Judge: John J. Kralik, Case: 23BBCV02893, Date: 2024-10-25 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23BBCV02893    Hearing Date: October 25, 2024    Dept: NCB

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

North Central District

Department B

BACKGROUND

A.    Allegations

Plaintiffs Edvand Ovanesyan and Eduard Tamrazyan (“Plaintiffs”) allege that at 7:00 a.m. on January 28, 2023, Ovanesyan was driving his vehicle eastbound on Stagg Street approaching Atoll Avenue and Tamrazyan was his passenger.  Plaintiffs allege that Defendant Ana Carla Santamaria (“Santamaria”) was traveling northbound on Atoll Avenue, attempting to relocate a large container with a U-Haul forklift.  Plaintiffs allege that as they traveled around the curve from Stagg Street to Atoll Avenue in their dedicated lane of travel, the vehicle driven by Santamaria suddenly and without warning dove in the opposite lane of traffic, causing a collision with the front side of Plaintiffs’ vehicle.

Plaintiffs allege that Santamaria and U-Haul Co. of California, Inc. (“U-Haul”) were the owners/operators of the U-Haul forklift vehicle that was involved in the subject incident.  Plaintiffs allege that Defendants negligently hired, trained, and/or supervised Santamaria that caused and/or contributed to the subject incident. 

The complaint, filed December 6, 2023, alleges a single cause of action for negligence.

B.     Motion on Calendar

On September 23, 2024, Plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to amend the complaint.

The Court is no in receipt of an opposition 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

            Plaintiffs move for leave to file the proposed First Amended Complaint (“FAC”).  The FAC is attached as Exhibit C to the motion. 

            In support of the motion, Plaintiffs provide the declaration of Khachik Nalchadjian, counsel for Plaintiffs.  Mr. Nalchadjian states that he is counsel for Mariam Ovanesyan, as successor-in-interest to the Estate of Ervand Ovanesyan.  (Nalchadjian Decl., ¶1.)  Mr. Nalchadjian provides a copy of the Notarized Affidavit of Heirship naming Mariam Ovanesyan and a copy of Ervand Ovanesyan’s death certificate.  (Id., ¶¶3, 6, Exs. A, D.) 

            Plaintiffs move to amend the complaint because Mr. Ovanesyan passed away on May 8, 2024 and his surviving wife Mariam Ovanesyan was named as the intestate successor-in-interest of the Estate.  The effect of the amendment is to add a survival action so that decedent/Mr. Ovanesyan’s successor-in-interest may step into his shoes and continue pursuing the action. 

            Based on the moving papers, the Court grants Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend the complaint.  The motion papers address the factors under CRC Rule 3.1324.  Further, the motion is not opposed.  In addition, the Court recognizes the liberal policy in allowing amendment.  “[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.”  (Howard v. County of San Diego (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 1422, 1428.) 

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

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

Plaintiffs shall give notice of this order.

DATED: October 25, 2024                                                     ___________________________

                                                                                          John Kralik

                                                                                          Judge of the Superior Court