Judge: Lee S. Arian, Case: 22STCV06025, Date: 2024-01-25 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV06025    Hearing Date: January 25, 2024    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

I.            INTRODUCTION

This is a premises liability case. On February 17, 2022, Plaintiff Morgan Wior (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Starbucks Corporation, Susan Mary Quagletti, Joseph James Quagletti (collectively, “Defendants”) and Does 1 to 50, alleging causes of action for general negligence and premises liability.

On June 13, 2022, Defendants Susan Mary Quagletti and Joseph James Quagletti (collectively, the “Quagletti Defendants”) filed a cross-complaint (the “Cross-Complaint”) against Cross-Defendant Tylar Holden and Roes 1 through 20 for indemnity and contribution.

On October 2, 2023, the Quagletti Defendants filed the instant motion for leave to file an amended cross-complaint. The motion is unopposed.

II.          LEGAL STANDARD

Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (a)(1) provides, in relevant part:  “The court may, in furtherance of justice, and on any terms as may be proper, allow a party to amend any pleading or proceeding by adding or striking out the name of any party, or by correcting a mistake in the name of a party, or a mistake in any other respect; and may, upon like terms, enlarge the time for answer or demurrer.  The court may likewise, in its discretion, after notice to the adverse party, allow, upon any terms as may be just, an amendment to any pleading or proceeding in other particulars; and may upon like terms allow an answer to be made after the time limited by this code.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 473, subd. (a)(1).)

“This discretion should be exercised liberally in favor of amendments, for judicial policy favors resolution of all disputed matters in the same lawsuit.” (Kittredge Sports Co. v. Superior Court (1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 1045, 1047.) Under Rule 3.1324, subdivision (a) of the California Rules of Court, a motion to amend a pleading shall (1) include a copy of the proposed amendment or amended pleading, which must be serially numbered to differentiate it from previous pleadings or amendments; (2) state what allegations in the previous pleading are proposed to be deleted, if any, and where, by page, paragraph and line number, the deleted allegations are located; and (3) state what allegations are proposed to be added to the previous pleading, if any, and where, by page, paragraph, and line number, the additional allegations are located. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1324, subd. (a).)

Under Rule 3.1324, subdivision (b) of the California Rules of Court, a separate declaration must accompany the motion and must specify (1) the effect of the amendment; (2) why the amendment is necessary and proper; (3) when the facts giving rise to the amended allegations were discovered; and (4) the reasons why the request for amendment was not made earlier. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1324, subd. (b).)

III.        DISCUSSION

The Quagletti Defendants seek to amend their Cross-Complaint to add a cause of action for express indemnity.  They contend no prejudice will result to Plaintiff if leave to amend is granted, while they on the other hand would be prejudiced if denied an opportunity to assert all possible defenses.

The Court finds the Quagletti Defendants’ motion fails to comply with the requirements set forth in Rule 3.1324 of the California Rules of Court. The Quagletti Defendants indicate that they seek to add a third cause of action for express indemnity. However, the proposed First Amended Cross-Complaint contains only a third cause of action for express indemnity. (Migoya Decl., Ex. A.)  

The Court further notes that the declaration submitted in support of the motion fails to specify the effect of the amendments, why the amendment is necessary and proper, when the facts giving rise to the allegations were discovered, and the reasons why the request for amendment were not made earlier. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1324, subd. (b).)

Therefore, the Court DENIES the motion to amend without prejudice.

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 25^th day of January 2024