Judge: John J. Kralik, Case: 20STCV41198, Date: 2023-02-03 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV41198    Hearing Date: February 3, 2023    Dept: NCB

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

North Central District

Department B

BACKGROUND

A.    Allegations of the Operative Complaint

            Plaintiff Juan Zarate (“Plaintiff”) alleges that Defendants American Honda Motor Co., Inc. (“American Honda”), Honda R&D Americas, LLC (“Honda R&D”), and Honda Power Equipment MFG, Inc. (“Honda Power”) designed, manufactured, distributed, and sold to the general public a product known as the Honda WT20X Trash Pump.  Sometime prior to December 4, 2019, a pump was acquired by the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (“LADWP”) for use in its regular operations.  Plaintiff was an employee of LADWP and alleges that he was a reasonably foreseeable consumer of the pump. 

            Plaintiff alleges that at the time of design, manufacture, and distribution, the pump was dangerously defective in that certain conditions heat up water in the pump to scalding temperatures and subject the user to severe burns.  Plaintiff alleges that on December 4, 2019, he was using the pump for the uses and purposes intended and in a reasonably foreseeable manner, and that scalding hot water shot out from the pump and caused Plaintiff injuries.

            The complaint, filed October 27, 2020, alleges causes of action for: (1) strict products liability; and (2) negligence.

B.     Cross-Complaint

On November 28, 2022, “specially appearing” Koshin Ltd. (“Koshin”) filed a cross-complaint against Roes 1-50 for: (1) implied indemnity; (2) express indemnity; (3) apportionment; (4) contribution; and (5) declaratory relief.

C.     Motion on Calendar  

On August 22, 2022, Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file the First Amended Complaint (“FAC”), stating a claim for punitive damages based on the current state of the evidence. 

On January 23, 2023, Defendant American Honda filed an opposition to the motion.

On January 27, 2023, Plaintiff filed a reply brief.

LEGAL STANDARD

CCP § 473(a)(1) states: “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.” 

            CRC rule 3.1324 requires a motion seeking leave to amend to include a copy of the proposed pleadings, to identify the amendments, and to be accompanied by a declaration including the following facts:

            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.

The Court’s discretion regarding granting leave to amend is usually exercised liberally to permit amendment of pleadings.  (Nestle v. Santa Monica (1972) 6 Cal.3d 920, 939.)  If a 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.  (Morgan v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County (1959) 172 Cal.App.2d 527, 530.)

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff moves for leave to file the proposed FAC.  A copy of the FAC is attached as Exhibit 5 to the moving papers. The proposed FAC is alleged against American Honda and Koshin only.  Although Mr. Mandell cites to a new paragraph 15, it appears that paragraph 14 was extended in the FAC and includes additional facts regarding punitive damages.  (See FAC at p.5, line 8 to p.6, line 7.) 

In support of the motion, Robert J. Mandell, counsel for Plaintiff, provides his declaration.  Mr. Mandell states that Plaintiff seeks to amend the complaint to include allegations for punitive damages against American Honda and Honda Motor Company (collectively, “Honda”).  (Mandell Decl., ¶2.)  He states that discovery confirmed that Honda knowingly placed a product in the stream of commerce without appropriate warnings about a dangerous aspect of the product, in conscious disregard to the safety of others.  (Id.) According to the parties’ stipulation letter (aka “Streamline Agreement”), the parties agreed that American Honda would be the only answering defendant and that it would provide discovery as requested to Plaintiff in order to ‘streamline” the discovery process.  (Id., Ex. 1 [Stipulation of the Parties aka “Streamline Agreement”].)  Mr. Mandell states that Honda markets and distributes the trash pump, which is designed for construction sites and areas where dirt and debris filled water needs to be removed.  (Id., ¶3.)  He states that the subject pump was built for Honda by Koshin Ltd., under a joint development agreement, Honda accepted the design of the pump and labeled it a Honda product, and Honda was responsible for all consumer warnings.  (Id.)  Mr. Mandell states that though the user’s manual had various safety warnings about aspects of the pump and its operation, there was no warning label about the pump’s propensity to build up extremely hot, scalding water in the priming chamber during certain foreseeable operations.  (Id., ¶4, Ex. 2 [User’s Manual], Ex. 3 [Safety labels on pump].)  Mr. Mandell states that discovery has revealed that Honda’s senior engineers knew about the propensity of water heating in the chamber, but consciously chose not to warn users about the dangers because they felt it was “not necessary” even though they understood that persons with limited education would be using the pumps.  (Id,, ¶5, Ex. 4 [Masatoshi Nagaoka Deposition].)  Mr. Mandell states that Plaintiff was severely burned on December 4, 2019 as a result of using the pump, which was a potential hazard Honda knew about, but consciously and deliberately decided to ignore.  (Id., ¶6.)  The proposed FAC would include a new paragraph 14 that alleges facts that at the time of placing the trash pump into the stream of commerce, Honda knew certain facts about its danger and Plaintiff’s request for punitive damages.  (Id., ¶6, Ex. 5 [Proposed FAC].)  The new allegations in paragraph 14 spans from page 4, line 20 to page 6, lines 7. 

In opposition, American Honda argues that the Court should deny the motion on the basis that Plaintiff’s allegations of malice are not meritorious.  American Honda argues that the “undisputed” evidence establishes that Plaintiff misused the trash pump, ignored the limited training provided by the LADWP, ignored the on-product warnings on the pump and did not read the owner’s manual, and his burn incident is the only water burn injury claim that Honda has received in the 35-plus year time period that the particular pump was offered for sale in the United States.  However, the Court declines to engage in a determination based on conflicting evidence whether Plaintiff’s claim for punitive damages is meritorious.  Rather, the Court will employ the policy in favor of amendments.  “[T]he court's discretion will usually be exercised liberally to permit amendment of the pleadings.  The policy favoring amendment is so strong that it is a rare case in which denial of leave to amend can be justified. 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.”  (Howard v. County of San Diego (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 1422, 1428 [internal quotations and citations omitted].)  The Court declines to turn this motion for leave to file the FAC to include punitive damages claims into a contested hearing on the evidence and merits of the case.  However, by making this ruling on the motion, the Court is not foreclosing American Honda’s right to file a motion to strike or a motion for summary judgment/adjudication with respect to the punitive damage claim or other elements of the claim. 

At this time, the Court finds that Plaintiff has supported his motion with evidence showing that there is cause to allow leave to amend at this stage of the action.  Whether punitive damages will ultimately be awarded will be determined beyond the pleading stage and upon Plaintiff’s ability to present clear and convincing evidence to warrant punitive damages.  It may be, as American Honda suggests, that, when all of the evidence is viewed in context, there is insufficient evidence to present the claim to the jury or to allow a jury to find for Plaintiff. But that determination must be made in a hearing at which the parties may present evidence, and at which the Plaintiff is entitled to certain presumptions.

Based on the declaration of Mr. Mandell, which adequately addresses the factors in CRC Rule 3.1324 and the liberal policy in favor of allowing amendments to the pleading, the Court grants the motion for leave to file the proposed FAC.  

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a proposed First Amended Complaint is granted. Plaintiff is ordered to electronically file a separate version of the First Amended Complaint with the Court by this date following the hearing on the matter.   

Plaintiff shall provide notice of this order.