Judge Jill Feeney, Case 22STCV05113 2022-09-13 Tentative Ruling

This is an action for negligence and premises liability arising from a slip and fall incident which took place in February 2020. Plaintiff Tony A Hadley filed his Complaint in pro per against Defendant In-N-Out Burgers on February 8, 2022.

Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint on May 12, 2022, which was stricken because Plaintiff did not obtain leave to file the amendment and Defendant had already answered.

Plaintiff seeks leave to file an amended complaint on the grounds that filing an amended complaint would be in the furtherance of justice. Plaintiff contends there was no prima facie evidence to support his original complaint and an amendment is required to introduce new facts and legal theories based on new evidence.

Defendant opposes Plaintiff’s motion, arguing that Plaintiff’s motion does not explain the nature or substance of the proposed amendments, including proposed changes, nor does it explain why Plaintiff is seeking leave to amend. Defendant contends it cannot determine what Plaintiff seeks to amend or why and what claims it will be forced to defend if leave is granted.

Plaintiff requests that the Court take judicial notice of Plaintiff’s medical reports showing medical costs, witness statements, photos of the floor where Plaintiff allegedly fell, and a customer injury report. Plaintiff’s request is denied because these are not matters which may be judicially noticed under Evid. Code section 452.

Defendant requests judicial notice of Plaintiff’s Complaint, Defendant’s Answer, and Plaintiff’s proposed First Amended Complaint. Defendant’s request is denied because it is unnecessary. The Court may always refer to the pleadings in the matter at hand.

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].)

Here, Plaintiff does not meet the requirements under California Rule of Court, rule 3.1324. Although Plaintiff includes a declaration, the declaration does not provide the effect of the amendment, why the amendment is necessary and proper, when the facts giving rise to the amendment were discovered, and why the request for amendment was not made earlier.

Additionally, Plaintiff’s proposed amendments do not contain new facts that would warrant an amendment. Plaintiff made his original complaint on PLD-PI-001 and alleged that he slipped and fell on an unknown liquid, causing injuries including mid and lower back pain, right knee pain, neck pain, and bilateral shoulder pain. Plaintiff also alleged he had witnesses and pictures of the liquid that caused his fall. Plaintiff’s original complaint alleged premises liability and general negligence.

Plaintiff’s proposed amendment does not use form PLD-PI-001 and largely consists of legal conclusions and attachments that do not allege new facts that would warrant an amendment. (Motion p. 13-15.) It is unclear what the effect of Plaintiff’s amendment would be and which allegations would be changed or added because Plaintiff’s proposed amendment takes a completely different form from the original. Plaintiff appears to request that his exhibits be incorporated into his complaint, including his medical bills, witness statements, and pictures of the wet surface that caused his fall. (Motion, Exhibits A-C.) The evidence, facts alleged, and causes of action have not changed to state a new cause of action or any underlying theory. The Court declines to exercise its discretion to allow Plaintiff leave to file his amended complaint.