Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 21STCV19030, Date: 2023-12-12 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 21STCV19030 Hearing Date: December 12, 2023 Dept: 28
Having considered the moving papers, the Court rules as follows.
BACKGROUND
On May 20, 2021, Plaintiff Vladimir Zagorovskiy (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (“LACMTA”), City of Los Angeles (“City”), County of Los Angeles (“County”), California Department of Transportation, Quixote Studios, LLC (“Quixote”), John Doe 1, John Doe 2, and Does 1-50 for general negligence and motor vehicle tort.
On September 23, 2021, the County filed an answer. On April 26, 2022, the Court dismissed the County without prejudice at Plaintiff’s request.
On October 12, 2021, Quixote filed an answer. On November 1, 2021, Quixote filed a cross-complaint against Cross-Defendants LACMTA, County, California Department of Transportation, and Roes 1-100 for indemnity, contribution and declaratory relief. On June 8, 2022, Quixote amended the complaint to include the County as Roe 1. On July 13, 2022, Quixote amended the complaint to include LACMTA as Roe 2.
On October 25, 2021, the Court dismissed the California Department of Transportation from Plaintiff’s complaint without prejudice at Plaintiff’s request.
On November 9, 2021, the Court dismissed the City from Plaintiff’s complaint without prejudice at Plaintiff’s request.
On August 29, 2022, LACMTA filed an answer to Quixote’s cross-complaint and filed a cross-complaint against Cross-Defendants Quixote and Does 1-25 for indemnification, apportionment of fault, and contribution. On September 28, 2022, Quixote filed an answer.
On December 1, 2022, the Court struck portions of Plaintiff’s complaint based on the stipulation of Plaintiff and LACMTA.
On December 8, 2022, LACMTA filed an answer to Plaintiff’s complaint.
On July 6, 2023, Quixote filed a motion for leave to file amended answers to Plaintiff’s complaint and LACMTA’s cross-complaint, be heard on December 12, 2023. No opposition has been filed.
Trial is scheduled for March 7, 2024.
PARTY’S REQUESTS
Quixote
requests leave to file and serve first amended answers to Plaintiff’s
complaint and LACMTA’s cross-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.)
“Courts usually display great liberality in allowing amendments to answers because ‘a defendant denied leave to amend is permanently deprived of a defense.’” (L. Edmon & C. Karnow, Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial (Rutter 2023) ¶ 6:643, p. 6-189 (Cal. Practice Guide), quoting Hulsey v. Koehler (1990) 218 Cal.App.3d 1150, 1159.)
“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.)
In addition, “it 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.) “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.)
DISCUSSION
A. The complaint
In his complaint, Plaintiff alleges the following:
On or about June 8, 2020, at or near Santa Monica Boulevard and Vine Street in Los Angeles, Plaintiff was a passenger in the bus of City, County, California Department of Transportation, and John Doe 1, traveling westbound on Santa Monica Boulevard near Vine Street. Defendant John Doe 2 was operating his vehicle eastbound on Santa Monica Boulevard and made a left hand-turn into a driveway without caution and in an unsafe manner directly in front of Defendant John Doe 1's bus. As Plaintiff was walking towards an empty seat on the bus, Defendant John Doe 1 suddenly and without warning abruptly accelerated and then applied the brakes as the bus was in motion, causing Plaintiff to fall and sustain serious injuries and damages.
Plaintiff’s injuries and damages were caused by the negligence, carelessness and/or recklessness of LACMTA, County, City, California Department of Transportation, Quixote, John Doe 1, John Doe 2, and other Doe defendants. Defendants negligently, wantonly, carelessly, and/or recklessly entrusted, owned, operated a motor vehicle in an unreasonable and unsafe manner, causing Plaintiff to sustain injuries and related damages.
B. LACMTA’s cross-complaint
LACMTA’s cross-complaint alleges that a Quixote truck made an illegal and unsafe left turn directly in front of LACMTA’s bus as it was pulling away from the bus stop at Santa Monica Boulevard and Vine Street, causing the bus to stop and causing Plaintiff, a passenger on the bus, to fall and allegedly sustain injuries.
C.
Quixote’s
answers to the complaint and cross-complaint
In Quixote’s answers to Plaintiff’s complaint and LACMTA’s cross-complaint, Quixote denied the allegations of the complaint and cross-complaint and asserted affirmative defenses.
D. Quixote’s motion to amend the answers
Quixote seeks leave to amend its answers to the complaint and cross-complaint to add an affirmative defense based on 49 U.S.C. section 30106, commonly known as the “Graves Amendment.” According to Quixote, the Graves Amendment eliminates vicarious liability for non-negligent vehicle rental companies based solely on ownership. Quixote asserts that its failure to assert this affirmative defense in its answers was an inadvertent error and allowing Quixote to add the defense will not prejudice Plaintiff or LACMTA because they have ample time to conduct discovery before the March 7, 2024 trial date.
Quixote filed its answer to Plaintiff’s complaint on October 12, 2021. Quixote filed its answer to LACMTA’s cross-complaint on September 28, 2022. Even if Quixote unreasonably delayed in moving to amend, “it 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.) “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.)
Plaintiff and LACMTA have not filed oppositions to Quixote’s motion and have not presented evidence or argument refuting Quixote’s contention that no prejudice will result from allowing Quixote to amend its answers.
The Court grants the motion.
CONCLUSION
The Court GRANTS the motion for leave to file amended answers filed by Defendant, Cross-Complainant, and Cross-Defendant Quixote Studios, LLC.
Defendant, Cross-Complainant, and Cross-Defendant Quixote Studios, LLC is ordered to file and serve the first amended answer to the cross-complaint filed by Defendant, Cross-Defendant, and Cross-Complainant Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority within 30 days of the hearing on this motion.
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.