Judge Lee S. Arian, Case Number: 21STCV30667, Date: 2024-01-24 Tentative Ruling

Under Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (a)(1), “[t]he court may, in furtherance of justice, and on any terms as may be proper, allow a party to amend any pleading.”¿ Amendment may be allowed at any time before or after commencement of trial. (Code Civ. Proc., § 576.) “[T]he court’s discretion will usually be exercised liberally to permit amendment of the pleadings. The policy favoring amendment is so strong that it is a rare case in which denial of leave to amend can be justified.” (Howard v. County of San Diego (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 1422, 1428 (internal citations omitted).) “If the motion to amend is timely made and the granting of the motion will not prejudice the opposing party, it is error to refuse permission to amend . . .”¿ (Morgan v. Sup. Ct. (1959) 172 Cal.App.2d 527, 530.) 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. (Hirsa v. Superior Court (1981) 118 Cal.App.3d 486.)

Sham Pleading Doctrine

¿“Under the sham pleading doctrine, plaintiffs are precluded from amending complaints to omit harmful allegations, without explanation, from previous complaints to avoid attacks raised in demurrers or motions for summary judgment.” (Deveny v. Entropin, Inc. (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 408, 425.)

“‘Generally, after an amended pleading has been filed, courts will disregard the original pleading. However, an exception to this rule is found ... where an amended complaint attempts to avoid defects set forth in a prior complaint by ignoring them. The court may examine the prior complaint to ascertain whether the amended complaint is merely a sham.’ Moreover, any inconsistencies with prior pleadings must be explained; if the pleader fails to do so, the court may disregard the inconsistent allegations. [Citation.] Accordingly, a court is ‘not bound to accept as true allegations contrary to factual allegations in former pleading in the same case.’ [Citation.]” (Larson v. UHS of Rancho Springs, Inc. (2014) 230 Cal.App.4th 336, 343; quoting Vallejo Development Co. v. Beck Development Co. (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 929, 946.)

A party cannot without an explanation avoid the defects of the original complaint by either omitting facts which made the previous complaint defective or by adding facts inconsistent with those of previous pleadings, the court may take judicial notice of prior pleadings and may disregard any inconsistent allegations. (Colapinto v. County of Riverside (1991) 230 Cal.App.3d 147, 151.)

Background and Analysis

On August 18, 2021, Plaintiff filed the present complaint, alleging that Defendant Craig Finley, while intoxicated, mishandled one of his firearms and shot Plaintiff. At the time of the incident, Plaintiff was an invited guest at Defendants Craig Finley and Caroline Ngo’s residence. On February 16, 2022, Plaintiff filed the first amended complaint. Plaintiff now moves the court to file a Second Amended Complaint, adding only the following language to paragraph 22 of the FAC:¿

“In particular, Defendants Ngo and Finley possessed several loaded firearms that they displayed openly and unsecured in a shared closet and in a duffle bag under a bed at the property. Finley and Ngo own several other weapons that they kept secured and locked in a gun safe in a cabin they own in Big Bear, California. That gun safe has a combination lock and a punch key, and only Finley and Ngo have access to the safe. For at least one of those weapons, there is a trigger lock. None of these protections were used for the loaded guns that were unsecured in the shared closet or in the duffle bag. The presence of these unsecured, loaded weapons on premises constituted the dangerous conditions that caused foreseeable harm to Plaintiff.”

Defendant Ngo filed an opposition, contending that the proposed additional language in the Second Amended Complaint (SAC) constitutes a sham pleading. However, Defendant did not demonstrate in her opposition how the sham pleading doctrine applies, particularly how the SAC either omits facts from the prior pleading or adds facts inconsistent with those of the previous pleading. The SAC does not omit any facts; rather, Plaintiff proposes to add detail on how the premises were dangerous due to the presence of unsecured firearms. This addition is not inconsistent with any previous pleading. Specifically, paragraph 22a of the First Amended Complaint (FAC) states that Defendants failed to keep the property in a reasonably safe condition. In the SAC, Plaintiff aims to further detail how Defendants did not keep the property safe by introducing additional allegations. Moreover, the Court does not perceive the addition of proposed language in the SAC as introducing a new theory of recovery or a new cause of action. It merely elaborates on the premise liability cause of action that has already been pleaded. Furthermore, the need to defend against a new legal theory that emerges during discovery does not constitute the type of prejudice the court typically considers when granting leave to amend. (Hirsa v. Superior Court (1981) 118 Cal.App.3d 486.)

Considering the law's strong policy favoring amendment and the absence of a substantiated claim for sham pleading, Plaintiff's motion for leave to amend is hereby GRANTED.

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 without leave.