Judge: Lee S. Arian, Case: 23STCV17421, Date: 2025-02-13 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV17421    Hearing Date: February 13, 2025    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

On July 25, 2023, Plaintiff filed this case. On November 27, 2023, Defendant PRIME GLOBAL EXPRESS, INC. filed its answer. Defendant now moves the Court for leave to amend its answer to assert two additional affirmative defenses: Intentional Tort by a Third Party and No Vicarious Liability – Frolic & Detour. No opposition was filed.

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.) 

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).)¿ 

The moving papers have satisfied the requirements of Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1324.

Defendant has included a copy of the proposed First Amended Answer as required under Rule 3.1324(a)(1). Additionally, Defendant has provided a supporting declaration that complies with Rule 3.1324(b) by specifying:

1.   Effect of the Amendment – The amendment supplements Defendant’s answer by adding the affirmative defenses of Intentional Tort by a Third Party and No Vicarious Liability – Frolic & Detour.

2.   Necessity and Propriety – The amendment is necessary and proper because newly discovered facts suggest that the collision may have been intentional and outside the scope of employment, which directly impacts Defendant’s liability.

3.   Timing of Discovery of New Facts – The relevant information came to light during the depositions of Plaintiffs Juan Cruz and Rosie Romero on August 5, 2024, and August 6, 2024, and through subsequent investigation, which revealed inconsistencies in Plaintiffs’ statements and their connection to Defendant and driver Edgar Valle Che.

4.   Reason for Delay in Seeking Amendment – Defendant could not have asserted these defenses earlier, as the key facts supporting the amendment were only discovered during and after the August 2024 depositions. Defendant promptly sought to amend after further investigation and attempted to stipulate to the amendment before filing this motion.

No opposition was filed, and no party has alleged prejudice as a result of the amendment. Accordingly, the motion is granted, and Defendant is ordered to file the First Amended Answer within 20 days.

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.