Judge: Lee S. Arian, Case: 22STCV19458, Date: 2024-02-26 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV19458    Hearing Date: February 26, 2024    Dept: 27

Complaint Filed:         6/15/22

Trial Date:                   7/10/24

Hon. Lee S. Arian

Department 27

Tentative Decision

Hearing Date:                         2/26/2024 at 1:30 p.m.

Case Name:                             BRADLEY SCHENCK, an Individual vs. KATHRYN ANGELL, an Individual; MICHAEL ANGELL, an Individual; and DOES 1 through 50, Inclusive,

Case No.:                                22STCV19458

Motion:                                   MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL AND FINAL STATUS CONFERENCE AND DISCOVERY AND EXPERT CUT-OFF DEADLINES

Moving Party:                         Plaintiff BRADLEY SCHENCK

Responding Party:                   Unopposed

Notice:                                    Sufficient

Ruling:                                    PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT IS GRANTED

BACKGROUND 

On June 15, 2022, Plaintiff Bradley Schenck initiated legal action against Defendants Kathryn and Michael Angell, alleging motor vehicle negligence and general negligence. Plaintiff brings forth the present motion seeking leave to file a first amended complaint to include allegations pertaining to the diminution in the value of his vehicle, due to the motor vehicle collision in question. This motion is unopposed.

LEGAL STANDARD 

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.) Prejudice includes “delay in trial, loss of critical evidence, or added costs of preparation.” (Solit v. Tokai Bank, Ltd. New York Branch (1999) 68 Cal.App.4th 1435, 1448.)  

A motion to amend a pleading before trial must include a copy of the proposed amendment or amended pleading, which must be serially numbered to differentiate it from previous pleadings or amendments. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1324(a).) The motion must also state what allegations are proposed to be deleted or added, by page, paragraph, and line number.  (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1324(a).) Finally, a separate supporting declaration specifying the effect of the amendment, why the amendment is necessary and proper, when the facts giving rise to the amended allegations were discovered, and the reason the request for amendment was not made earlier must also accompany the motion. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1324(b).)  

DISCUSSION  

As a preliminary matter, the court finds Plaintiff has substantially complied with the applicable California Rules of Court. As Plaintiff has already sought property damage in the original complaint, the aim to amend the complaint is to clarify the full scope of the damages by including allegations related to the diminished value of Plaintiff's vehicle. (Gyongyos Declaration, ¶4a, c, d.) This adjustment does not introduce new causes of action but specifies another form of damages. The amendment will not significantly expand the scope of discovery, especially since no expert witnesses have been identified or deposed, and the trial is not immediately pending, thereby minimizing potential prejudice to Defendants. (Gyongyos Declaration, ¶5.) Furthermore, it serves judicial economy to amend instead of Plaintiff's proposal to refile the case or file a separate case, avoiding unnecessary judicial resources. (Gyongyos Declaration, ¶6.) Defendants did not file an opposition.

CONCLUSION¿ 

Based on the foregoing, the court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a first amended complaint.