Judge: Lee S. Arian, Case: 22STCV20701, Date: 2025-02-19 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV20701    Hearing Date: February 19, 2025    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

On February 10, 2023, cross-complainant Nicholls Construction filed its cross-complaint against Westside Connections, Inc. for indemnity and contribution. On August 23, 2023, cross-defendant Westside Connections filed its answer. On December 20, 2024, Westside filed its motion for summary judgment against Nicholls, arguing that Nicholls’ claims are barred by the California Workers’ Compensation Act. The hearing is set for March 26, 2025, and trial is set for April 28, 2025. Westside now moves for leave to file an amended answer to include the defense that the cross-claims are barred under the California Workers’ Compensation Act.

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 such motions, the primary consideration is whether the amendment will prejudice another party. (Hirsa v. Superior Court (1981) 118 Cal.App.3d 486.) Prejudice must be more than the burden of addressing a new legal theory; it must involve factors such as trial delays, loss of critical evidence, or a significant increase in litigation costs. (Melican, supra, 151 Cal.App.4th at p. 176.)

Cross-complainant argues that the motion is untimely because Westside is asserting a new affirmative defense after filing its motion for summary judgment and claims prejudice since the defense is being asserted only 35 days before the summary judgment hearing and 16 days before Nicholls’ opposition is due, thereby depriving Nicholls of the statutory timeline to respond. However, courts have consistently allowed defendants to raise affirmative defenses for the first time in a motion for summary judgment even if the defense was not initially pled in the answer, “absent a showing of prejudice.” (Atkins v. St. Cecilia Catholic School (2023) 90 Cal.App.5th 1328, 1341.)

Evidence shows a lack of prejudice because this defense is explicitly outlined in the motion for summary judgment. Cross-complainant cannot argue that it has only 16 days to oppose this defense when it was already raised in the motion. Furthermore, evidence shows that the Workers’ Compensation defense was raised in Westside’s Answer to Federmans’ Cross-Complaint on March 5, 2024. Westside served discovery responses on December 26, 2024, outlining its reliance on the defense. Nicholls received Westside’s Amended Answer on December 17, 2024, which included the defense, and Westside repeatedly requested Nicholls to stipulate to the amendment throughout 2024.

Accordingly, the Court finds no prejudice, and pursuant to California’s policy favoring liberal amendment, the motion is granted. Cross-defendant is ordered to serve the amended answer within 10 days of today.

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.