Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 22STCV10763, Date: 2024-01-19 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV10763 Hearing Date: January 19, 2024 Dept: 28
Having considered the moving, opposing and reply papers, the Court rules as follows.
BACKGROUND
On March 29, 2022, Plaintiff Keily Almendares (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Scott Calder Warren (“Warren”), Linda Calder (“Calder”), and Does 1-50 for negligence, negligence per se, negligent entrustment, and respondeat superior.
On October 25, 2022, Warren and Calder (“Defendants”) filed an answer.
On November 2, 2023, Defendants filed a motion for leave to file an amended answer, to be heard on December 22, 2023. The Court continued the hearing to January 19, 2024. On December 11, 2023, Plaintiff filed an opposition. On December 15, 2023, Defendants filed a reply.
Trial is currently scheduled for May 31, 2024.
PARTIES’ REQUESTS
Defendants request leave to file and serve the proposed 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 her complaint, Plaintiff alleges the following:
On or about April 7, 2020, Plaintiff was driving westbound on Melrose Avenue while Warren was driving eastbound on Melrose. Defendants negligently owned, operated, maintained, controlled, and entrusted Defendants’ vehicle, causing it to veer into Plaintiff’s lane of travel and collide into Plaintiff’s vehicle, injuring Plaintiff. Warren was acting in the course and scope of his employment with the Doe defendants.
In Defendants’ answer, Defendants denied the allegations of the complaint and asserted affirmative defenses.
D. Defendants’ motion to amend the answer
Defendants seek leave to amend their answer to add an affirmative defenses based on the sudden emergency doctrine. Citing the traffic collision report, Defendants contend that the accident occurred when Warren swerved to avoid hitting a dog who ran in front of his vehicle. Defendants also wish to add an affirmative defense asserting their right to amend their answer.
Plaintiff argues that the motion is untimely because trial is scheduled for May 31, 2024. But even if Defendants 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.)
Here, Plaintiff has ample time to conduct discovery on the sudden emergency affirmative defense before the trial.
Plaintiff also argues there is no evidence to support the new affirmative defense. The Court does not evaluate the truth or strength of pleadings when deciding whether to grant leave to amend.
The Court grants the motion.
CONCLUSION
The Court GRANTS the motion for leave to file an amended answer filed by Defendants Scott Calder Warren and Linda Calder.
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.