Judge Jill Feeney, Case 20STCV17005 2023-02-09 Tentative Ruling

This is an action for negligence, assault, battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and negligent hiring arising from an altercation which took place in December 2019. Plaintiff John Gutierrez filed his Complaint against Defendants Honeycut, 213 Hospitality Proprietors, LLC, and All Day Protection on May 5, 2020.

Plaintiff seeks to amend his Complaint to correct a scrivener’s error regarding the date of the incident. Plaintiff’s counsel was only recently assigned to this case and noticed the error.

Under California Rules of Court Rule, rule 3.1324, subdivision (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, subdivision (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.

California Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (a)(1) provides, in relevant part: “[t]he 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. (See 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].)

Even if a good amendment is proposed in proper form, a long, unwarranted and unexcused delay in presenting it may be a good reason for denial. In most cases, the factors for timeliness are: (1) lack of diligence in discovering the facts or in offering the amendment after knowledge of them; and (2) the effect of the delay on the adverse party. If the party seeking the amendment has been dilatory, and the delay has prejudiced the opposing party, the judge has discretion to deny leave to amend. (Hirsa v. Superior Court (1981) 118 Cal.App.3d 486, 490.) 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.)

Plaintiff’s counsel argues in the motion that Plaintiff mistakenly identified the incident date as December 2, 2019 when the incident actually took place on December 2, 2018. (Motion, p.3.) Plaintiff’s counsel testifies that she discovered the error when Plaintiff responded to discovery requests in August 2022. (Curran Decl., ¶3.)

Plaintiff’s proposed FAC corrects the date of the incident and also includes the names of other defendants who were named in Doe Amendments. Plaintiff’s evidence shows that the delay between the discovery of the error and the filing of this motion was five months. Plaintiff’s proposed amendments appear to be minor and will not prejudice the other parties. No party has opposed this motion.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion is granted.