Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 21STCV37230, Date: 2024-01-26 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 21STCV37230 Hearing Date: January 26, 2024 Dept: 28
Having considered the moving, opposing, and reply papers, the Court rules as follows.
BACKGROUND
On October 8, 2021, Plaintiffs Leonel Mateo Pascual and Pascual Mateo Pascual ("Plaintiffs") filed this action against Defendants Raymond G. Guillermo, Los Angeles Private Detectives ("Los Angeles Private Detectives"), Doe business entities 1-20, and Doe individuals 21-50 (collectively, "Doe defendants") for assault and battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and negligent infliction of emotional distress.
On January 11, 2022, Defendant Raymond Guillermo dba Los Angeles Private Detectives (“Guillermo”) filed an answer.
On May 26, 2022, Plaintiffs amended the complaint to include Defendant Pipkin Detective Agency, Inc. (“Pipkin”) as Doe 1.
On July 1, 2022, the Court granted Guillermo’s motion for a stay and stayed the action in its entirety pending the outcome of Guillermo’s criminal case.
On July 8, 2022, Pipkin filed an answer. On July 12, 2022, Pipkin filed a cross-complaint against Cross-Defendants Roes 1-100 for indemnity, equitable contribution, and declaratory relief.
On October 31, 2022, the Court lifted the stay.
On January 18, 2023, Plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint against Guillermo, Los Angeles Private Detectives, Pipkin, and Doe defendants for assault and battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent infliction of emotional distress, negligent hiring, supervision, training, and retention, negligence, and negligence per se.
On January 24, 2023, Guillermo filed an answer to the first amended complaint.
On February 14, 2023, Plaintiffs amended the first amended complaint to include Defendant Ho Sai Gai Farms, Inc. (“Ho Sai Gai Farms”).
On March 27, 2023, Ho Sai Gai Farms filed an answer.
On April 4, 2023, the Court sustained Pipkin’s demurrer in part with 30 days leave to amend on Plaintiff’s claims for assault and battery and negligent hiring, training, supervision, and retention. The Court denied Pipkin’s motion to strike.
On May 3, 2023, Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint against Guillermo, Los Angeles Private Detectives, Pipkin, and Doe defendants for assault, battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent infliction of emotional distress, negligent hiring, supervision, training, and retention, negligence, and negligence per se.
On July 6, 2023, the Court overruled Pipkin’s demurrer and denied its motion to strike.
On July 19, 2023, Pipkin filed an answer to the second amended complaint.
On July 19, 2023, Plaintiffs amended the complaint to include Defendant Murray Scott McElroy (“McElroy”) as Doe 5. On August 29, 2023, Plaintiffs amended the complaint to include Defendants Christopher Scott Garrett (“Garrett”) as Doe 3 and Daren Robert Ellison (“Ellison”) as Doe 4.
On October 27, 2023, McElroy, Garrett, and Ellison filed an answer.
On November 14, 2023, Plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file a third amended complaint, to be heard on January 26, 2024. On January 12, 2024, Pipkin, McElroy, Garrett, and Ellison (“Opposing Defendants”) filed an opposition. On January 19, 2024, Plaintiffs filed a reply.
Trial is currently set for October 15, 2024.
PARTIES’ REQUESTS
Plaintiffs request that the Court grant leave to file a third amended complaint.
Opposing Defendants
request that the Court deny the motion.
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.) “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
Plaintiffs request leave to amend their complaint to:
· add a description of the findings of the Bureau of Security and Investigative Services (BSIS), part of California's Department of Consumer Affairs, which investigated
the incident that gave rise to the lawsuit
· add Los Angeles Private Detectives and Pipkin to an italicized header as a party to the seventh cause of action
· add the following subsections (c) and (d),
respectively, to Paragraph 120, page 44, lines 11-23: (c) Violation of Business
and Professions Code section 7521.5(a); (d) Violation of Business and
Professions Code section 7521.5(d)
· add a paragraph to the seventh cause of action stating:
“121.
Defendant PIPKIN DETECTIVE AGENCY and DOES 1 through l0's negligence, which
constituted a direct and proximate cause of the injuries to PLAINTIFFSS,
consisted of, but was not limited to, violations of the following laws and
ordinances, constituting, in each instance, negligence per se:
(a)
Violation of Business and Professions Code 7521.5(a);
(b)
Violation of Business and Professions Code 7521.5( d);
(c) Violation of Business and Professions Code 7531.”
· add four references to the California Business and Professions Code to the seventh cause of action
· add Guillermo, Los Angeles Private Detectives, and Pipkin to two paragraphs in the seventh cause of action
Opposing Defendants argue that (1) Plaintiffs have provided only their hearsay interpretation of the BSIS report, (2) the report is being appealed, (3) the standard of proof used in the report is different from the civil law standard, and (4) the Department of Consumer Affairs has not finalized the report. Opposing Defendants also argue that they will be prejudiced by the proposed amendments.
Allowing the amendments does not mean that the Court is finding the new facts which Plaintiffs wish to assert in an amended complaint are true. Also, the Court does not consider the truth or strength of proposed pleadings in deciding whether to permit amendments. If Plaintiffs wish to include in their complaint allegations based on a report which is subject to revision or reversal, they may do so, just as Opposing Defendants may challenge the allegations or dispute their relevance to this case in an appropriate motion or at trial.
Opposing Defendants also argue that Plaintiffs waited too long to seek amendment of the complaint. But even if Plaintiffs unreasonably delayed in filing their motion 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.)
According
to Opposing Defendants, allowing the amendment will prejudice them. However, they provide no support for this
argument aside from the assertion that “amendment would delay the trial, result
in a loss of critical evidence, or add to the defendants’ trial-preparation
costs . . . .” (Opposition p. 5.)
The
proposed amendments do not change the alleged facts giving rise to the
complaint. Instead, they modify the
legal arguments on which Plaintiffs intend to rely. The trial is scheduled for October 15, 2024, giving Opposing Defendants ample
time to address these new arguments.
The Court grants the motion.
CONCLUSION
The Court GRANTS the motion for leave to file a third amended complaint filed by Plaintiffs Leonel Mateo Pascual and Pascual Mateo Pascual.
Moving parties are ordered to give notice of this ruling.
Moving parties are ordered to file the proof of service of this ruling with the Court within five days.