Judge: Lee S. Arian, Case: 22STCV21379, Date: 2024-01-31 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV21379    Hearing Date: January 31, 2024    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

I.            INTRODUCTION

On June 30, 2022, Plaintiff David Brian Rios (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendants City of Los Angeles, Access Services, Ronald Merenstein, Rosalien Merenstein (“Defendants”) and DOES 1 to 50, inclusive for (1) general negligence and (2) premises liability. The complaint alleges on or about June 6, 2021, Plaintiff tripped over a broken/raised sidewalk pavement on Defendants’ premises that was negligently maintained causing damages to Plaintiff.

On August 25, 2022, Defendants Ronald Merenstein and Rosalien Merenstein filed their Answer.

On October 31, 2023, Plaintiff field this instant Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint.

On December 15, 2023, Defendant City of Los Angeles filed its Answer. The opposition was due on January 18, 2024. As of January 25, 2024, no opposition has been filed.

II.          LEGAL STANDARD

“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).)

          “When the plaintiff is ignorant of the name of a defendant, he must state that fact in the complaint, or the affidavit if the action is commenced by affidavit, and such defendant may be designated in any pleading or proceeding by any name, and when his true name is discovered, the pleading or proceeding must be amended accordingly; provided, that no default or default judgment shall be entered against a defendant so designated, unless it appears that the copy of the summons or other process, or, if there be no summons or process, the copy of the first pleading or notice served upon such defendant bore on the face thereof a notice stating in substance: “To the person served: You are hereby served in the within action (or proceedings) as (or on behalf of) the person sued under the fictitious name of (designating it).” The certificate or affidavit of service must state the fictitious name under which such defendant was served and the fact that notice of identity was given by endorsement upon the document served as required by this section.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 474.)

“Any judge, at any time before or after commencement of trial, in the furtherance of justice, and upon such terms as may be proper, may allow the amendment of any pleading or pretrial conference order.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 576.)

III.        DISCUSSION

Plaintiff is seeking leave to file a First Amended Complaint on the grounds that the amendment is in the furtherance of justice and is necessitated primarily based on the facts uncovered during the discovery process. Specifically, this motion is brought to add recently uncovered Doe Defendant Xlenno, LLC’s identity during the discovery process. Plaintiff argues Defendants will not suffer prejudice as trial date is not soon approaching because it was continued to June 24, 2024. Furthermore, Plaintiff argues his injury warrants redress and proposed Defendant Xlenno, LLC is an appropriate Defendant against whom redress may be had. Moreover, Plaintiff contends he did not unreasonably delay seeking leave because once the omission of Xlenno, LLC as a properly named Defendant was brought to the attention of the Firm by Mr. Kinan, the Firm undertook to correct the omission by filing the present motion. Additionally, Plaintiff contends vindicating his claims arising from the subject accident is sufficient good cause to justify an amendment of the complaint as it will avail Plaintiff of the legal remedies to which he is entitled. Lastly, Plaintiff argues he gave adequate notice of this ex parte application to all parties as set forth in the Declaration of Tom Kinan because notice was given before 10:00 a.m. on Tuesday, September 19, 2023 via email.

Here, the trial is only six months away, which gives the parties sufficient time to complete discovery. Further, Plaintiff has shown that good cause exist to amend the operative Complaint as Doe Defendant 1’s identity was uncovered during the discovery process and Plaintiff should be given the opportunity to seek redress from the proper defendants. Moreover, Defendants have not opposed this instant motion despite it being filed three months ago. Finally, Plaintiff provided adequate notice for an ex parte application.

IV.         CONCLUSION

Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a first amended complaint is GRANTED. Plaintiff may file an amended complaint within 20 days of this ruling.

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 31^st day of January 2024