Judge: Lee S. Arian, Case: 20STCV13145, Date: 2023-10-27 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 20STCV13145 Hearing Date: October 27, 2023 Dept: 27
Tentative Ruling
Judge Kerry Bensinger, Department 27
HEARING DATE: October 27, 2023 TRIAL DATE: January
23, 2024
CASE: Zahra Nikfarjam v. United Realty & Management, Inc., et
al.
CASE NO.: 20STCV13145
MOTION
FOR LEAVE TO AMEND CROSS-COMPLAINT
MOVING PARTY: Defendant/Cross-Complainant
7-Eleven, Inc.
RESPONDING PARTY: No opposition
I. INTRODUCTION
On March 19, 2020, Plaintiff, Zahra Nikfarjam, initiated
this action against Defendants, United Realty & Management, Inc. (“URMI”)
and 7-Eleven, Inc. (“7-Eleven”), arising from a trip and fall on uneven
pavement in the parking area in front of Defendants’ 7-Eleven store.
On August 31, 2020, 7-Eleven filed a Cross-Complaint against
URMI, Paul Paik, and Lae Oh Paik for indemnity, apportionment of fault, and
declaratory relief. Paul Paik and Lae Oh Pail (collectively, the “Paiks”), are
the owners of the shopping center where the subject 7-Eleven store is located.
On February 17, 2023, Plaintiff dismissed URMI and 7-Eleven
from this action with prejudice.
7-Eleven now moves for leave to file the First Amended
Cross-Complaint. Defendant seeks to revise
its Declaratory Relief cause of action and to substitute other causes of action
with causes of action for Contractual Indemnity and Breach of Lease Agreement
against the Paiks.
The motion is unopposed.
II. LEGAL STANDARD
The court
may, in its discretion and after notice to the adverse party, allow, upon any
terms as may be just, an amendment to any pleading, including adding or
striking out the name of any party, or correcting a mistake in the name of a
party, or a mistake in any other respect.¿ (Code Civ. Proc., § 473, subd.
(a)(1).)¿ “Public policy dictates that leave to amend be liberally granted.”¿ (Centex
Homes v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. (2015) 237 Cal.App.4th 23,
32.)¿ “Although 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 . . . this policy should be applied only ‘where no
prejudice is shown to the adverse party.’¿ [Citation].¿ A different result is indicated
‘where inexcusable delay and probable prejudice to the opposing party’ is
shown.¿ [Citation.]” ¿(Magpali v. Farmers Group, Inc. (1996) 48
Cal.App.4th 471, 487.)¿
A motion to
amend a pleading must include a copy of the proposed amendment or amended
pleading which must be serially numbered to differentiate it from previous
pleadings or amendments and must state what allegations in the previous
pleading are proposed to be deleted or added, if any, and where, by page,
paragraph, and line number, the allegations are located. (Cal. Rules of Court,
Rule 3.1324, subd. (a).)¿ The motion shall also be accompanied by a declaration
attesting to the effect of the amendment, why the amendment is necessary and
proper, when the facts giving rise to the amended allegations were discovered,
and why the request for amendment was not made earlier.¿ (Cal. Rules of Court,
Rule 1.324, subd. (b).)¿
In ruling
on a motion for leave to amend the complaint, the court does not consider the
merits of the proposed amendment, because “the preferable practice would be to
permit the amendment and allow the parties to test its legal sufficiency by
demurrer, motion for judgment on the pleadings or other appropriate
proceedings.”¿ (Kittredge Sports Co. v. Superior Court (1989) 213
Cal.App.3d 1045, 1048.)¿ While the court may deny leave to amend where the
proposed amendment is insufficient to state a valid cause of action or defense,
such denial is most appropriate where the insufficiency cannot be cured by
further amendment—i.e., where the statute of limitations has expired or the
insufficiency is established by controlling caselaw. (California casualty
Gen. Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1985) 173 Cal.App.3d 274, 280-281,
disapproved on other grounds in Kransco v. American Empire Surplus Lines
Ins. Co. (2000) 23 Cal.4th 390.)¿
III. APPLICATION
7-Eleven seeks leave to file the proposed first amended
cross-complaint to reflect the changes in the case since its initial
filing. Plaintiff has dismissed all
named defendants from this action with prejudice. (See 2/17/23 Request for Dismissal.) Accordingly, 7-Eleven seeks to revise its
Declaratory Relief cause of action against the Paiks and to substitiute
Contractual Indemnity and Breach of Lease Agreement counsel causes of action
based on the Paiks’ refusal to formally accept or reject 7-Eleven’s tender of
defense. (See Declaration of George L. Mallory, Jr.)
The motion complies with the requirements of California
Rules of Court, rule 3.1342, subdivision (a). Further, as the motion is unopposed, the Court
finds no prejudice will result if leave is granted to file the amended
cross-complaint.
IV. CONCLUSION
The motion
for leave to file the First Amended Cross-Complaint is GRANTED. Defendant/Cross-Complainant 7-Eleven, Inc. is
ordered to file the attached amended cross-complaint within 10 days of this
order.
Moving party to give notice.
Dated: October 27,
2023 ___________________________________
Kerry
Bensinger
Judge
of the Superior Court
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.