Judge: Lee S. Arian, Case: 22STCV19448, Date: 2025-02-11 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV19448    Hearing Date: February 11, 2025    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

Background

On June 16, 2022, Plaintiff initiated this action, alleging that on September 25, 2021, Defendant Franklin Vladimir Lopez Alas, while driving a BMW 3 Series rented through Defendant Turo, Inc.'s vehicle-sharing platform, struck Plaintiff Gilbert Guerrero, who was standing as a pedestrian at the corner of Normandie Avenue and 15th Street in Los Angeles.

On May 31, 2024, Michael Wilkins, Defendant Turo’s Person Most Knowledgeable, testified that Turo failed to verify Defendant Alas’s license status, which would have revealed his ineligibility to rent a vehicle due to a suspended license.

Plaintiff now moves the Court to:

1.  Add a cause of action for Negligent Entrustment against Defendant Turo, Inc.

2.  Add allegations supporting a claim for punitive damages based on Defendant Turo, Inc.’s conscious disregard for public safety.

Defendant Turo filed an opposition. Trial is set for April 22, 2025.

Discussion

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.) 

        A motion to amend a pleading before trial must include a copy of the proposed amendment or amended pleading.¿ (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1324, subd. (a)(1).)¿ A motion to amend a pleading must also be supported by a declaration which specifies the following: (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).)¿ 

Plaintiff failed to comply with the requirements of California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1324. The only portion of the declaration that addresses why the request for amendment was not made earlier states:

"My office has been diligently pursuing Plaintiff’s case, and I only filed this Motion to Amend based on facts that I have discovered during the deposition of PMQ – Michael Wilkins, taken on May 31, 2024." (Crouse Decl. ¶ 11.)

However, this does not explain why the motion was not brought immediately after that deposition or provide an explanation for a seven-month delay between May 31, 2024, and the filing date of December 26, 2024. This issue was raised by Defendant in its opposition, but Plaintiff did not file a reply providing any explanation for this delay.

Furthermore, trial is set for April 22, 2025, and amending the complaint at this stage, just two months before trial, would likely require additional discovery, necessitate a continuance of the trial date and cause a delay in trial. The Court notes that this case was filed in 2022, and under California Rule of Court 3.714, cases of this nature are expected to conclude within two years. The current trial date is already approaching the three-year mark, and any further continuance would extend the case beyond that timeframe. Delay in trial is a potential prejudice that the Court must seriously consider.

Additionally, the Court finds some merit in Defendant’s argument that Turo’s failure to conduct a motor vehicle record check, which would have revealed Alas’s suspended license and disqualified him from renting a vehicle, does not rise to the level of outrageous, vile, or despicable conduct necessary to support a claim for punitive damages. Adding punitive damages is, therefore, likely futile.

Accordingly, the motion is denied with prejudice.

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’s 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.