Judge: Lee S. Arian, Case: 20STCV22045, Date: 2023-11-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV22045    Hearing Date: November 20, 2023    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

I.                   INTRODUCTION

This is a personal injury action. Plaintiff Ena Mejia (“Plaintiff”) filed this action on June 11, 2020. Plaintiff filed the operative Second Amended Complaint on July 15, 2020 (SAC), alleging a cause of action for premises liability against Defendant Restaurant Depot[1] (“Defendant”) and DOES 1 through 100. On May 17, 2023, Plaintiff filed a Doe amendment to the SAC, naming Defendant P&T Restaurant, Inc. dba Viva La Pasta (“Viva La Pasta”). Plaintiff claims that while shopping at Defendant’s store in Van Nuys, she was struck by a box that fell off a shopping cart, which caused her personal injuries.

On August 23, 2023, Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment. On November 6, 2023, this Court granted the motion and heard oral argument on Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend the complaint. (Min. Order, 11/6/23.) Plaintiff was ordered to file briefing addressing the leave to amend the complaint. (Id.)

On November 13, 2023, Plaintiff filed further briefing on her oral motion for leave to amend the complaint. No opposition has been filed.

II.                LEGAL STANDARD

When a party moves to amend a pleading, “courts generally should permit amendment to the complaint at any stage of the proceedings, up to and including trial. [Citations.]” (Melican v. Regents of University of California (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 168, 175.) In ruling on this type of motion, prejudice to another party is the main concern. (Hirsa v. Superior Court (1981) 118 Cal.App.3d 486.) The type of prejudice the court is to be concerned with should be something beyond simply having to cope with a potentially successful new legal theory of recovery that has been revealed during discovery. (Ibid.) Instead, the court should look for delays in the trial date, loss of critical evidence, extensive increase in the costs of preparation and other similar circumstances that create prejudice to another party. (Melican, supra, 151 Cal.App.4th at p. 176.) 

III.             DISCUSSION

Here, Plaintiff orally made a motion for leave to amend the complaint at Defendant’s motion for summary judgment hearing. Defendant objected. First, Plaintiff argues that she can bring a motion for leave to amend at a summary judgment hearing citing to Laabs v. City of Victorville (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 1242. In Laabs v. City of Victorville, the court held “Initially, if a plaintiff wishes to introduce issues not encompassed in the original pleadings, the plaintiff must seek leave to amend the complaint at or prior to the hearing on the motion for summary judgment.” (Laabs v. City of Victorville (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 1242, 1257.) Therefore, the Court may consider Plaintiff’s oral motion for leave to amend complaint made during the motion for summary judgment hearing.

Furthermore, Plaintiff argues that good cause exists to allow leave to amend her complaint. Plaintiff cites to Bostrom v. County of San Bernardino (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 1654, where the court held “if summary judgment is granted on the ground that the complaint is legally insufficient, but it appears from the materials submitted in opposition to the motion that the plaintiff could state a cause of action, the trial court should give the plaintiff an opportunity to amend the complaint before entry of judgment.” (Bostrom v. County of San Bernardino (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 1654, 1663.) Plaintiff contends that her complaint unequivocally states a cause of action for Negligent Maintenance and Operation of Defendant’s Premises. Plaintiff further contends that the new facts to be pled in the amendment are consistent with her original theory of recovery for Negligent Maintenance and Operation because a jury could make inferences and conclude Defendant’s negligent operation of their store led to someone other than plaintiff bumping into the cart and caused injury to plaintiff. Plaintiff argues that evidence that Defendant did not inspect their premises to safeguard customers against the possibility of falling objects or take any precautions in the maintenance of other customers dangerously moving about their premises on the day of the incident should in and of itself defeat Defendant’s summary judgment motion and at the very least allow for her to amend her complaint since those facts are fundamentally connected to Plaintiff’s cause of action for Negligence.

Moreover, Plaintiff asserts that she will stipulate to continue the trial should Defendant request more time to prepare. Plaintiff also argues that the new facts have always been encompassed by the original SAC for Negligence and just add to the stated cause of action. Plaintiff contends that the facts have been discovered in the course of litigation through written discovery and litigation and do not state a new cause of action. Additionally, Plaintiff argues that she would be prejudiced if not allowed to amend. Lastly, Plaintiff argues that her amendment would not in any way change her theory of liability and thus necessitate Defendant to change their defense.

 The Court believes this is a close call.  It is hesitant to allow amendment given the apparent unfairness of allowing Plaintiff to defeat a summary judgment motion by presenting “a moving target unbounded by the pleadings.”  See Falcon v. Long Beach Genetics, Inc. (2014) 224 Cal.App.4th 1263, 1280.  However, the Court recognizes that California courts are instructed to liberally grant amendment to allow a party the opportunity to present a viable case if such a case exists.[1]  The Court finds that under the facts of this case, this latter principle outweighs the unfairness to Defendant.  Accordingly, the Court hereby grants Plaintiff’s oral motion for leave to amend her complaint. 

IV.             CONCLUSION

Plaintiff Ena Mejia’s Motion for Leave to Amend Second Amended Complaint is GRANTED.   Leave is granted to amend the Complaint within 20 days of this Order.

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 20^th day of November 2023