Judge: Lee W. Tsao, Case: 23NWCV00870, Date: 2024-10-15 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23NWCV00870    Hearing Date: October 15, 2024    Dept: C

Martin Rojo Lopez vs Van De Nguyen, et al.

Case No.: 23NWCV00870

Hearing Date: October 15, 2024 @ 9:30 a.m.

#4

Tentative Ruling

Defendant Van De Nguyen’s Motion for Leave to Amend Answer is GRANTED.

Defendant to give notice.

Background

This action arises out of an automobile accident. Plaintiff Martin Rojo Lopez (“Plaintiff”) filed a Complaint against Defendants Van De Nguyen, Nho Mah Tran, and ZZZ Express Inc for: (1) Negligence; (2) Negligence Per Se; and (3) Negligent Hiring, Supervision, and Retention.

Defendant Van De Nguyen (“Defendant”) moves for Leave to Amend Answer.

No opposition has been filed as of October 11, 2024.

Legal Standard

California Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (a)(1) provides, in relevant part: “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.” 

“This discretion should be exercised liberally in favor of amendments, for judicial policy favors resolution of all disputed matters in the same lawsuit.”  (Kittredge Sports Co. v. Superior Court (1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 1045, 1047.)  Ordinarily, the court will not consider the validity of the proposed amended pleading in ruling on a motion for leave since grounds for a demurrer or motion to strike are premature.  (See id. at p. 1048.)  The court, however, does have discretion to deny leave to amend where a proposed amendment fails to state a valid defense as a matter of law and the defect cannot be cured by further amendment.  (See California Casualty General Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1985) 173 Cal.App.3d 274, 281, (overruled on other grounds by Kransco v. American Empire Surplus Lines Ins. Co. (2000) 23 Cal.4th 390).) 

Under California Rules of Court Rule 3.1324(a), a motion to amend a pleading shall (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. 

Under California Rule of Court Rule 3.1324(b), 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. 

Even if a good amendment is proposed in proper form, a long, unwarranted and unexcused delay in presenting it may be a good reason for denial.  In most cases, the factors for timeliness are: (1) lack of diligence in discovering the facts or in offering the amendment after knowledge of them; and (2) the effect of the delay on the adverse party.  If the party seeking the amendment has been dilatory, and the delay has prejudiced the opposing party, the judge has discretion to deny leave to amend.  (Hirsa v. Superior Court (1981) 118 Cal.App.3d 486, 490.)  Prejudice exists where the amendment would require delaying the trial, resulting in loss of critical evidence, or added costs of preparation such as an increased burden of discovery.  (Magpali v. Farmers Group, Inc. (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 471, 486-488.) 

Discussion

Defendant argues there is good cause for him to amend the answer to include affirmative defenses relating to Plaintiff’s lack of automobile insurance, which would preclude Plaintiff from recovering non-economic damages. 

Defendant contends that Plaintiff would suffer no prejudice from the amendments, as the aforementioned affirmative defenses and their underlying facts have been at issue since early in the lawsuit and little or no additional discovery is required. 

As the motion is unopposed, Defendant’s Motion is GRANTED.