Judge: Kevin C. Brazile, Case: 22STCV38340, Date: 2023-10-03 Tentative Ruling

Hearing Date: October 3, 2023

Case Name: Dixon v. LA Dodgers, LLC, et al.

Case No.: 22STCV23928

Matter: Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint

Moving Party: Plaintiff Gregory Dixon

Responding Party: Unopposed

Notice: OK

Ruling: The Motion is granted.

Moving party to give notice.

If counsel do not submit on the tentative, they are strongly 

encouraged to appear by LACourtConnect rather than in person due to the COVID-19 pandemic. 

On July 25, 2022, Plaintiff Gegory Dixon filed the operative Complaint for (1) negligence, (2) premises liability, (3) assault, (4) battery, (5) false imprisonment, (6) violation of “federal civil rights”, and (7) negligent hiring, supervision, and retention.   Plaintiff alleges he was at a Dodgers game when he “was assaulted and battered by Dodger non-sworn, and off-duty sworn security employees dressed in the dark polo shirts. Dodger employees who were off duty sworn uniformed Los Angeles Police Department officers observed Plaintiff being unlawfully assaulted and battered without cause and with excessive force, but they did nothing to intercede and assist Plaintiff when the harm to Plaintiff was foreseeable.”

Plaintiff Dixon now seeks leave to file a first amended complaint adding an eighth cause of action for violation of Civ. Code § 52.1.  

The Court may, in the furtherance of justice, and upon any terms as may be proper, allow a party to amend any pleading.  (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 473, 576.)  In general, California courts liberally exercise discretion to permit amendment of pleadings in light of a strong policy favoring resolution of all disputes between parties in the same action.  (Nestle v. Santa Monica (1972) 6 Cal.3d 920, 939; Morgan v. Superior Court (1959) 172 Cal.App.2d 527, 530.)  “[T]here is a strong policy in favor of liberal allowance of amendments.”  (Mesler v. Bragg Management Co. (1985) 39 Cal.3d 290, 296.)  Pursuant to this policy, requests for leave to amend generally will be granted unless the party seeking to amend has been dilatory in bringing the proposed amendment before the Court, and the delay in seeking leave to amend will cause prejudice to the opposing party if leave to amend is granted.  (Hirsa v. Superior Court (1981) 118 Cal.App.3d 486, 490; Higgins v. Del Faro (1981) 123 Cal.App.3d 558, 564-565.)  The decision on a motion for leave is directed to the sound discretion of the trial court.  (See generally Weil & Brown, Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2014) ¶¶ 6:637 et seq.)

Given that the jury trial in this action is set for November 3, 2025, the Court cannot find sufficient prejudice to Defendant as a result of the subject amendment.  Therefore, the Motion is granted.  

Moving party to give notice.

If counsel do not submit on the tentative, they are strongly encouraged to appear by LACourtConnect rather than in person due to the COVID-19 pandemic.