Judge: Lee S. Arian, Case: 23STCV15775, Date: 2025-02-19 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV15775    Hearing Date: February 19, 2025    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

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.) 

Discussion

On July 6, 2023, Plaintiff filed this case against the City of Los Angeles. Plaintiff’s counsel explains that at the time of filing, counsel inadvertently failed to include Government Code sections 815.2 and 820 in the complaint due to an oversight regarding the Department of Water and Power’s status as a public entity. Plaintiff had successfully filed a government claim form but failed to identify the applicable government codes in the complaint. Counsel alleges that this oversight was due to counsel’s relative inexperience in litigating against public entities.

Courts generally allow amendments at any stage of the proceedings, including trial, unless there is a showing of undue prejudice to the opposing party (Melican v. Regents of University of California (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 168, 175). Here, there is no indication of prejudice to Defendants, as the parties previously stipulated to the filing of the first amended complaint, and Defendants did not oppose the motion. Plaintiff has also attached a copy of the proposed amended complaint for the Court’s review.

Accordingly, the Court finds good cause to grant leave to amend. Plaintiff is ordered to file and serve athe amended complaint within 20 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. 

__________________________ 

Hon. Lee S. Arian  

Judge of the Superior Court