Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 20STCV10214, Date: 2023-09-15 Tentative Ruling
All parties are urged to meet and confer with all parties concerning this tentative ruling to see if they can reach an agreed-upon resolution of their matter. If you are able to reach an agreement, please notify the courtroom staff in advance of the hearing if you wish to submit on the tentative ruling rather than argue the motion by notifying the court by e-mailing the court at: SSCDEPT28@lacourt.org. Include the word "SUBMITS" in all caps and the Case Number in the Subject line. In the body of the email, please provide the date and time of the hearing, your name, your contact information, the party you represent, and whether that party is a plaintiff, defendant, cross-complainant, cross-defendant, claimant, intervenor, or non-party, etc.
Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may still appear at the hearing and argue the matter, and the court could change its tentative based upon the argument. 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 you submit, but still intend to appear, include the words "SUBMITS, BUT WILL APPEAR" in the Subject line. If you elect to argue your matter, you are urged to do so remotely, via Court-Connect.
Note that once the Court has issued a tentative, the Court has the inherent authority not to allow the withdrawal of a motion and to adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the court. This does not excuse a moving party's need to do one of the following: appear; submit; or take a matter off calendar by canceling the motion in the case reservation system before issuance of the tentative ruling if the matter moving party does not intend to proceed.
If you submitted a courtesy copy of your papers containing media (such as a DVD or thumb drive), unless you request the return of the media in your papers, the court will destroy it following the hearing of your matter.
Case Number: 20STCV10214 Hearing Date: April 10, 2024 Dept: 28
Having considered the moving papers, the Court rules as follows.
BACKGROUND
On March 13, 2020, Plaintiff Michael Garcia (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Starbucks Corporation (“Defendant”) and Does 1-50 for general negligence and premises liability.
On April 23, 2020, Defendant filed an answer.
On March 14, 2024, Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to amend his complaint, to be heard on April 10, 2024. Defendant has not filed an opposition.
Trial is currently set for January 13, 2025.
PARTY’S REQUEST
Plaintiff
asks for leave to file an amended complaint.
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.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 473, subd. (a)(1).)
“Any judge, at any time before or after commencement of trial, in the furtherance of justice, and upon such terms as may be proper, may allow the amendment of any pleading or pretrial conference order.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 576; see Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1324.)
“ ‘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. [Citations.] 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.” [Citations.] 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. [Citations.]’ ” (Redevelopment Agency v. Herrold (1978) 86 Cal.App.3d 1024, 1031, quoting Morgan v. Superior Court (1959) 172 Cal.App.2d 527, 530.)
“[I]t is an abuse of discretion to deny leave to amend where the opposing party was not misled or prejudiced by the amendment.” (Kittredge Sports Co. v. Superior Court (1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 1045, 1048 (Kittredge).) “Prejudice exists where the amendment would result in a delay of trial, along with loss of critical evidence, added costs of preparation, increased burden of discovery, etc.” (L. Edmon & C. Karnow, Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial (Rutter 2023) ¶ 6:656, p. 6-193 (Cal. Practice Guide).)
“Ordinarily, the judge will not consider the validity of the proposed amended pleading in deciding whether to grant leave to amend. . . . After leave to amend is granted, the opposing party will have the opportunity to attack the validity of the amended pleading.” (Cal. Practice Guide, supra, ¶ 6:644, pp. 6-189 to 6-190.)
DISCUSSION
A. The complaint
The complaint alleges that on February 8, 2020, at 1789 W Jefferson Blvd, Los Angeles, CA 90018:
· “Defendants negligently, carelessly and recklessly
served drinks that were too hot.”
· “Defendants did not securely fasten the lids of each
hot beverage that were negligently, carelessly and recklessly served to
Plaintiff.”
· “Defendants negligently, carelessly and recklessly
served Plaintiff hot drinks in a beverage container that was not structurally
sound and/or flawed in design.”
· “Defendants negligently, carelessly and recklessly
handed over the hot beverages to the Plaintiff without the Plaintiff having a
secure grip on the hot beverages.”
Plaintiff allegedly suffered injuries as the result of Defendants’ negligence.
B. Plaintiff’s motion to file an amended complaint
Plaintiff requests leave to amend his complaint in response to Defendant’s motion for summary judgment, which is set for hearing on September 30, 2024. Plaintiff bases the proposed amendments on a video received during discovery which purportedly shows “specific negligent actions taken by the Defendant.” (Motion p. 2.) Plaintiff contends that “There was no need to amend even after having seen the video, as the general allegations do encompass the negligent conduct alleged in the complaint.” (Motion p. 2.) Nonetheless, arguing that Defendant has construed the complaint’s general allegations “narrowly,” Plaintiff asks for leave to “amend the complaint to conform to proof so that this court can properly rule on the facts in dispute in this case against a specific allegation that appeared through discovery.” (Motion p. 2.)
“If either party wants the trial court to consider a previously unpleaded issue in connection with a motion for summary judgment, it may request leave to amend at or prior to the hearing on the motion.” (Cal. Practice Guide, supra, ¶ 10:51.5, p. 10-22.) “ ‘Given the longstanding California court policy of exercising liberality in permitting amendments to pleadings at any stage of the proceedings, and of disregarding errors or defects in pleadings unless substantial rights are affected, . . . a party should be permitted to introduce . . . [an unpleaded defense] in a summary judgment [proceeding] so long as the opposing party has adequate notice and opportunity to respond.’ ” (Id., ¶ 10:51.6, p. 10-23, quoting Cruey v. Gannett Co. (1998) 64 Cal.App.4th 356, 367.)
Plaintiff's proposed amended complaint adds factual allegations that are not contained in Plaintiff’s original form complaint. The proposed amended complaint also removes the premises liability claim and certain other factual allegations. The amendments do not, however, change the basic nature of the case.
D. Ruling
“[I]t
is an abuse of discretion to deny leave to amend where the opposing party was
not misled or prejudiced by the amendment.” (Kittredge, supra,
213 Cal.App.3d at p. 1048.) “Prejudice
exists where the amendment would result in a delay of trial, along with loss of
critical evidence, added costs of preparation, increased burden of discovery,
etc.” (Cal. Practice Guide, supra,
¶ 6:656, p. 6-193.)
Defendant does not assert that allowing Plaintiff to amend the complaint would prejudice or mislead Defendant.
The Court grants the motion.
CONCLUSION
The Court GRANTS Plaintiff Michael Garcia’s motion for leave to file a first amended complaint.
Moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling.
Moving party is ordered to file the proof of service of this ruling with the Court within five days.