Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 22STCV03696, Date: 2023-12-11 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV03696    Hearing Date: December 11, 2023    Dept: 28

Having considered the moving, opposing and reply papers, the Court rules as follows.  

BACKGROUND 

On January 31, 2022, Plaintiff Jacob Syed Ali (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Antonio James Olea, Benjamin Rodriguera, and Does 1-50 for motor vehicle tort and general negligence. 

On May 13, 2022, Olea and Rodriguera (“Defendants”) filed an answer. 

On July 6, 2023, Defendants filed a motion for leave to file a first amended answer to be heard on December 11, 2023. On November 28, 2023, Plaintiff filed an opposition. On December 4, 2023, Defendants filed a reply. 

Trial is currently scheduled for March 27, 2024. 

PARTIES’ REQUESTS 

Defendants request leave to file and serve a first amended answer. 

Plaintiff requests 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.) 

“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 February 7, 2020, Plaintiff was walking in the crosswalk at Highland Avenue and Wilshire Boulevard in Los Angeles, CA 90010.  Defendant operated his vehicle eastbound on Wilshire Blvd. approaching the same intersection and made a right hand turn onto Highland Avenue without caution and in such an unsafe manner that it violently collided into Plaintiff. 

Defendants negligently entrusted, managed, maintained, operated, controlled and drove the vehicle.  Defendants acted in a negligent, reckless, careless and improper manner, and with negligence and disregard for the safety, rights, and well-being of others. In addition, each defendant which is found to have been an owner, registrant, lessor, lessee, bailor and/or bailee of the vehicle negligently entrusted the vehicle to the driver. 

Defendants' conduct constitutes negligence per se because it violated Vehicle Code section 21950, subdivision (a): "The driver of a vehicle shall yield the right-of-way to a pedestrian crossing the roadway within any marked crosswalk or within any unmarked crosswalk at an intersection." 

As a result of Defendants’ acts and omissions, Plaintiff was physically injured and suffered damages. 

B.   Defendants’ answer 

In their answer, Defendants denied the complaint’s allegations and asserted affirmative defenses. 

C.   Defendants’ motion to amend the answer 

Defendants seek leave to amend their answer to add the affirmative defense of accord.  Defendants argue that, before Plaintiff filed this action, the parties entered into a settlement agreement of all claims arising from the incident and Plaintiff and his counsel signed the release. 

The proposed affirmative defense states: “Plaintiff Jacob Syed Ali and defendants Antonio James Olea and Benjamin Rodriguera have entered into an accord whereby plaintiff Jacob Syed Ali agreed to accept settlement funds and other consideration in discharge of all obligations now alleged by plaintiff Jacob Syed Ali against the defendants James Olea and Benjamin Rodriguera.” 

D.   Plaintiff’s opposition to the motion 

Plaintiff contends that Defendants have known about the accord issue for over one year and knew about it when they filed their original answer.  According to Plaintiff, Defendants waived their right to assert accord as an affirmative defense by failing to include it in their answer. 

E.   Analysis 

Even if, as Plaintiff argues, Defendants unreasonably delayed 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 argues allowing the amendment would prejudice him because he “spent the last two years preparing for the September trial which did not include an affirmative defense under Civ. Code § 846.”  (Opposition pp. 9-10.)  However, trial is currently scheduled for March 27, 2024.  Plaintiff has not shown that allowing the amendment will delay the trial or cause the loss of critical evidence. 

The Court grants the motion. 

CONCLUSION 

The Court GRANTS the motion for leave to file an amended answer filed by Defendants Antonio James Olea and Benjamin Rodriguera.  Defendants Antonio James Olea and Benjamin Rodriguera are ordered to file and serve the first amended answer within 30 days of the hearing on the motion. 

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.