Judge Lee S. Arian, Case Number: 20STCV43632, Date: 2024-06-04 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lee S. Arian, Case: 20STCV43632, Date: 2024-06-04 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV43632 Hearing Date: June 4, 2024 Dept: 27

Hon. Lee S. Arian, Dept 27

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND

Hearing Date: 6/4/24

CASE NO./NAME: 20STCV43632 TREQUAN LOVE vs RORY JANSSEN

Moving Party: Defendants

Responding Party: Plaintiff

Notice: Sufficient

Ruling: The Motion is Continued

On November 13, 2020, Plaintiff filed the Complaint, alleging two causes of action: motor vehicle negligence and negligent entrustment. In the second cause of action, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant AVIS negligently entrusted the rental vehicle to Defendant RORY JANSEN. Defendant AVIS is not named in Plaintiff's first cause of action for motor vehicle negligence. On November 20, 2020, Plaintiff served defense counsel for Defendant AVIS with a Proof of Service of Summons on Mr. Jansen, indicating that he was being served pursuant to the provisions of Civil Code section 1939.33, which allows a plaintiff to serve the rental car company on behalf of a foreign renter. On December 15, 2020, Defendant AVIS filed its Answer to Complaint. Mr. Jannsen’s answer states the following: “Defendant RORY JANSEN, an individual (served on AVIS BUDGET GROUP on Behalf of its Renter Under the Provisions of California Civil Code §1939.33). Defendant now seek the court for leave to amend the answer to change the foregoing sentence in the answer to “Defendant AVIS BUDGET GROUP (on Behalf of Foreign Renter, Rory Janssen, Served Under the Provisions of Civil Code section 1939.33)”

The purpose of the amendment is to clarify the true party in interest, Defendant AVIS, which provides liability protection coverage to Mr. Janssen and is tendering defense on his behalf as Mr. Janssen is overseas and cannot be located.

Plaintiff filed an opposition arguing that Defendant seeks to substitute Defendants without showing good cause. The Court agrees that the way the amended complaint is phrased adds more confusion. “Defendant AVIS BUDGET GROUP (on Behalf of Foreign Renter, Rory Janssen, Served Under the Provisions of Civil Code section 1939.33)” as proposed by the amended answer fails to name Roy Janssen as a defendant, naming only Avis Budget Group as a defendant. This creates ambiguity concerning who is actually responding to the complaint and legally accountable. The Court understands that Defendant Avis aims to clarify that it is tendering a defense for Mr. Janssen based on the liability protection coverage at the time of the incident, as extended by the liability insurance. However, the language proposed only adds further confusion. Courts may deny leave to amend when amendment would be “futile”. (Foxborough v. Van Atta (1994) 26 Cal.App.4th 217, 230-231.)

Defendant acknowledges this in the reply, “admitting that the proposed amendment is still unclear. To resolve this, current defense counsel respectfully requests that the Court allow an amendment to the answer to clearly reflect the represented parties as “Rory Janssen” and “Avis Budget Group Inc.” All confusing language will be omitted.”

The Court is unable to determine the specific amendment the defendant is seeking in the reply because no replacement language or new proposed amended answer with the requested language has been provided. Thus, the Court continues the hearing to give Defendant an opportunity to provide that information prior to the hearing. The hearing is continued approximately two weeks to June XX, 2024, at 1:30 p.m.

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE:

If a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling,¿the party must send an email to the court at¿sscdept27@lacourt.org¿with the Subject line “SUBMIT” followed by the case number.¿ The body of the email must include the hearing date and time, counsel’s contact information, and the identity of the party submitting.

Unless¿all¿parties submit by email to this tentative ruling, the parties should arrange to appear remotely (encouraged) or in person for oral argument.¿ You should assume that others may appear at the hearing to argue.

If the parties neither submit nor appear at hearing, the Court may take the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.¿ After the Court has issued a tentative ruling, the Court may prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion.