Judge: John J. Kralik, Case: 24NNCV01512, Date: 2025-05-23 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24NNCV01512    Hearing Date: May 23, 2025    Dept: NCB

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

North Central District

Department B

BACKGROUND

A.   Allegations

Plaintiffs Timothy Scott Crabaugh and Dawn Shirell Crabaugh (“Plaintiffs”) allege that on May 3, 2023, Mr. Crabaugh was employed as a construction worker at the location 1239 S. Glendale Ave., Glendale, CA 91205.  He alleges Defendants Custom Iron Corporation, DBaC, Inc., Mike Parks, Mike Knee, Matt Fox, David Spring, and Efrain M. Ortiz (“Defendants”) were each a developer, owner, general contractor, foreman, project manager, subcontractor, and/or building material supplier engaged in the business of construction and related activities at the job site.  Plaintiffs allege that Custom Iron Corporation, DBaC, Inc., Mike Parks, Mike Knee, Matt Fox, and David Spring were negligent by failing to investigate Efrain M. Ortiz’s warnings that bolts he had instructed to use to secure the trusses at the job site were the wrong size and too small.  Plaintiffs allege that as a result of the small bolts, the trusses fell, causing personal injuries to Mr. Crabaugh.  Plaintiffs allege that Efrain M. Ortiz should have contacted CAL-OSHA, but did not, falling short of his standard of care as an employer of a subcontractor. 

 Mrs. Crabaugh is Mr. Crabaugh’s wife and asserts a claim for loss of consortium. 

The first amended complaint (“FAC”), filed November 14, 2024, alleges causes of action for: (1) negligence; and (2) loss of consortium.

B.    Cross-Complaint

On June 13, 2024, DBaC, Inc. and Mike Parks filed a cross-complaint against ROES 1-100 for: (1) complete indemnity; (2) partial indemnity; (3) equitable contribution; and (4) declaratory relief.

C.    Motion on Calendar

On April 25, 2025, Plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file the proposed Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”).

The Court is not 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 Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”).  The SAC is attached as Exhibit A to the declaration of Michael J. Yepp.   

            In support of the motion, Plaintiffs provide the declaration of their counsel, Michael J. Yepp.  Mr. Yepp states that the effect of the SAC would be to add a 3^rd cause of action for survival (with accompanying allegations) against Defendants, add a party (Estate of Timothy Crabaugh), add paragraphs 28-48 regarding the new 3^rd cause of action, and add to the prayer for relief allegations for pre-death pain, suffering, and disfigurement pursuant to CCP § 377.34 according to proof.  (Yepp Decl., ¶¶4-5.)  Mr. Yepp states that the amendments are necessary and proper to adjudicate Plaintiffs’ claims and damages in the same action and trial.  (Id., ¶6.)  He states that Mr. Crabaugh recently passed away on February 10, 2025, which gave rise to the survival action.  (Id., ¶¶7-8.)  After providing some time for Mr. Crabaugh’s family to grieve their loss, counsel instructed his paralegal to reserve a hearing date for this motion.  (Id., ¶13, Ex. B.)

            Based on the moving papers, the Court grants Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend the FAC and file the SAC.  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 file a Second Amended Complaint is granted.  Plaintiffs are ordered to electronically file a separate, clean version of the Second Amended Complaint with the Court by this date following the hearing on the matter.