Judge: Jon R. Takasugi, Case: 23STCV11578, Date: 2024-07-18 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV11578    Hearing Date: July 18, 2024    Dept: 17

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

DEPARTMENT 17

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendant’s motion for leave to amend is GRANTED. 

            On 5/22/2023, Plaintiff M.M (Plaintiff) filed suit against Los Angeles Unified School District (Defendant or LAUSD), alleging: (1) negligence; (2) negligence; (3) negligent hiring, retention, and supervision; and (4) negligent hiring, retention, and supervision.

            On 3/18/2024, Defendant moved for leave to amend its answer.

Discussion

            Defendant seeks leave to amend to add an affirmative defense under Education Code section 44808.

Education Code section 44808 states in full:

Notwithstanding any other provision of this code, no school district, city or county board of education, county superintendent of schools, or any officer or employee of such district or board shall be responsible or in any way liable for the conduct or safety of any pupil of the public schools at any time when such pupil is not on school property, unless such district, board, or person has undertaken to provide transportation for such pupil to and from the school premises, has undertaken a school-sponsored activity off the premises of such school, has otherwise specifically assumed such responsibility or liability or has failed to exercise reasonable care under the circumstances. In the event of such a specific undertaking, the district, board, or person shall be liable or responsible for the conduct or safety of any pupil only while such pupil is or should be under the immediate and direct supervision of an employee of such district or board.

(Ed. Code § 44808 [emphasis added].)

Defendant contends that it was only at Plaintiff’s deposition on 2/8/2024, after it had filed its answer, that it learned that Plaintiff contends that he was abused only off campus. As such, Defendant argues that it was not aware of the facts supporting this affirmative defense at the time the answer was filed.

The policy favoring leave to amend is so strong that it is an abuse of discretion to deny an amendment unless the adverse party can show meaningful prejudice. (Atkinson v. Elk Corp. (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 739, 761.)

Here, no trial date has been set. As such, Plaintiff has plenty of time to prepare for trial, and Defendant has raised the issue of amending its Answer within a reasonable period of time. Accordingly, the Court finds no meaningful prejudice would result by granting Defendant leave to amend.

Based on the foregoing, Defendant’s motion for leave to amend is granted. 

It is so ordered.

Dated:  July    , 2024

   Hon. Jon R. Takasugi
   Judge of the Superior Court

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at smcdept17@lacourt.org by 4 p.m. the day prior as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  If a party submits on the tentative, the party’s email must include the case number and must identify the party submitting on the tentative.  If all parties to a motion submit, the court will adopt this tentative as the final order.  If the department does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on the tentative and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion may be placed off calendar.  For more information, please contact the court clerk at (213) 633-0517.