Judge: Lee W. Tsao, Case: 23NWCV03987, Date: 2024-10-02 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23NWCV03987 Hearing Date: October 2, 2024 Dept: C
TEBACHE v. RAMIREZ
CASE NO.: 23NWCV03987
HEARING: 10/2/2024
#11
TENTATIVE ORDER
Plaintiff Sandra Lucia Tebache’s Motion for Leave to File
First Amended Complaint and to Add Fictitiously Named Parties is DENIED.
Moving party to give notice.
Background
On December 8, 2023, Plaintiff Sandra Lucia Tebache
(“Plaintiff” or “Tebache”) filed an action against Defendant Jesus Ramirez
(“Ramirez”) and Does 1 through 20 for motor vehicle and general negligence. The action arises out of an alleged motor
vehicle accident that took place on December 19, 2021.
Defendant filed an Answer on March 5, 2024.
On June 13, 2024, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Leave to File
First Amended Complaint and to Add Fictitiously Named Parties (“Motion”). On July 12, 2024, the Court granted Plaintiff’s
Ex Parte Application for an Order Shortening Time for the Hearing on Plaintiff’s
Motion and advanced the February 4, 2025, hearing date to October 2, 2024. On September 13, 2024, Defendant filed an
Opposition and on September 24, 2024, Plaintiff filed a Reply.
Legal Standard
Leave to amend is permitted
under Code of Civil Procedure sections 473, subdivision (a), and 576. The policy favoring amendment and resolving
all matters in the same dispute is “so strong that it is a rare case in which
denial of leave to amend can be justified.
[Citation.]” (Howard v. County
of San Diego (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 1422.)
Notwithstanding the “policy of great liberality in permitting amendments
to the complaint at any stage of the proceedings, up to and including trial
[citations], this policy should be applied only ‘where no prejudice is shown to
the adverse party . . . .’
[citation]. A different result is
indicated ‘where inexcusable delay and probable prejudice to the opposing
party’ is shown. [Citation].” (Magpali
v. Farmers Group (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 471, 487.)
A motion for leave to amend a
pleading must also comply with the procedural requirements of California Rules
of Court, Rule 3.1324, which requires a supporting declaration to set forth
explicitly what allegations are to be added and where, and explicitly stating
what new evidence was discovered warranting the amendment and why the amendment
was not made earlier. The motion must
also include (1) a copy of the proposed and numbered amendment, (2)
specifications by reference to pages and lines the allegations that would be
deleted and added, and (3) a declaration specifying the effect, necessity and
propriety of the amendments, date of discovery and reasons for delay. (See Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1324,
subds. (a), (b).)
Analysis
Plaintiff moves for leave to file a First Amended Complaint
(“FAC”) in the instant action. A copy of
the proposed FAC is attached to the declaration of counsel Michael Hernandez. (Hernandez Decl. ¶ 2, Ex. 1.)
Plaintiff seeks to amend the original complaint to
substitute Andrew De La Rosa as Doe 1 and Saul De La Rosa as Doe 2. Plaintiff also seeks to amend the motor
vehicle cause of action to change the name of the alleged individual who
operated the vehicle from “Jesus Ramirez” to “Andrew De La Rosa.”
On December 19, 2021, Plaintiff was involved in a motor
vehicle collision. (Hernandez ¶ 3.) On September 28, 2023, Plaintiff, through her
counsel, sent a demand letter to Farmers Insurance regarding the collision,
indicating that Jesus Ramirez was the driver of the vehicle that had rear-ended
her vehicle. (Id. at ¶ 5.) On October 3, 2023, Farmers Insurance
responded to the letter but did not indicate that Ramirez was not the driver of
the vehicle. (Id. at ¶¶ 6-7, Ex.
B.) On October 11, 2023, Farmers Insurance
requested an extension to respond to the demand letter, which Plaintiff
granted. (Id. at ¶¶ 8-9, Ex.
C.) On October 26, 2023, Farmers
Insurance responded to the demand letter, but did not indicate that Ramirez was
not the driver of the vehicle. (Id.
at ¶¶ 10-11, Ex. D.) Plaintiff filed a
complaint against Ramirez on December 8, 2023, and substituted her counsel, who
sent Farmers Insurance a letter of representation on December 20, 2023. (Id. ¶¶ 12-15, Ex. E.) Farmers Insurance responded to the letter but
did not indicate that Ramirez was not the driver of the vehicle. (Id. at ¶¶ 16-17, Ex F.) On March 5, 2024, Ramirez filed an Answer
denying all the allegations in the Complaint.
(Id. at ¶ 19.) On April 4,
2023, Farmers Insurance responded to a second demand letter, but again, did not
indicate that Ramirez was not the driver of the vehicle involved in the
collision. (Id. at ¶¶ 21-23, Ex.
G.) On April 22, 2024, Ramirez responded
to Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories, indicating that the driver of the
vehicle involved in the collision was Andrew De La Rosa. (Id. at ¶¶ 25-26, Ex. H.) Plaintiff argues that she did not learn that
Andrew De La Rosa was the driver of the vehicle or was connected to the case
until April 22, 2024. (Id. at ¶¶
27-28.)
Plaintiff’s counsel sought Defendant’s stipulation to amend
the Complaint, but defense counsel did not agree to any Doe amendments, arguing
that the statute of limitations had lapsed.
(Hernandez Decl. ¶¶ 30-33, Ex. I.)
Plaintiff argues that her amendments should relate back to
the date of filing the operative complaint because (1) she was ignorant of the
true identity of the driver of the vehicle involved in the collision, (2) she
is seeking recovery for the same collision and injuries, and (3) the original
Complaint alleges that Doe Defendants were responsible for the collision.
In opposition, Defendant argues that no good cause exists to
allow Plaintiff to amend the Complaint.
First, Plaintiff and her counsel have been aware that Andrew De La Rosa
was the driver of the vehicle since December 20, 2021, when they filed a claim
with Farmers Insurance identifying him as the driver. (Rossnagel Decl. ¶ 4, Ex. A; Raines Decl. ¶
6.) The claims submitted through the
online portal cannot be modified. (Rossnagel
Decl. ¶ 6; Raines Decl. ¶ 4.) Around
January 2022, Plaintiff forwarded a copy of Andrew De La Rosa’s driver’s
license and vehicle photos to the adjuster associated with Farmers Insurance
Group. (Rossnagel Decl. ¶ 5, Exs.
B-C.) Moreover, on August 9, 2024,
during her deposition, Plaintiff testified that she knew the name of the driver
on the date of the accident. (Rossnagel
Decl. ¶ 10, Ex. F.)
In his declaration, Andrew De La Rosa, confirms that he was
involved in a motor vehicle collision with Plaintiff. (De La Rosa Decl. ¶ 3.) Following the accident, Plaintiff and De La
Rosa exchanged insurance information and driver licenses and took photographs
of each other’s documents. (Id.
at ¶¶ 4-5.) There were no other
individuals involved in the accident and Jesus Ramirez, his uncle, is the
person insured for the vehicle. (Id.
at ¶ 7.)
Second, Defendant argues that the statute of limitations on
Plaintiff’s claims against Andrew and Saul De La Rosa lapsed on December 19,
2023, and, thus, they would be severely prejudiced if the Motion was granted. Defendant argues that Code of Civil Procedure
section 474 only permits a plaintiff to amend the Complaint and substitute a
fictitious party if the plaintiff is genuinely ignorant of defendant’s identity
at the time of filing the Complaint. A
plaintiff cannot rely on section 474, unless he/she establishes actually
ignorance of the name or identity of the fictitiously named defendant and could
not have identified the defendant’s identity from readily available
information. Here, Plaintiff has
testified to possession of Andrew De La Rosa’s driver license following the
accident and has submitted a claim to Farmers Insurance Group listing Andrew De
La Rosa as the driver, along with a copy of his driver’s license. There is no ignorance or mistake in identity,
and the information was readily available to Plaintiff and her counsel at the
time the Complaint was filed. The
accident occurred almost three years ago, and Defendants Andrew De Law Rosa and
Saul De La Rosa would be prejudiced by the significant delay in being added to
the action. Plaintiff also fails to
establish any connection between Saul De La Rosa and the accident.
In her Reply, Plaintiff states that although she had a
photograph of Andrew’s driver license, this information was never provided to
her prior or current counsel. (Hernandez
Decl. ¶ 2.) Plaintiff, who is a
62-year-old Spanish-speaking individual, testified during her deposition that
she reported the collision to Farmers Insurance on the phone and did not
provide any information online. (Id.
at ¶ 3, Ex. A.) Thus, Plaintiff’s
counsel was unaware that Ramirez was not the driver of the vehicle until April
22, 2024. (Id. at ¶¶ 5-6.) Plaintiff also argues that defense counsel
and Farmers Insurance were aware of Plaintiff’s misunderstanding regarding the
true identity of the at-fault driver for several months but failed to clarify
or correct the error.
Moreover, Plaintiff argues that Andrew De La Rosa is an
indispensable party pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 389, and the
matter cannot be litigated without his involvement. The Court should grant the Motion to ensure a
fair and just resolution of Plaintiff’s claims.
Defendant will not be prejudiced, as defense counsel knew that Plaintiff
had mistakenly identified the wrong at-fault driver but chose to withhold such
information. Trial is currently set for
October 8, 2025, and little discovery has been conducted to date.
“When the plaintiff is ignorant of the name of a defendant,
he must state that fact in the complaint…and such defendant may be designated
in any pleading or proceeding by any name, and when his true name is
discovered, the pleading or proceeding must be amended accordingly…” (Code Civ. Proc., § 474.) A plaintiff must be truly ignorant of the
defendant’s identity or the facts to state a claim against that defendant and a
plaintiff that does not meet the ignorance requirement cannot use the Doe
amendment procedure of Code of Civil Procedure section 474. (Woo v. Superior Court (1999) 75
Cal.App.4th 169, 177.) If the identity ignorance requirement is not met, a new
defendant cannot be added by Doe amendment after the statute of limitations has
expired even if the new defendant cannot establish prejudice from the delay. (Ibid.)
Whether the plaintiff’s ignorance was due to misinformation or
negligence is irrelevant. (Balon v
Drost (1993) 20 Cal.App.4th 483, 488.)
The phrase “ignorant of the name of a defendant” is broadly
interpreted to mean ignorance of the defendant’s identity and ignorance of the
facts giving rise to a cause of action against the defendant. (San Diego Navy Broadway Complex Coalition
v. California Coastal Com. (2019) 40 Cal.App.5th 563, 579.)
In addition to the ignorance requirement, there is an
implicit requirement in Code of Civil Procedure section 474 that a plaintiff
does not “unreasonably delay” the filing of a Doe amendment after learning the
defendant’s identity. (A.N., a Minor
v. County of Los Angeles (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 1058, 1065-1066 (A.N.).)
A defendant named by Doe amendment “may
challenge the amendment by way of an evidence-based motion, which argues that
the plaintiff ‘unreasonably delayed’ his or her filing of the challenged
amendment” and “‘unreasonable delay’ includes a prejudice element, which
requires a showing by the defendant that he or she would suffer prejudice from
plaintiff’s delay in filing the Doe amendment.” (A.N., supra, 171
Cal.App.4th at pp. 1066-1067.) The trial
court has broad discretion in deciding whether to permit amendment and may
consider whether the pleading states facts which could have been pleaded
earlier and whether the plaintiff establishes a reasonable excuse for the
delay. (Id. at p. 1067.)
Here, the Court finds that the Complaint does designate Doe
defendants as liable parties and Plaintiff is seeking recovery for the same
motor vehicle accident and same injuries.
However, Plaintiff has not demonstrated that she was ignorant of the
identity of the driver. The evidence
presented by the parties shows that immediately following the accident, Plaintiff
was handed Andrew De La Rosa’s driver’s license and took a photograph. In his declaration, Plaintiff’s counsel
acknowledges this fact but states that Plaintiff did not relay this information
to her attorneys. Plaintiff argues that
Defendant and Farmers Insurance were aware of the mistake and failed to correct
it, but does not point to any legal authority to show that they had an
obligation to correct Plaintiff’s mistake.
Furthermore, as noted by Defendant, the Court finds that even if
Plaintiff’s attorneys learned of the identity of the driver in April 2022, the
Motion was not filed until June 2022, further delaying the amendment. Given that the statute of limitations has lapsed,
and Plaintiff has not presented sufficient evidence of her ignorance of the
driver’s identity, the Court denies the Motion.
For this reason, Plaintiff Sandra Lucia Tebache’s Motion for
Leave to File First Amended Complaint and to Add Fictitiously Named Parties is
DENIED.