Judge: Lee S. Arian, Case: 22STCV01540, Date: 2023-10-30 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV01540    Hearing Date: November 28, 2023    Dept: 27

Tentative Ruling

Judge Lee S. Arian, Department 27

HEARING DATE:     November 28, 2023                           TRIAL DATE:  March 13, 2024

CASE:                                Jenny Iturrios vs. EAN Holdings, et al.

CASE NO.:                 22STCV01540

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE FIRST AN AMENDED ANSWER

MOVING PARTY:               Defendant Sabrina Nicole Hicks

RESPONDING PARTY:     Plaintiff Jenny Iturrios

I.          INTRODUCTION

This is a personal injury case wherein Plaintiff Jenny Iturrios and Mayra Perez (collectively “Plaintiffs”) sued EAN Holdings, LLC, Sabrina Nicole Hicks (“Hicks”), Rashida Isoke Lenard (“Lenard”), Darlene Moka (“Moka”), and DOES 1-25 (collectively “Defendants”).

Hicks filed this motion on March 30, 2023. Hicks is requesting leave to file a first amended answer to add a new affirmative defense of breach of contract. Hicks wants to add this affirmative defense because of her counsel’s inadvertence, mistake, and excusable neglect.

Plaintiff filed an Opposition on October 18, 2023, and Hicks filed a Reply on October 23, 2023.

On November 6, 2023, Hicks submitted an amended declaration for leave to file amended answer.

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 a pleading, 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.       DISCUSSION

Generally, leave is liberally granted at any stage of the proceedings unless inexcusable delay and probable prejudice to the opposing party is shown.¿¿(Magpali, supra, 48 Cal.App.4th at p. 487.)

Defendant seeks leave to file the proposed First Amended Answer to add the affirmative defense of breach of contract regarding a settlement claim. 

Plaintiffs contend that the motion should be denied because the amendment would require substantial discovery and would cause a further continuance of the trial. Moreover, Plaintiffs claim that the amendment is not necessary because there was no final settlement signed among the parties and the amendment could be brought as a cause of action rather than an affirmative defense. Plaintiffs rely on California Evidence Code (“CEC”) Section 352 which states that evidence may be excluded if its probative value is outweighed by undue consumption of time or create substantial danger of undue prejudice, of confusing the issues, or of misleading the jury. Lastly, Plaintiffs contend that defense counsel is disingenuous about the timing of the mistake, and it was a strategic decision because he had presented a different basis for the omission in his new declaration than the original reason (Defendant’s Motion for Leave to Amend Answer, page 10, lines 16-18).

Defendant Hicks contends the motion should be granted because she alleges that her Counsel’s inadvertence, mistake, and excusable neglect will not unjustly prejudice the Plaintiffs because discovery is still available.

Defendant Hicks met the Court’s requirement of filing and serving the amended declaration with the proposed amended answer by November 6, 2023. While the amendment may require additional time to be spent on discovery, it is less than the time a completely different action, as suggested as a possibility by Plaintiffs, would take.  Certainly, it is the most efficient means to address the alleged affirmative defense.   

Given the liberal policy of allowing amendments prior to trial and the overall importance of adjudicating cases on the merits, the Court grants Defendant Hicks’ motion for leave to file a proposed amended Answer.

IV.       CONCLUSION

            The motion for leave to file an amended answer is GRANTED. 

Moving party to give notice. 

Dated:   November 28, 2023                                   ___________________________________

                                                                                    Lee S. Arian

                                                                                    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.