Judge: Laura A. Seigle, Case: 23STCV00490, Date: 2024-02-21 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV00490    Hearing Date: February 21, 2024    Dept: 15

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND COMPLAINT

On August 13, 2021, Kari Marie Lee and Gregory Lee filed their initial complaint for personal injury caused by asbestos exposure.  On April 7, 2022, they filed a first amended complaint including causes of action under Government Code sections 835 and 815.4.  On November 11, 2022, Plaintiffs Kari Marie Lee, Christopher Lee, and Ryan James Lee filed a second amended complaint for wrongful death and survival action of Gregory Lee.

On January 25, 2024, Plaintiffs filed this motion for leave file a third amended complaint to allege a cause of action under Section 905(b) of the Longshore and Harbor Worker’s Compensation Act against Defendant City of Long Beach as vessel owner of the RMS Queen Mary.

Plaintiffs’ counsel states he became aware of the possible application of maritime while preparing for the deposition of Defendant’s witness, Johnny Vallejo, on December 19, 2023.  (Robert Decl., at ¶ 11.)  Defendant argues Plaintiffs’ delay in seeking amendment is inexcusable and unwarranted.  (Opposition at p. 4.)  Defendant contends Plaintiffs learned the information earlier through newspaper articles later used in Vallejo’s deposition and four prior deposition transcripts.  (Id. at pp. 4-5.)  However, Plaintiffs’ counsel’s declaration is sufficient to show he discovered the potential cause of action during deposition preparation of Vallejo.

Defendant also argues it will be prejudiced by the amendment because the parties have completed fact discovery, Defendant has filed its motion for summary judgment, and Defendant will not be able to conduct necessary discovery.  (Id. at pp. 5-7.)  On February 13, 2024, the Court granted a stipulation to continue the trial and all pre-trial deadlines.  The trial date is now on August 5, 2024, so there is sufficient time for the parties to conduct necessary discovery and file motions.  Thus, there is no prejudice shown.   

Accordingly, this motion is GRANTED.  Plaintiffs are to file and serve the third amended complaint within five days of the date of this order.  All defendants must answer or otherwise respond to the third amended complaint, even if they previously answered an earlier complaint.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.