute here is CCP 473 which provides in pertinent part:

            (a)(1) 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.

            (2) When it appears to the satisfaction of the court that the amendment renders it necessary, the court may postpone the trial, and may, when the postponement will by the amendment be rendered necessary, require, as a condition to the amendment, the payment to the adverse party of any costs as may be just.  (CCP § 473(a)(1) – CCP § 473(2).)

Analysis

            The Court will grant the Motion because (1) it is in the interests of justice, and (2) no party shall suffer prejudice. CCP § 473(a)(1) allows for broad discretion on adjudicating motions for leave to amend.  Additionally, judicial policy favors resolution of disputed matters, thus the Court’s discretion will be exercised liberally to permit amendment to the pleadings. (Nestle v. City of Santa Monica (1972) 6 Cal.3d 920.) Moreover, as there is currently no trial date set, it is unlikely that the proposed new party will suffer any prejudice as it is within the Court’s discretion to postpone any hearings so that they may have the full opportunity to defend themselves against a suit.

CONCLUSION

            Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Renewed Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint is GRANTED. 

Moving Party is ordered to give notice of this ruling.           

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.

Dated this 26th day of March, 2024