Judge Lee W. Tsao, Case Number: 22STCV26728, Date: 2023-11-08 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lee W. Tsao, Case: 22STCV26728, Date: 2023-11-08 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV26728 Hearing Date: November 8, 2023 Dept: C

Bautista v. Toyota, et al.

CASE NO.: 22STCV26728

HEARING: 11/8/23 @ 9:30 AM

Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

Moving Party to give NOTICE.

Plaintiff Andrew Bautista moves for leave to amend his Complaint to add two new defendants and causes of action.

Background

Plaintiff alleges that Defendants Toyota Motor Sales, USA, Inc., Toyota Motor Corporation, Toyonda, Inc., and Zippy Lube & Tune, Inc. are strictly liable for manufacturing and design defect, negligence, and negligent repair of his 2007 Toyota Camry. Plaintiff claims that the defects caused the vehicle to catch fire on February 28, 2022.

Legal Standard

CRC, rule 3.1324(a) provides:

(a) Contents of motion

A motion to amend a pleading before trial must:

(1) Include a copy of the proposed amendment or amended pleading, which must be serially numbered to differentiate it from previous pleadings or amendments;

(2) State what allegations in the previous pleading are proposed to be deleted, if any, and where, by page, paragraph, and line number, the deleted allegations are located; and

(3) State what allegations are proposed to be added to the previous pleading, if any, and where, by page, paragraph, and line number, the additional allegations are located.

(b) Supporting declaration

A separate declaration must accompany the motion and must specify:

(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.

“While a motion to permit an amendment to a pleading to be filed is one addressed to the discretion of the court, the exercise of this discretion must be sound and reasonable and not arbitrary or capricious. (Citation.) And it is a rare case in which ‘a court will be justified in refusing a party leave to amend his pleadings so that he may properly present his case.’ (Citation.) 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 and where the refusal also results in a party being deprived of the right to assert a meritorious cause of action or a meritorious defense, it is not only error but an abuse of discretion.” Morgan v. Superior Court of Cal. In and For Los Angeles County (1959) 172 Cal.App.2d 527, 530.)

Discussion

Here, Plaintiff seeks to add Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Kentucky (Toyota Kentucky) and Amazon.com as Defendants and causes of action for Failure to Recall against all Toyota Defendants and Strict Liability – Manufacturing and Design Defects, Negligence, and Failure to Recall against Amazon.com. Amazon.com has not opposed the Motion.

The Toyota Defendants argue that Plaintiff has not met his burden of providing evidence to support adding Toyota Kentucky because the evidence provided by Ms. Baidas’ declaration is insufficient. Ms. Baidas’ declaration provides that she searched Plaintiff’s vehicle through the National Traffic Safety Administration which indicated that the vehicle was manufactured at Toyota Kentucky. (Baidas Decl., ¶ 7.) The Court finds that this factual showing is sufficient to satisfy the minimal requirements to allow leave to amend a complaint. Therefore, Plaintiff’s request for leave to amend to add Toyota Kentucky as a party is granted.

Additionally, the Toyota Defendants argue that Plaintiff has not met his burden of providing evidence to support adding a Failure to Recall cause of action against the Toyota Defendants. Plaintiff’s counsel states that she added the Failure to Recall cause of action against the Toyota Defendants because she “was pleading it against Amazon.com, [she] felt it necessary for the consistency of the FAC to also plead it against all Toyota Defendants.” However, this is not a factual showing. Thus, Plaintiff’s request for leave to amend to add a Failure to Recall cause of action against the Toyota Defendants is denied.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend is GRANTED in part with respect to adding Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Kentucky and Amazon.com as Defendants and causes of action for Strict Liability – Manufacturing and Design Defects, Negligence, and Failure to Recall against Amazon.com and is DENIED in part as to Plaintiff’s request to add a cause of action for Failure to Recall against all Toyota Defendants. Plaintiff is ordered to file an the Amended Complaint attached to this Motion within 20 days of this Order without the Fourth Cause of Action for Failure to Recall as to the Toyota Defendants.