Judge: Lee S. Arian, Case: 23STCV31026, Date: 2025-05-22 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV31026    Hearing Date: May 22, 2025    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

Background

On December 20, 2023, Plaintiff filed his initial complaint alleging that while working as a self-employed truck driver and picking up and/or dropping off a container at 6241 Telegraph Rd., Commerce, CA 90040, he was struck and injured while receiving assistance from Defendants’ forklift operator.

Plaintiff initially believed the incident occurred at 6241 Telegraph Rd. However, during the April 29, 2025 deposition of OMI’s PMQ and CEO, Robert Peraza, Mr. Peraza testified that although his father, OMI’s former CEO, owned two forklifts, they were never located at the 6241 Telegraph Rd. lot. He also confirmed that OMI contracted with companies, including Transglobal Logistics who contracted with Plaintiff, to store containers at 6001 Telegraph Rd.

Plaintiff realizes that he was mistaken about the accident location and is now certain that the correct location of the accident is 6001 Telegraph Rd. Plaintiff now moves the court for leave to amend the complaint to reflect the accurate location.

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.”¿ (C.C.P. §473(a)(1).)¿ 

“Trial courts are vested with the discretion to allow amendments to pleadings ‘in furtherance of justice.’ That trial courts are to liberally permit such amendments, at any stage of the proceeding, has been established policy in this state since 1901.”  (Hirsa v. Superior Court (1981) 118 Cal.App.3d 486, 488-489.) 

Discussion

Defendant opposes the motion on the ground that the proposed amendment does not reflect newly discovered information. Defendant argues that Plaintiff has known for at least seven months that Defendant disputed the alleged location of the accident, citing discovery responses and email correspondence beginning in November 2024 in which Defendant denied that any forklift activity occurred at 6241 Telegraph Rd.

However, Defendant’s denial of liability and assertion that the incident did not occur at the originally alleged location is not inconsistent with general defense strategy. A party denying liability or factual allegations does not necessarily place Plaintiff on clear notice that he is mistaken as to the address.

It was not until the April 29, 2025 deposition of OMI’s PMQ, Robert Peraza, that Plaintiff received detailed testimony clarifying that forklifts were never located at the 6241 Telegraph Rd. property and that container storage, connected to Plaintiff’s assignment, occurred at 6001 Telegraph Rd. That testimony provided the necessary context to confirm that Plaintiff had been mistaken as to the address.

This is not a case of tactical pleading or undue delay. Rather, the proposed amendment seeks to correct a factual mistake about the location of the incident, based on newly clarified facts obtained through deposition. Plaintiff acted reasonably in waiting for the corporate representative’s deposition to evaluate whether amendment was appropriate.

However, Defendant’s request to continue the trial is appropriate. First, discovery was completed based on the assumption that the incident occurred at 6241 Telegraph Rd., and additional discovery is necessary to address the correct location. Second, this case was filed on December 20, 2023, and is still relatively new. Third, Plaintiff does not oppose a continuance of the trial. In light of the proposed amendment, a continuance is warranted to permit any necessary follow-up discovery.

Accordingly, the Court grants the motion for leave to amend and continues the trial to January 5, 2025, at 8:30 a.m. The Final Status Conference is continued to December 22, 2025, at 10:00 a.m. All case-related deadlines will be based on the new trial date. Plaintiff is to served the amended complaint 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.