Judge: Kerry Bensinger, Case: 21STCV30673, Date: 2023-01-26 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV30673    Hearing Date: January 26, 2023    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

I.            INTRODUCTION

          On August 19, 2021, plaintiff Edie Glass (“Plaintiff”) filed this negligence action against defendant Avis Budget Group, Inc. (“Defendant”).  Trial is currently scheduled for February 16, 2023.  On September 22, 2022, Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file her first amended complaint (“FAC”).  On January 12, 2023, Defendant filed an opposition.  On January 17, 2023, Plaintiff replied.

II.          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.”   

          Judicial policy favors resolution of all disputed matters between the parties and, therefore, the courts have held that “there is a strong policy in favor of liberal allowance of amendments.”  (Mesler v. Bragg Management Co. (1985) 39 Cal.3d 290, 296-97; see also Ventura v. ABM Industries, Inc. (2013) 212 Cal.App.4th 258, 268) [“Trial courts are bound to apply a policy of great liberality in permitting amendments to the complaint at any stage of the proceedings, up to and including trial where the adverse party will not be prejudiced.”].)  

          Pursuant to CRC 3.1324(a), a motion to amend must: (1) include a copy of the proposed amendment or amended pleading, which must be serially numbered; and (2) state what allegations are proposed to be deleted from or added to the previous pleading and where such allegations are located.  CRC 3.1324(b) requires a separate declaration that accompanies the motion, stating: (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 reason why the request for amendment was not made earlier.   

III.        DISCUSSION

          Plaintiff moves this Court for leave to file her FAC pursuant to CCP §473(a)(1).  Plaintiff contends the motion should be granted because it was timely sought and because Defendant will not be prejudiced if it is granted.  The FAC differs from the original Complaint as follows:

(1)  The date of the Injury is corrected to Monday, January 18, 2021;

(2)  Plaintiff re-evaluated the Complaint and determined the causes of action or theories of liability had not been pleaded adequately in the Complaint;

(3)  Plaintiff intends to continue to pursue the names and identities of DOE defendants as their names and identities have not been disclosed to date despite discovery requests for identification; and

(4)  The FAC will add to Plaintiff’s prayer based on additional facts and newly proposed causes of action.

          In opposition, Defendant contends that the motion and separate declaration do not comply with CRC 3.1324, the motion was not timely made, and Defendant would be prejudiced if leave is granted. 

          The Court finds that Plaintiff’s motion fails to satisfy the requirements of CRC 3.1324(a).  Defendant raised this point in opposition and Plaintiff failed to correct it in reply.  Specifically, Plaintiff does not state where the causes of action or theories of liability that had not been pleaded adequately in the Complaint are located in the proposed amended pleading.  (CRC 3.1324(a).)  Further, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s separate declaration fails to satisfy CRC 3.1324(b).  Again, Defendant raised this point in opposition and Plaintiff failed to correct it in reply by providing a compliant declaration.  Plaintiff’s separate declaration does not state the effect of the amendment, when the facts giving rise to the amended allegations were discovered, and why the request for amendment was not made earlier.  (CRC 3.1324(b); Reply Declaration of Edie Glass.) 

          Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion for leave to file FAC is DENIED without prejudice. 

IV.         CONCLUSION

Plaintiff’s Motion for leave to file FAC is DENIED without prejudice. 

Moving party to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SSCDEPT27@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the matter.  Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue.  If the Court does not receive emails from the parties indicating submission on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may, at its discretion, adopt the tentative as the final order or place the motion off calendar.

Dated this 26 day of January 2022