Judge Lee S. Arian, Case Number: 22STCV38433, Date: 2024-08-05 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lee S. Arian, Case: 22STCV38433, Date: 2024-08-05 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV38433 Hearing Date: August 5, 2024 Dept: 27

Hon. Lee S. Arian, Dept 27

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Hearing Date: 8/5/24

CASE NO./NAME: 22STCV38433 AWILDA PEREZ vs LOS ANGELES COUNTY METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY et al.

Moving Party: Plaintiff

Responding Party: Defendant City of Montebello

Notice: Sufficient

Ruling: MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT IS GRANTED

Legal Standard

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.)

“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.)¿ “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. Superior Court (1959) 172 Cal.App.2d 527, 530.)

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).)

Background

On December 9, 2022, Plaintiff filed the present complaint, alleging that a "city bus did not pull up properly to the curb, causing serious bodily injury." In June 2023, Plaintiff identified that the bus in question was operated by the City of Montebello. On June 8, 2023, Plaintiff submitted an Amendment to Complaint (Fictitious Name) to name the City of Montebello as DOE 1.

On December 6, 2023, the parties filed their Stipulation and Order Allowing Plaintiff to File a First Amended Complaint for Damages, which the court approved on December 12, 2023. Plaintiff was under the impression that the proposed First Amended Complaint was "automatically" filed when the Stipulation was accepted and ordered by the Court. Plaintiff eventually became aware that the FAC was not filed, and on February 7, 2023, Plaintiff attempted to re-file the First Amended Complaint. On April 30, 2024, Plaintiff received a Notice of Rejection of her First Amended Complaint, citing that the time allotted to file in the Stipulation had lapsed; however, the plaintiff argues that there is no language in the Stipulation giving Plaintiff any filing deadline. The Stipulation only states that the Defendants shall have 30 days to file a responsive pleading. Plaintiff now moves the court to grant leave to file the first amended complaint.

Discussion

Although the defendant filed an opposition, most of the arguments advanced relate to whether the plaintiff acted with due diligence and whether the motion to amend was timely made. Defendant did not directly address the issue whether it would be prejudiced by the amendment. Although the defendant argues that the trial date would have to be continued again and the case would become increasingly complex due to Plaintiff’s new claims, these are all results of having to cope with Plaintiff’s new and potentially successful claim against Defendant, which is not the type of prejudice that the court considers in ruling on the present motion.

The court finds that the sequence of events following Plaintiff's discovery that the City of Montebello operated the bus involved in the incident demonstrated Plaintiff's diligence. Immediately upon this discovery, Plaintiff filed a "Doe" amendment and collaboratively worked with Defendant’s attorney to secure a stipulation for filing a First Amended Complaint, which was ordered by the court in December 2023. However, due to a misunderstanding, Plaintiff’s counsel believed that the First Amended Complaint was automatically filed upon court approval of the stipulation. Upon realizing this error, counsel attempted to refile the FAC in February 2024, only to receive a rejection notice in April 2024, stating that the timeframe stipulated for filing had expired.

Following this rejection, Plaintiff’s counsel engaged with Defendant’s counsel to negotiate a new stipulation to file the FAC, but these efforts were rebuffed by the defense. Consequently, on July 2, 2024, Plaintiff filed the current motion. This sequence of events, unchallenged by the Defendant in their opposition, indicates that Plaintiff acted with diligence: promptly addressing the identification of the correct defendant, swiftly attempting to correct the procedural misstep regarding the filing of the FAC, and actively seeking to rectify the filing status upon learning of the initial rejection by the clerk.

Thus, the court determined that the present motion was timely made, and there is no substantial prejudice to the opposing party. The moving party has met all procedural requirements under Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1324. Consequently, the present motion is granted. Plaintiff is directed to file and serve the first amended complaint within 30 days from today's date.

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE:

If a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling,¿the party must send an email to the court at¿sscdept27@lacourt.org¿with the Subject line “SUBMIT” followed by the case number.¿The body of the email must include the hearing date and time, counsel’s contact information, and the identity of the party submitting.

Unless¿all¿parties submit by email to this tentative ruling, the parties should arrange to appear remotely (encouraged) or in person for oral argument.¿You should assume that others may appear at the hearing to argue.

If the parties neither submit nor appear at hearing, the Court may take the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.¿ After the Court has issued a tentative ruling, the Court may prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion.